Bringing Democracy to Iraq in the Form of US Oil Contracts

Bush has been very clear that he wants to spread democracy in the form of good old large corporation capitalism. As part of that process, Iraqis have recently learned that "their" "government" is working on a law to open their currently nationalized oil industry to foreign corporations. It seems that the oil companies have been waiting for this law for a while. Take a look at that same article for some further perspective on the Iraq War. This too.

The proposed law (approved by the Iraqi cabinet, but not yet passed by its Parliament) does a pretty good job of cutting out any up and coming Iraqi companies in production and exploration tying things up for the foreign oil companies for up to 35 years and guarantying profits for up to 25 years. The Iraq National Oil Company is given no preference and will be treated as just one more oil company among the others. According to Raed Jarrar, the Iraq Project Director for Global Exchange, what's good about the law is that it could help Iraq increase production in the wake of a loss of manpower and expertise. What's bad is that profits are siphoned off and sent abroad just when Iraq needs the money to rebuild and gives much needed employment to foreigners. Employment would go a long way to decrease recruiting for the insurgency and terrorism. Another worrisome matter is the regional authority to make contracts and the regional profit split causing some fear that it will lead to a further split within Iraq already torn by civil war. The Kurds favor this continued regional oil autonomy from Baghdad. See here for the Assyrian perspective.

So, the oil is going to be taken care of American style and the bombs will still go off and the people will still be without basic necessities and the country is split into further pieces. Some democracy.

"[Montesquieu wrote in Spirit of the Laws, VIII,c.12:] 'When once a republic is corrupted, there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles; every other correction is either useless or a new evil.'" --Thomas Jefferson: copied into his Commonplace Book.

Some folks got it and some don't and some goof up with orange jackets

Obama is drawing large crowds, they are waiting hours to see him and it's all happening in places that one might not expect.

February 26, 2007, 3,000 in Louisville waited 2 hours and he drew 1700 people to a community college gymnasium in suburban Cleveland and thousands more watched on monitors in overflow rooms.

February 23, 2007, 10,000 in Austin. They had to use a larger venue than expected, Auditorium Shores. Local news reported: "The last presidential hopeful to draw this many potential voters on Auditorium Shores was President Ronald Reagan 23 years ago."

February 11, 2007, 5,000 people turned out at his appearance in Ames, Iowa. (At this point in the Kerry campaign, Iowans were clearly resistant to engaging in politics. I saw it myself. Kerry was embraced only after the orange jacketed young men for Dean appeared and put off the Iowans even more.)

Happy election day to our friends in Chicago. Wowee am I glad I'm not involved in this one. I secretly want Dorothy Brown to win because she's a terrific clerk and Daley's turning the city into something out of 1984 with his surveillance cameras. It all sounds so nice and protective now, doesn't it? But it gives too much power to the government and likely your kids will hate you for it one day.

Global Warming, Leo, and why we need separation of oil and state

Watch Leonardo Dicaprio's other other movie, Global Warming here. It's a good global warming explanation in a nutshell. He calls for separation of oil and state. Others do too here and here and here and here and here.

Leo has another movie too, Water Planet that can be found at the same link.

It's a far cry from "Jack!" "Rose!" Sink. Celine. Good for you Leonardo.

Sometimes I think the Iraq and maybe now the Iran war(s) are simply cover for the corporations destroying our planet and hording its resources for their short term profits with the beauty being that they make money on both the resources and the wars. Works out for the abetting leaders too, consolidating their power. Wouldn't be the first time someone did that.

To consolidate his power, he concluded that government alone wasn't enough. He reached out to industry and forged an alliance, bringing former executives of the nation's largest corporations into high government positions. A flood of government money poured into corporate coffers to fight the war against the Middle Eastern ancestry terrorists lurking within the homeland, and to prepare for wars overseas. He encouraged large corporations friendly to him to acquire media outlets and other industrial concerns across the nation, particularly those previously owned by suspicious people of Middle Eastern ancestry. He built powerful alliances with industry; one corporate ally got the lucrative contract worth millions to build the first large-scale detention center for enemies of the state. Soon more would follow. Industry flourished.

Think the above is about Bush? Guess again.

Condi, Keith's right, you cannot have your analogy without all the facts.

Congrats to Al!

Al Gore's movie An Inconvenient Truth won the Oscar for the best documentary. Democat got the worst of it as I tossed her up in the air when he won, but she's ok and not too mad.

Now, www.algore.com is seeking email addresses to tell Congress to act on global warming. If you want to encourage Gore to keep working on global warming or in any other national level endeavor he may choose, go on his site and give him your email address.

Delete the Internet

Mark Kirk is at it again with his new fake Delete Online Predators Act (the first one passed the house--no it was not a Mark Kirk bill, it was introduced by Rep. Michael Fitzpatrick, so as to not break Kirk's record of not being able to get a bill of his passed--but Fitzpatrick's bill for which Kirk took credit was stopped in the Senate). While we all want to protect children from predators, Kirk's proposed law does absolutely nothing to the predators. It's strictly a delete the internet act by barring access to social networking and other interactive sites. One of the biggest problems with the bill is that requirements for libraries will also take away the internet for many adults who cannot afford home computers and have to use their local public library as they will likely be unable to take the time or chance on figuring out who is a minor and who is not. Also, sites like Wikipedia are not supposed to be included in the proposed law because they are not commercial enterprises, but as internet activist Andy Carvin of Learning.now has pointed out:

...but in practice, what's more likely to happen is a lot of technology coordinators at schools, rather than figure out in a nuanced way which sites are acceptable and which are not, will be cautious and block many sites, and it's possible that in some of those cases, Wikipedia could find itself blocked.

Once again the right wing protects us out of what is ours and Mr. Carvin said it well:

Rather than tackling the predators directly or attacking specific sites where predators lurk, they're banning the concept behind the technology -- interactivity itself -- and by doing so, eliminating literally millions of Web sites built upon those concepts that are no threat and are being used by teachers.

Protecting children is Kirk's schtick, but what he's really doing is furthering the republican strategy of victory by limiting political discussion. The bad ideas of republicans under the Bush administration can only survive if no other ideas can get through. They must be very dismayed at Obama's huge success with young voters on Facebook (see here too) and Kirk was likely given the task of stopping it. Being the good little republican soldier that he is, he'll work on this task just like he did in spreading the lies of the Iraq War in 2002. Then, he told us to trust him for he was in a position to know. He still hasn't commented on how he, with all his military and intelligence information, could have made such a terrible mistake, but no one presses him for that answer as they are too busy pressing Democrats like Sen. Clinton without the special knowledge Kirk claimed.

Land of Plenty

The mixture of snow and rain convinced me to stay home last night. I thought I'd find a pleasant, non-political, funny movie on cable and spend some quality time with Democat. In hunting around, I ran across Land of Plenty described by the television guide as a "humorous poignant essay on contemporary life in America." There you go, just what I was looking for. I microwaived a bowl of my homemade chicken soup and sat down in front of the television for an, if not exciting, at least pleasantly non-political evening.

Land of Plenty stars Michelle Williams as Lana, the 20ish daughter of missionaries who spent most of her life in Africa and the last couple of years on the West Bank. Her mom's death (from illness) brings her back to the US to deliver a letter from her mom to her estranged uncle Paul played by John Diehl. Uncle Paul is a Vietnam veteran who thought his flashback nightmares had ended long ago, but is now struggling with them again ever since 9/11. That, coupled with large doses of right-wing talk radio, has convinced him that he is an agent working to fight terrorism in LA from his bizarrely worn, but well-equipped and armed surveillance van. It all looks sort of Mad Max, so you get the idea right away that he's probably not working for the government.

Lana takes up residence in the East LA mission of a family friend and begins her search for uncle Paul while working in the soup kitchen as a server. She finds Paul's home to be the address left for her by her mom and she gets his cell phone number from a man who is doing research for him on chemical warfare. She reaches him at the cell phone which incessantly rings with the national anthem. When they first meet, she approaches him with the love of family and he rejects her overtures claiming he is busy on the trail of a terrorist. Paul thinks a poor, homeless middle eastern looking man is a terrorist because while stalking the man he witnessed him selling something in a box marked "Borax". Paul's researcher finds it funny. "Everyone is worried about a dirty bomb, but it's really going to be a clean one."

As it happens, the middle eastern looking man eats at the mission and Lana serves him dinner one night. He readily tells Lana that is name is Hassan. She asks him where he is from and he answers "Home is people, not a place." She reports this information to an interested Uncle Paul who thinks he's really got something here. Then, that night Lana and Paul witness Hassan's murder right in front of the mission. The killers were in what looks like a well equipped almost military Hummer and uses a sophisticated weapon that uses exploding ammunition. Paul is convinced that Hassan was running a splinter terrorist cell and a larger and more powerful cell wanted to stop his small mission for the sake of a much larger mission. Paul thinks he's working to save the world. Lana tries to gently bring him back to reality.

Well, so much for my pleasant, non-political evening in front of the television. Land of Plenty is poignant, but not at all humorous. It is the story of how, in our insecurity, we have been willing to buy into the lies of the right-wingers and the Bush administration to our detriment. Fear is everywhere, so the lies seem possible. Poverty is everywhere and the Pastor of the undersupported mission is stressed to reassure his homeless and starving flock that God has not abandon them to the seeminly more blessed Christians who believe their blessings are the gift of God to the righteous (or self-righteous).

The constantly blaring right-wing radio talk shows spew hatred of liberals, but the reality on the ground is the suffering caused by republican rejection of the social programs that kept this country prosperous for decades. The glorification of the Iraq war is compared to the sickness that threatens to take over Paul's psyche. However, truth if sometimes stranger than fiction, is also stronger. At one point near the end of the movie, Paul is hunting down some young men who have gathered up some of the empty borax boxes and he thinks he's going into the terrorists' lair. With automatic weapon drawn, Paul jumps into the dilapidated trailer of a very sick old woman whose friends or relatives are boxing up her possessions to move her. She is in bed watching television and mistakes him for one of her movers. She asks him to fix the televison complaining that it is stuck on one channel. On the television is George W. Bush giving one of his warmongering speeches. Paul hits the TV and the channel changes leaving the woman happy. That's when reality comes back to Paul.

Some of the rest of this is spoiler, so be forewarned. Lucky for Lana and many others, heavily armed Paul's grip is tighter than the power of right-wing talk radio and old nightmares. He begins to wake from his derangement a little bit at a time with Lana's help. She doesn't lecture him, but shows him through her acts of compassion and understanding that the reality of the situation is much more mundane, although far sadder, than Bush and the talk shows are characterizing it. The middle eastern looking dead man, Hassan, is originally from Pakistan, but is not a terrorist. He's a poor homeless man from a small industrial California town that lost its industry. His brother still lives in town in another dilapidated trailer and welcomes Lana and Paul with hospitiality as the good samaritans who gave him his brother's remains for a proper burial (instead of cremation and dumping in a mass grave for indigents). He describes his brothers life and shows the very conventional family photo album to Lana. When pressed by Paul, still looking for terrorists, the brother explains that the factory shut down leaving only the borax to the newly unemployed. Hassan was selling the borax to a company that cleans oriental rugs to make a few dollars for food each day. The killers? Paul's researcher calls him with the final police report. They were wealthy teens on crystal meth in their parents' hummer.

As for the line "Home is people, not a place." That could sound like a reference to al Qaeda, not tied to any one country, but I think Hassan was talking about his family and his homelessness.

As they leave, Paul tells Lana that 9/11 compelled him to his current situation and Lana describes the 9/11 scene in the West Bank to Paul. Lana describes how the people were cheering as the towers went down. Paul says "terrorists" and Lana corrects him, "no, they were just ordinary people.... They hate us." They decide to visit ground zero rather than going home and Paul stands there disappointed. It's just a construction site.

And that is what is is all about to Bush/KirkCo. It's a war allright, an economic war. Listening to the right-wing talk radio in the background of most of Paul's driving scenes, you hear that it's not about terrorism and it's not about security. Their enemy is not the terrorist, but the liberal. It's their right-wing vision of a top heavy economy, where wealth is concentrated and the poor be damned. It's about giving the rest of us something to worry about while they move wealth to the top so we don't complain.

Ellen's blog gives Land of Plenty 3 1/4 cat treats. Michelle Williams was nominated for an Independent Spirit Award for her portrayal of Lana. It's a good movie, but don't expect "a humorous essay on contemporary American life". At least, I hope we are not that far gone yet.

Speaking of movies, I think for the first time in years I'm going to watch the Academy Awards. It's still nasty outside and I really want to see what Tipper is wearing. How fun, the Gores at the Oscars. I'm rooting for Al!

Legal Updates

1. AT&T Surveillance Case. On February 20, 2007, U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker (Northern District Of California) ruled in favor of limited discovery during an appeal by AT&T and the government allowing "a limited and targeted set of interrogatories" that do not touch on the issues in the appeal. A&T and the government appeal Judge Walker's July 20, 2006 order allowing the case to go forward. See my previous post about this order here. The appeal is based on the state secret defense. The ironic thing about this case is that an effort to get the court to unseal certain AT&T documents in the case failed based on AT&Ts claim of trade secrets. The company that has no regard for the privacy of Americans wants the US courts to protect it's privacy.

2. Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation. The the Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in this taxpayers case on February 28, 2007. The government contends it can use taxpayer money for its faith based initiatives. At this point, it's a standing suit questioning taxpayers right to sue the government over unconstitutional spending of their tax dollars. The case was originally dismissed in the Wisconsin District court, but reinstated by the 7th Circuit Appeals court which held that tax money raised by Congress, which then goes to executive officials, cannot be used to support religion in violation of the Establishment Clause. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Anti-Defamation League, Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, People for the American Way and the ACLU have filed an amicus brief in the case which can be read here. The Amicus brief argues a 1968 Supreme Court decision holding that taxpayers have standing in such Establishment Clause cases,
Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 (1968). Flast was confirmed in 2006 and is considered well established law (no pun intended). At the crux of the issue is the constitutional limit of the jurisdiction of the federal courts to real adversarial cases that can be determined by the judiciary under the principles of separation of powers and "which are traditionally thought to be capable of resolution through the judicial process."

In the brief, the Amici argue that this case meets these 3 requirements because sufficient harm is alleged, the unconstitutonal use of taxpayer funds and taxpayers have a stake in the use of their money, "an identifiable and articulated limit on the tax and spend power has been exceeded"; there is a direct link between the government's conduct and the harm, and there is a likelihood of redress for the injury (injunction will provide sufficient redress). Basically, this is the type of case that can be decided by the courts because there is a real controversy, real harm, specific allegations of the government exceeding its power and a link between that conduct and the harm. If taxpayers do not have standing to stop the government from using our money to promote unconstitutional establishment of religion, we have no real constitutional rights at all.

This is an important case because it is the first to bring the question of establishment of religion before this new right-wing court. I think we need to be worried. If they overturn or ignore this established law, it will speak volumes about the protection of our other constitutional rights. Bush and friends keep telling us they are the only ones who can protect us, but will they protect our constitutional rights or protect us out of them.

Pip pip cheerio we've had it with you

UPDATE: Denmark is as good as gone too.

*************************************************

As Tony Snow denies claims that the US is planning an Iran strike, the BBC uncovers it here. Now, there are supposed to be some pretty tough triggers, evidence that Iran was developing a nuclear bomb (note the word developING not developED, so we are still talking about pre-emptive war) and "a high-casualty attack on US forces in neighbouring Iraq" the case for which the White House has already started making by claiming Iraqi attacks in Iraq are Iranian supported. Triggers can be created. We've seen it before. The Iraq War resolution presupposed diplomacy in the UN first, but we never got that now did we?

The BBC also asks "Why Now?" They wonder if Bush is simply beginning his attempt to soften up the world to an attack on Iran. Some Americans think so too including Senator John Rockefeller who is quoted in the linked BBC Why Now article. Others think that its part of a deflection of the problems caused by Bush's ill conceived Iraq invasion and the neverending mysery he has caused there and at home and at Walter Reed Hospital where our wounded but "supported" troops are apparently being mistreated with mold, bugs, lack of medical care. Veterans like Mark Kirk should be shocked into action over this last one.

John Edwards is calling for a smarter reaction to Iran than we had with Iraq. He told the AP as reported on CNN's website:

It's a huge strategic mistake not to be dealing directly with Iran.... What we should be doing with Iran, both on the Iraq issue and the nuclear issue, is being much smarter than we're being now. We have tools available to us to engage them.

Obama has said "our first step should be a much more aggressive approach to diplomacy than we’ve displayed thus far." Obama talked with 60 Minutes on the topic on Feb 11 and likened his position to Reagan calling the Soviet Union the evil empire, but still wanting to know what they are thinking, a sort of keep your friends close and enemies closer approach. Clinton is warning Bush that he cannot take action without authority from Congress.

So, now the Brits are giving up on Iraq and leaving as we escalate under the name of "surge". It's a wonder they stayed so long as most bailed when Bush's lies and folly became apparent. Blair ruined his career over it. Why are they leaving now? I think they really don't want to get dragged into Iran.

The US? We will be left alone with the mess of the decider in Iraq and dragged into Iran unless Congress is finally willing to stand up and decide themselves as they are required to do under the Constitution. I have little confidence in that and Kucinich describes it best :

it's a tragedy - for his administration, for our nation and for the world.

Tragedy. Yes, but I also see it as crisis management. Bush cannot manage his administration without a crisis and he doesn't seem to care at all to where his new crisis will lead. No wonder no one stands with him now other than those reliant on his pursestrings for their 2008 election. So why did we let this happen and will let it happen again? I wonder about that a lot and can only come up with this:

Most don't think any of this will affect them because Bush and Friends did such a good job keeping Iraq remote to Americans at home keeping soldiers ill equipped and wounded vets in roaches and mold rather than tax anyone.

Others bought the fear campaign and think that blasting the rest of the world out of the world will leave us safe and standing (little understanding of psychology and physics in this group). This group includes Elizabeth of The View.

Others have no idea because Brittany got her hair cut and they are too busy and tired from working 2-3 jobs to pay the mortgage and buy the kids that soccer equipment to care about much else.

Others think they have something pecuniary to gain not internalizing the notion that having a lot of money doesn't do you a lot of good if the world is destroyed (nothing good left to buy). These are the traditional republicans willing to go along with all this no matter how far away from true conservatism it is and no matter what the consequence all so they can avoid that "death tax".

So, as the Brits say so long and we are left to wonder when we can too.

Hillary on Iraq

I find it strange that anyone would accept the argument from republicans that Hillary Clinton made a mistake in her 2002 vote in favor of the famed Iraq War Resolution. After all, it was their resolution and their fake facts. They go on to complain about John Kerry too. While I still think there was a lot of unspoken skepticism about those fake facts that many in congress chose to ignore, Kerry once explained his yea vote to a group of campaigners in a way that was sort of understandable. He said something allong the lines of "what if they were correct?" He said he did not want to take that chance.

Now, Clinton is also saying that she did not vote for the invasion, but the diplomatic reponse described in Section 2 the resolution. In reading it, one can see her point. However, I would then ask why has it taken so long for Congress to complain that the war does not fit the resolution, the War Powers Act incorporated by reference therein or the Constitution, always incorporated into all of our laws.

Clinton now has her plan for Iraq on her website in what she is calling her first Hillcast, a well produced podcast of her explanation of her Iraq Troop Protection and Reduction Act. I'm not totally sure because the entire bill is not yet posted on Thomas or GPO, but I think it's S. 670 introduced by Clinton on Friday.

In the Hillcast, Clinton describes the plan:

1. Stop the escalation because its nothing more than continuation of a failed plan;
2. Cap troop levels at January 1 levels making it against the law to send more (shadows of the law that stopped Nixon's secret bombing of Cambodia)
3. Protect the troops by requiring them to be trained and equipped before they could be sent because for all their big talk, the Bush administration still fails to provide the soldiers with body and vehicle armor.
4. End the blank check requiring real benchmarks with real consequences to encourage the Iraqi government to rid its police of sectarian forces and take responsibility for their own security.
5. Convene an international conference to bring in other countries.
6. Phased re-deployment out of Iraq.

Clinton has worked hard over the years to project a sense that she is a moderate and now she's calling for troop caps, benchmarks and re-deployment out. It goes to show that the message is getting through to at least some in Congress that the American people want out of Iraq. This is not an extreme position. It is the mainstream. Guys like Boehner, McCain and Lieberman who continue to stick by this war in loyalty to the President before the country are so far out of the mainstream, they are reaching for the remnants of the fringes.

Clinton hit the campaign trail with her new Iraq message that the days of the blank check are over. I particularly like her comment about whether she is running as a woman (I think it also answers the "could you run if you weren't Mrs. Bill" question): "Anyone can be president," she said. "I'm running because I believe I'm the most qualified person." She very well might be the most qualified.

Once again republicans luck out in the newsmedia. Brittany got a haircut. The hairdresser is being subject to far greater an interrogation than any republican warmonger ever was.

Kirk asks the District--Hours Later--Still No Real Support for Our Soldiers

Mark Kirk finally asked the district what we thought about Bush's Iraq escalation plan known as the "surge". Unfortunately, he asked about 8 hours after the vote. The vote took place at 3:22 P.M. Eastern Standard Time on February 16, 2007. Kirk sent out his email survey 2/16/2007 10:18:15 P.M. Central Standard Time. What if we disagreed with him?

Anyway, I am glad Kirk voted for H. Con. Res. 63, but now he needs to go further and vote to stop the funding and bring the soldiers home. It's clear republicans claiming to support the troops are being hypocrites. I chronicled some of the lack of support in my February 17, 2007 post, but now I see there is far more to discuss. Today, the Boston Globe reported that wounded soldiers are being housed in filthy, substandard quarters with sub-standard care in many cases:

The entire outpatient building, constructed between the world wars, often smells like greasy carryout food . Signs of neglect are everywhere: mouse droppings, belly-up cockroaches, stained carpets, and cheap mattresses....

On the worst days, soldiers say, they feel like they are living a chapter of "Catch-22." The wounded manage other wounded. Soldiers dealing with psychological disorders have been put in charge of others at risk of suicide.

Disengaged clerks, unqualified platoon sergeants, and overworked case managers fumble with simple needs: feeding soldiers' families who are close to poverty, replacing a uniform ripped off by medics, or helping a brain-damaged soldier remember his next appointment.

.
Tell the republicans to put their money where their very large mouths are and take care of our wounded soldiers.

Not Protecting Israel and other Follies of Bush and the Religious Right

Read this Salon article. Here's a bit:

Every year, an influential assessment of the security situation in the Middle East is published by Tel Aviv University's Jaffee Center, one of Israel's premier think tanks. This year's assessment, published in January, was not only bleak, but also openly critical of U.S. policy. "The threats to Middle East security and stability worsened in 2006," the assessment announced, because "the American failure in Iraq has hurt the standing of the U.S. in the Middle East." It went on to state essentially that American actions in the Middle East over the past few years have harmed Israeli security. It also argued that the United States should withdraw from Iraq in the near term, rather than add more troops, as Bush's surge plan is now doing. As one of its authors, Mark A. Heller, explained after the report was published, "There is no Israeli interest being served by a continued American presence in Iraq."

These sobering conclusions might provide a jolt to those in the United States -- whether American Jews or conservative evangelicals -- who have supported the Bush administration's policies in part because they were supposedly intended to help Israel.

and

Here's another reason why hitching wagons with the religious right was never such a great idea for American Jews.

and

Talking about hitching wagons, McCain is hitching his wagon to the right-wing religious extremists who want to bring about Armageddon. So, why does Mark Kirk want to hitch his wagon to McCain?

Out From Under (for a few minutes) Probably looking for his copy of the Constitition because he surely lost it!

Apparently, someone had to vacuum because Mark Kirk finally got out from under the bed briefly to make this statement on Friday during the last few minutes of debate on H. Con. Res 63 disapproving of the decision of the President announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq:

"Mr. KIRK. I thank the distinguished chairman.

Our uniformed men and women have given great service to the Nation by ending a tyrant's rein and fostering elections in a region that only knew dictatorship. In my judgment now, the time for decisive military action led by American and British forces is ending and the Iraqi stage should be delivered to new political leaders to work out their own differences. I will support the House resolution that recommends against the troop surge because the United States should increase the responsibilities of the elected Iraqi government to solve its own problems while reducing the number of American combat troops sent overseas.

I did not come to this conclusion lightly. The long-term security of our country depends on the United States not being defeated in the Middle East. To prevent the collapse of democracy, tolerance and supporters in our region, we need a policy that relies on America's key strengths and builds additional support among our citizens and allies.

Looking back on the last years, our troops in Iraq achieved two major objectives: First, they ended the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, a leader that invaded two separate United Nations member countries and ordered the murder of several hundred thousand Iraqis. Second, they backed the United Nations' sponsorship of Iraq's three national elections that approved a new constitution and government.

Iraq is no longer a military threat to her neighbors or minorities, especially her Kurdish families, who no longer fear that a third genocide campaign will be launched by their very own government. These are major achievements, worthy of the bravery and sacrifice of Americans in uniform.

But Iraq now faces new challenges that should be solved by Iraqis, not the U.S. military. Iraq's government, led by a Kurdish president and a Shia prime minister, faces a daunting enemy composed of people that would restore the old dictatorship, or worse. But this struggle is primarily political, not military. Foreign troops, be they American or British or otherwise, are not well-suited to advance the elected government's writ.

In the coming months we should build a longer term plan for the United States and our allies in the Middle East. Man for man, Iraqi combat troops operating under the authority of their own elected government are better suited for this mission than Americans on the front lines of Iraq.

The U.S. military can offer unique advantages to the Iraqi government in our ability to provide the Iraqi army and police with logistics, communications, training and intelligence, in a way that only Americans can provide. Over the coming months, Americans should be focused on these missions, making sure that our Iraqi allies are more effective in extending the authority of their government. By winding down the combat duties of Americans, we will dramatically lower the risk to our men and women stationed overseas while providing a decisive advantage to the elected government of Iraq. This is how to win the battle and secure a lasting government for the Iraqi people.

Our plan should be strengthened by a diplomatic initiative among Iraq's neighbors and the World Bank to support the elected government in its plans for reconstruction. To date, the World Bank has been "absent without leave'' in delivering help to this founding member of the International Bank For Reconstruction and Development.

Our efforts, based on the key American advantages, while reducing the number of American combat troops, will improve the prospects for peace and build support for our goals here and among our allies.

Mr. Speaker, I join with many Members today to say if it were up to us, we would recommend a different course of action that involves less risk to Americans. As a military man, I am fully aware that the Constitution does not place 535 Members of Congress in the direct military chain of command, and Americans who wear the uniform are also not shy in debating various courses of action. They have as many opinions on various issues as any civilian community, and that is their birthright as Americans. But as volunteers who wear the uniform, they take on an additional heavy obligation to make a decision, to bring an end to the debate, and to confront the enemies of the United States as brothers and sisters united by a common bond.

In coming days, our troops will face danger, not as Democrats, Independents or Republicans, but as Americans.

[Begin Insert]
We in Congress should draw on their strength once our decision is made. When a course of action is set, we are not neutral in the contest. If Americans are engaged in combat, we are for the Americans winning. We will give them the tools to bring an end to the conflict as rapidly as possible. The debate in Congress will soon close and the course will be set. For those Americans who serve farthest from home, they should know that after a vigorous debate, their democracy will make a decision, and we will back those charged with its implementation with everything needed to succeed.
[End Insert]"

I cannot link the Congressional Record because it searches a query, but you can find it in the Congressional Record starting at Page: H1799 or search here under Mark Kirk and look for February 16, 2007.

Get that man a copy of the Constitution!. He said: "I am fully aware that the Constitution does not place 535 Members of Congress in the direct military chain of command." Uh, what about Article I Section 8: "The Congress shall have Power... To declare War"

What Kirk should do is join Democrats to stop the funding, but he won't.

Happy New Year

Here are some fun Pig facts. I was born in the year of the Pig.

Lies About Supporting the Troops

Unable to make any argument whatsoever for the Iraq War, republicans fell back on the false argument that the only way to support the troops is to support the Bush war agenda. Problem is that the facts do not prove the argument. The Bush war agenda does not have any real plan for supporting the troops.

Remember the Obey Amendment to the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Defense and for the Reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2004 (H.R. 3289, House Vote #547, 10/16/03 Rejected 209-216). It was meant to provide $3.6 billion for quality of life items for the troops. republicans, many of the same ones who whined about supporting the troops over the past few days, voted against it.

Pay raises for the troops? Nope. republicans weren't so keen on giving pay raises to the National Guard soldiers who were being constantly stop lossed, losing their jobs or businesses in the process. Many of the same republicans who wildly accuse Democrats of not supporting the troops voted against an amendment to H.R. 3289 introduced by Congressman Stupak of Michigan to raise the pay for all U.S. service personnel by $1500.

What about homes for military families? Uh, no was the republican response. They voted to end debate on the Military Construction Appropriations Act, 2004 so yet another amendment by Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin intended to increased spending to fund the construction and/or renovation of homes and workplaces of servicemen and their families would be left by the wasteside. Yup, many of the same "support the troops" whiners again voted against the troops.

Surely the republicans would take care of disabled veterans, those men and women blown to bits in Iraq who deserve our continued help and support. Well, no. When Representative Marshall (D-GA) moved to recommit to committee the conference report on the defense authorization bill (H. R. 1588) with instructions that it be amended to allow all U.S. veterans to immediately receive full disability and retirement benefits simultaneously, so they would not have to choose either - or, republicans said no again.

All that was back in 2003 when everyone was supposed to be gung ho on war in Iraq.

Remember back in 2004 when republicans were hot to come to the aid of our fighting men and women in financial straights...uh, no.... er....credit card companies. They refused to recommit with instructions to add additional protections for active and former military personnel and their families against the already overreaching Bankruptcy Reform Act.

In August 2005, republican support for the troops showed it limits when they (yup same guys) voted against an amendment to National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 that would have expanded access to the military's TRICARE health insurance program to all reservist and National Guard members for a low fee (Roll Call No. 221) and an amendment to the Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act, 2006 which would have added veterans health care funding for combat-related trauma care to support wounded troops returning to their homes, including medical and prosthetic research (Roll Call No. 224).

republicans who voted against these and many other measures to support the troops, their families and what's left of them when they return, now cry support the troops when they really mean support Bush and our efforts at republican re-election in 2008.

When we heard allegations of war profiteers giving our troops bad water while wasting millions of taxpayer dollars, did those "support the troops" republicans come to their rescue? Nope. Did they even hold hearings? Nope. Soldiers with dysentery. How Civil War.

Support the troops? The Bush administration does not know what that means and Congress is doing better under the Democrats, but still struggling with non-binding resolutions and republicans bent on following Bush to hell if it will get them campaign dollars. We need to protect our troops from this evil and bring them home.

Government by edict

Law.com defines an executive order as "a President's or Governor's declaration which has the force of law, usually based on existing statutory powers, and requiring no action by the Congress or state legislature."

The constitutional authority for executive order is based on Article II, Section 1, Clause 1: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." and Article II, Section 3, Clause 4: The President must "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." The key to understanding the authory lies in understanding what exactly is executive power. The specific powers are set forth in Article I, Section II. The intention of the Framers of the Constitution can be found in Federalist 67-77 all written by Alexander Hamilton.

In Federalist 69, Hamilton set forth his description of the "real character" of the executive. Hamilton described the executive as more like the governor of New York than HM the King of England, not "sacred" nor "inviolable" and subject to impeachment and conviction under the Constitution. The president has the power to return a bill for reconsideration, but that bill can yet be approved by two thirds of both houses, so this power is a "qualified negative" rather than the "absolute negative" of the monarchy. Here is Hamilton's famous comparison between the US President and HM the King of England:

The President of the United States would be an officer elected by the people for FOUR years; the king of Great Britain is a perpetual and HEREDITARY prince. The one would be amenable to personal punishment and disgrace; the person of the other is sacred and inviolable. The one would have a QUALIFIED negative upon the acts of the legislative body; the other has an ABSOLUTE negative. The one would have a right to command the military and naval forces of the nation; the other, in addition to this right, possesses that of DECLARING war, and of RAISING and REGULATING fleets and armies by his own authority. The one would have a concurrent power with a branch of the legislature in the formation of treaties; the other is the SOLE POSSESSOR of the power of making treaties. The one would have a like concurrent authority in appointing to offices; the other is the sole author of all appointments. The one can confer no privileges whatever; the other can make denizens of aliens, noblemen of commoners; can erect corporations with all the rights incident to corporate bodies. The one can prescribe no rules concerning the commerce or currency of the nation; the other is in several respects the arbiter of commerce, and in this capacity can establish markets and fairs, can regulate weights and measures, can lay embargoes for a limited time, can coin money, can authorize or prohibit the circulation of foreign coin. The one has no particle of spiritual jurisdiction; the other is the supreme head and governor of the national church!

Hamilton could not envision the outcome of a presidency run amok together with a congress afraid to use its own power when he said in Federalist 73 in talking about the veto power: "It is evident that there would be greater danger of his not using his power when necessary, than of his using it too often, or too much," but of course Hamilton was only pondering the veto power and not the sort of power Bush has taken for himself through executive orders.

Most recently, Bush eviscerated our system of health and safety regulation by decree through executive order that each federal agency be subject to the control of a regulatory policy office run by a White House political appointee. Bush has also limited public access to government records, broken down the separation of church and state, authorized the use of military tribunals for select terrorists (although that didn't go over too big in the Supreme Court), and authorized warrantless eavesdropping. Here is the full list of Bush's executive orders.

Now, Bush's advisors are telling him to use executive orders to push through a "conservative" agenda that can no longer make its way through Congress, to completely by-pass Congress and it's sole authority to make the laws.

It seems to me that only those executive orders that fall within the powers of Article II can become binding law--the ones desgned to execute real laws passed by Congress or exercise enumerated executive power. The rest would be nothing more than illegal mandates if enforced or mere suggestions because they should not be enforced.

Mark Kirk True To Form

One thing you have to say about Mark is that he is consistent in his fear of the district on the most important issues of war and peace with Iraq in flames and Iran brewing in the decider's mind. Some anonymous commenter was recently using this site to advertise a Mt. Prospect meeting Kirk was going to have to prove me all wrong and that he will in fact speak to the district on the topic most near to our minds. However, Kirk again proved me correct. He will speak on his favorite subject of closing the internet to our children in fear of predators rather than teaching them about predators and how to avoid them while using the more important and informative aspects of the internet. He's probably unhappy with the huge response on Facebook to the Obama campaign. He will also speak about sewage and Metra. I imagine with this limited agenda no questions on Iraq or Iran will be entertained and no sorely needed listening on his part will occur. Kirk is still under the bed and nothing in his history would lead anyone to believe it would be otherwise. Bush is the decider and Kirk's the hider.

Iran and John Edwards on Iraq

My maybe not so successful attempt at a political cartoon below simply expresses my frustration at how guys like Bush and Kirk were willing to say anything and do anything to get us involved in a war for reasons far different from those articulated as justification and there is little reason to think they won't do it again if it suits their needs. As Barack Obama said in 2002, Iraq is a dumb war, but few others were willing to say so when it could have been stopped and it still seems to me that knowing the intelligence was bad and going forward anyway claiming to believe it was the dirty little secret in Washington the entire time the justification was going on.

As our Democratic leaders now try to deal with the Iran intelligence and new administration claims that no intelligence is really needed because Bush has one of his certainties, Democrats are now asking each other not to have a litmus test on Iran because the candidates have to deal with the real threat posed by that country. While I do not doubt that Iran poses a greater threat than Iraq ever did, I can see this all leading us down the same garden path as before as we still have the problem of sows ears failing to make silk purses. If we go after Iran for the trumphed up reasons that make up Bush's unproven certainty with the same lack of world support and planning, where will we end up?

I now support Obama for his willingness to call Iraq a dumb war back in 2002 when it mattered. In 2003 and 2004, I supported John Kerry forgiving him his Iraq War Resolution vote because of an otherwise stellar voting record, but it's going to be hard for me to continue to support candidates if they see fit to leave the administration to their own devices on essential questions of war. That being said, I am still interested in what other 2008 Democratic candidates have to say on war topics. So, here is something about John Edwards because he released his Iraq War Plan yesterday.

Since the escalation known as the "surge" is already under way, Edwards says we should forget about Congressional resolutions to block it, deal with what we have in reality and look for a practical solution. Edwards' plan in a nutshell is to cap funding to limit the number of troops to 100,000 drawing down and redeploy 40,000+ or so to get to that number and to get out by mid to late 2008. He's also talking about prohibiting additional funding until readiness standards are met, basically not sending in troops that are not fully trained and equipped.

Novel in Edwards approach is that he wants something (he doesn't say what exactly ) to make it clear that the war, as it now exists as a civil war among Iraqis, is unauthorized. That the Iraq War Resolution (for which Edwards voted) did not authorize the current war. Edwards' press release says: "President Bush exceeded his authority long ago, and now needs to end the war and ask Congress for new authority to manage the withdrawal of the U.S. military presence and to help Iraq achieve stability." I do not argue with that statement.

One could cynically say that the last bit is Edwards way of handing his Iraq War Resolution yes vote and 2002 defense of the Bush Iraq invasion plan, but Edwards actually handled this matter a while ago admitting he was wrong back in 2005 saying:

The argument for going to war with Iraq was based on intelligence that we now know was inaccurate. The information the American people were hearing from the president -- and that I was being given by our intelligence community -- wasn't the whole story. Had I known this at the time, I never would have voted for this war.

In that same article, Edwards described his vision for an end game in Iraq including taking the stamp of US imperialism out of the equation by not intending a permanent presence and ridding it of our profit seeking contractors along with more structured training and benchmarks (which if you remember were a huge no no to republicans even though now many love the idea). Edwards also said we have to step up efforts at diplomacy and bring in our European allies.

Right wing media is critizing Edwards call to stop funding, but once again they fail to notice the crux of his argument that troops should not be sent at all unless properly trained and equipped. No one ever seems to notice that Bush/Kirk and friends have no problem whatsoever sending troops in ill-equipped.

It seems that Edwards timed his Iraq plan release to critize the non-binding resolutions being now being discussed or loudly not discussed. I can understand his frustration with non-binding resolutions, but even so, the timing isn't all that important to me because whatever Congress is up to now, the situation in Iraq as controlled by the Bush administration is what it is. Edwards is one of the few people now willing to deal with the reality of what Iraq is and for that I applaud him. Maybe that time off from the Senate has been a good thing for him.

On Iran, from what I can find, it seems Edwards is still keeping his options open along with Clinton and Obama. I'd like to see them demand proof, demand international support and demand the real diplomacy the original Iraq War Resolution was supposed to have promised before an Iraq invasion, but never came through before Bush's war drums took over the discussion. I'd also like to seem the insist on compliance with the War Powers Act and the Constitution.

A White House Valentine's Day

W: Uncle Cheney! Uncle Cheney!
Cheney: What is is George?
W: I have the evidence...the smoking gun.
Cheney: That's very good George. We might have to sell this war harder than the last one because our credibility is a little...well...never mind.
W: Here it is, Uncle Cheney. Satellite pictures of Iran's involvement in Iraq.
Enter Karl Rove
W: Uncle Karl, I have the pictures...the smoking gun on Iran.
Rove: Very Good, George. We should get this over to Condi to present to our allies and the UN. No more talcum powder anthrax for us. We've got pictures.
Cheney: George, why don't you read the line I taught you for your uncle Karl.
W: OK, Uncle Cheney. "Roses are red,..." oh, no. That's my Valentine to my mom....

"Iran’s al-Quds Force, a branch of the country’s Revolutionary Guards, is 'certainly' providing weapons to groups in Iraq that are targeting coalition forces and the United States 'will deal' with networks and agents involved in their movement and deployment."

Cheney: Very Good George. What do you say to people who are skeptical of the evidence?
W: "I believe an Iran with a nuclear weapon would be very dangerous for world peace, and have worked with other nations of like mind. " Uncle Cheney, should I also say we don't want to wait for the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud?
Rove: Let's leave that out for now George. Get this to Condi.
Enter Condi
Condi: Get what to Condi?
W: Here it's a satellite picture showing Iran giving weapons to Iraq.
Rove: Sell that around Condi. That's the Secretary of State's job since we don't do diplomacy anymore.
Condi: Oh shoot. I already had to mislead congress denying the 2003 Iranian proposal to talk and now this? Can't Tony Snow do it?
Cheney: No he cannot.
Condi: Oh, alright, but why such a rush to start a war with Iran?
Rove: Distraction
Cheney: Americans need something to cling to Condi and war is really the only way to unite them to our cause because our cause does not really involve them. They might force us out of Iraq, so we'll need somthing to cling to for 2008.
Rove: Any war will do.
Cheney: OK, Put away your markers and sissors now, George. Time for your Valentine's Day dinner with Laura and photo op.
W: oooops. I almost forgot.

No 10th District Vote At All On H RES 157

Mark Kirk did not vote on H. Res. 157 which is the resolution to consider H. Con. Res. 63 set forth in its entirety in the earlier post. I did not get to hear the entire debate today, but heard a few snippits, mostly republicans still invoking 9/11. They never give it a rest even after proven wrong again and again. This explains it--it's their marching orders from their leader, the decider.

Debate about Debate

This morning the House is debating whether or not to debate this:

110th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. CON. RES. 63
Disapproving of the decision of the President announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 12, 2007
Mr. SKELTON (for himself, Mr. LANTOS, and Mr. JONES of North Carolina) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
---------------------------------------------------------------
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
Disapproving of the decision of the President announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That--

(1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and

(2) Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.

Whether we are big enough…Whether we are free enough

Sick of Anna Nichole, the contents of her fridge and the many fathers of her baby? I'd recommend this article on the media and democracy by Bill Moyers. In the article, Moyers discusses the value of art, literature, philosophy, history and the right wing's perennial question as they attack PBS and NEA: "Why should we subsidize intellectual curiosity?" The easy answer to that is George W. Bush, President of the United States. Moyers answer is that it is essential to democracy. Same thing maybe.

In his article, Moyers describes how we need public discourse to take us out of our "separate realities" and "parochial loyalites" and how that happened just before our 18th Century Revolution in taverns, coffeehouses and public greens of the American colonies:

These places of public communication “provided the underlying social fabric of the town and, when the Revolution began, made it possible to quickly gather militia companies, to form effective committees of correspondence and of inspection, and to organize and to manage mass town meetings.”

Bush's invasion of Iraq was made easy by the lack of public discourse and control of the media. We have little reason to believe the press won't follow the Bush agenda for Iran. Then there are the constant right wing moves to end the public school system and dumb down our schools. Presidential candidate John McCain is saying that the false science of intellectual design should be taught in our schools as a science. Why is it a false science? No falsifiability. Maybe it could be taught in religion, philosophy or humanities, but it's just not science.

So, from where will we find the necessary intellectualism and public discourse? With "all Anna all the time" coverage on most television stations and in most newspapers, it may be time once again to stretch out our typing fingers and get out our pens and paper because the mainstream media has failed us and continues to fail us.

Moyers concludes with a question asked by an earlier, more educated and more intellectual president:

What we have to determine now, as [Woodrow] Wilson said in his day, “is whether we are big enough…whether we are free enough, to take possession again of the government which is our own. We haven’t had free access to it, our minds have not touched it by way of guidance, in half a generation, and now we are engaged in nothing less than the recovery of what was made with our own hands, and acts
only by our delegated authority.”

One of my readers poses this question to this blog community: Why so many comments on the Kirk jumps on the Pelosi airplane story and none on the Chris Matthews unchallenged comment that we actually want a bit of facism?

Accusations of a New Anti-Semitism

During the mid-term election, I was accused of anti-semitism for saying that the Iraq war has not done Israel much good and its war with Lebanon was ill-conceived and badly executed. I recently received an anonymous item of hate mail to the same effect. I've often wondered why these folks who love Israel enough to keep its people at constant war are more worried about honest debate about the effects of these wars on Israel and the region than the plain old fashioned anti-semitism that comes from many places including their allies in the Bush administration intent upon making the US a Christian country. Below is an article by guest blogger Mark Paul that explores accusations of a new anti-semitism:

Accusations of Anti-Semitism

by Mark Paul

For quite some time right-wing Jews have been hurling accusations of anti-Semitism at anyone with the nerve to voice an opinion these would-be thought police determine to be insufficiently “pro-Israel.” The smear machine moved into high gear last year when Steven Walt and John Mearsheimer published their essay on the Israel lobby in the London Review of Books, then really cranked up with Jimmy Carter’s book on Israel and Palestine.

The latest sensation is an essay by Alvin Rosenfeld, a professor of English and Jewish studies at Indiana University that was posted late last month at the American Jewish Committee’s web site. (the essay is here: http://www.ajc.org/atf/cf/{42D75369-D582-4380-8395-D25925B85EAF}/PROGRESSIVE_JEWISH_THOUGHT.PDF) The New York Times featured an article on the essay on the front page of its Arts & Leisure section.

I was struck by how much trouble Rosenfeld had finding examples of anti-Semitic Progressives. My personal favorite among his examples was the couple that renounced their son’s Right of Return at his briss. What kind of anti-Semite celebrates their son’s briss? These are characters out of a comic novel to be written by Philip Roth’s spiritual grandson; in Rosenfeld’s clumsy hands they are nothing but a low-grade cut of meat for his agitprop grinder.

Those young parents will soon return to their obscurity after a brief and bizarre brush with something that approaches the far fringe of celebrity. Others will not be so lucky. Just like the blacklists of the ’50s, people caught in the wave of anti-Semitism charges will find their lives diminished. Unjustified questions will attach to their reputations; jobs will be lost or not offered; friendships will dissolve.

One of Rosenfeld’s targets is Richard Cohen, a columnist for the Washington Post. Anyone who thinks these wild charges of anti-Semitism are merely verbal jousting should read Cohen’s column about the experience of accused. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/05/AR2007020501249.html?sub=AR

I have plenty of bones to pick with Cohen on other subjects, but that’s real pain felt by a real human.

There’s another angle that doesn’t get enough attention. While these right-wingers run around accusing everybody who ventures an independent thought about the Middle East of being an anti-Semite, these thought cops are oddly silent about the sort of garden variety anti-Semitism that used to make all American Jews nervous.

Back in the summer of ’04, the Texas Republican Party passed a platform declaring the U.S. to be a Christian nation. I learned about this from a link on Atrios to an article in the Austin paper. (Surely he’s written posts that would justify hauling him before the Inquisition).

I waited a few days, expecting to see something about it in the Times that would include outraged comments from leaders of at least a few of the well-funded Jewish communal groups. When nothing appeared, I sent e-mails to the American Jewish Committee offices in Washington, Dallas and Houston, telling them about the platform. They didn’t know about it, so I supplied them with the same link Atrios provided his progressive readers.

A few days later, the AJC sent out a boilerplate press release that was picked up by no newspaper I know of, and letters to the Texas and national party chairs. Neither of them even acknowledged receiving the letter, according to my contact at AJC. When basically the same platform passed last year, the Forward called around and couldn't find a single organization that planned to send out even a press release. Not even the ADL, which at least did issue an easy to ignore press release in ’04. I guess Abe was too busy tracking Tony Judt’s speaking commitments.

I've also exchanged a few e-mails with Mikey Weinstein, the Air Force Academy alumnus who filed a lawsuit on behalf of his son, a cadet who has suffered from institutionalized anti-Semitic harassment at the Academy where they train men and women to command the most powerful weapons on the planet. In addition to the suit, Mikey has formed an organization to promote religious freedom in the military. I asked him about the support he's received from Jewish communal organizations. I'll simply paste in his reply: "I get almost no organized Jewish support…pity…Mikey"

I get it: we’re supposed to be Israel’s American auxiliary, sort of like the Hadassah in an orthodox shul.

Why Obama?

In the past I have written positively about Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, and I have not changed those opinions. I have of late jumped on the Obama bandwagon for several reasons. First, he is just downright inspirational. I think that Americans often get lost in the issues and sometimes don't know what to do when a candidate does not immediately come through on rhetoric for them on every issue. However, someone who can lead and is inspiring in general can bring people together to get something doen better than someone who has command of the details, but no leadership ability.

Second, I trust him more. In 2002, while most in Congress were cowed by the administration on Iraq including Mark Kirk who was going around telling constituents he saw the intelligence about Iraq and if we knew what he knew we would certaininy agree with him on Iraq, and of course, he was in a position to know, Obama was speaking truth about the dumb war:

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perles and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

I always had the feeling that the dirty little secret in Washington was that no one really believed the justifications for the Iraq War, but they were all unwilling to say so, somehow scared into it by the strength of the 30 second sound bite that the republican smear machine would use against them. Even Hagel who just a couple of weeks ago was crying about the responsibilities of Congress to act on Iraq and demanding his fellow congressmen act with him, perching himself on that for a possible 2008 run himself, has somehow been silenced and seems to be accepting issuance of a golden shoe horn in his name.

Third, Obama knows how to handle tough situations better than most others. The republican smear machine is working overtime on Obama as we speak, but this time it won't matter as much because many more people are wise to it and because Obama seems to be able to handle it better than others before him. Kerry thought he'd just ignore them and that didn't work. Obama seems to have stricken a balance between not giving them the credibility of his attention and not allowing them to go on unchallenged.

Does Obama have a viable universal health care plan on his website yet? No. Does he have all his labor and social issues flushed out? No. Edwards and Clinton are farther along than he is. However, the question is not how fast a candidate can make the right promises. The question is whether or not voters like me believe the candidate has the will and gumption to follow through. So far, I have the most hope for Obama on the follow through.

oh, I have (subtly threatening) mail

I usually kind of lazy about my snail mail, but I finally glanced at it this afternoon and I got something interesting, a nasty letter from an anonymous Kirk supporter. While not overtly threatening, it does subtly let me know that they know where I live, mentioning where I live a couple of more times than one would normally do in a letter that is not a credit card solicitation, and something about how I'm not in the JUF Book of Life. Well, Grandma Sondra assured me years ago that I was in God's, so I'm not going to get all upset about that last one.

I think this person should stand down and I am certain that even Mark Kirk would not want this racheted up in this way.

Anyway, since I'm not an expert on these things, I think I will have the police take a look at it just to be safe.

Our Audacious Obama

Barack Obama announced his candidacy for president this morning on the steps of the old state capitol building in Springfield. Audacity replaced pundits' cries of inexperience when he proclaimed that while he had not been in DC long enough to know all the ways of Washington, he had been there long enough to know the ways of of Washington must change.

Our adopted son of Illinois told the large crowd that while the weather was chilly, he was fired up. He and those in the crowd made the journey in the fridgid weather for a reason, they believe what this country can be. They believe we can again be one people, not divided, shut out and forced to settle. They believe we can build the consensus we need on issues without compromising principles that cannot be compromised (oh, maybe we don't have to settle for that "little bit of facism" the current administration and guys like Mark Kirk wants to shove down our throats).

Obama described the times in our country when we brought about change from the Revolution to the Civil War, to the Depression, to Civil Rights, to the space program. He laid out some high level plans for universal health care by the end of the next administration, oil independence, improvements in access to education and told us that none of these problems are insurmountable. The solutions are not beyond us; it has only been the failure of leadership that has stopped us from finding and implementing them; the petty, cheap-shot politics we have now (and I'll add, guys like Kirk and his anti-Pelosi stunt of yesterday based on yet another lie).

Then, Obama talked about how we can be victorious against terrorists, our real enemies, and end the Iraq war, a war he was against from the beginning. Obama wants to bring the troops home and honor their courage by giving them the care they need and rebuilding the military they love.

Is it presumptuous or audacious for the tall, skinny, half African-American to believe he can lead us out of the Bush/Kirk quagmire? Doesn't matter. Obama is not alone in this. He wants to work with us and we have the knowledge, the experience and the power to unite the country and set it back on course. We have to take back our country and Obama has the leadership skills to help us do it.

Check out Obama's new website and our new Tenth District Obama Meetup. The full text of his announcement speech is here.

Mark should have check his facts first

Kirk jumped on the bash Pelosi over the plane issue straight away this morning, but CNN reports:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi did not request a larger plane for personal use to travel cross-country without stopping, Bill Livingood, the House sergeant at arms, said Thursday.
Livingood said the request was his, and he made it for security reasons.

"The fact that Speaker Pelosi lives in California compelled me to request an aircraft that is capable of making non-stop flights for security purposes, unless such an aircraft is unavailable," Livingood, who has been at his post for 11 years, said in a written statement.

"I regret that an issue that is exclusively considered and decided in a security context has evolved into a political issue," the statement said.

Maybe Mark should stick to fruit cake and telling scary stories around the campfire designed to make folks feel they must give up their constitutional rights and keep Israel in a forever war.

Here's another take on the matter.

...and the Nazis made the trains run on time

Chris Matthews said this in Imus:

The subways didn't smell like pee anymore. Even the phone booths in New York have always smelled like pee -- when there's not even a booth, it's just a phone and it smells like pee. And this guy cleaned it up, and he made you feel like you had a right to walk the street safely. I think he did a great job. I'm sorry. And I think the country wants a boss like that. You know, a little bit of fascism there. Just a little bit. Just a pinch of it.

and cowboy hat wearing Imus doesn't call him on it.

I think Matthews may be correct in his observation that many in the country seem to want this "bit of facism". They seem to accept cameras on our streets, NSA spying, the President lying to Congress and us about intelligence on Iraq, Congress failing to take its constitutionally mandated place as the decider on war, and the general exchange of freedom for security, but I know they will be sorry in the long run because there is no such thing as a "bit of facism". Once you give them a bit they take it all and every WWII veteran and victim of a concentration camp knows that.

Combine this with a little bit of facism and what do you get? Posterity will one day long for a little pee in the subway.

Volunteerism and Obama Campaign

I went to the Tenth Dems Volunteer Fair and talked with volunteers and listened to Pete Giangreco, advisor to the Obama for President campaign. Looked like the Fair went well completely filling the place despite the cold temperatures.

Giangreco gave us the good news that the Obama Campaign is not being run out of Washington, DC, but out of Illinois! This is great news not only for Illinois, but for Barack Obama who will not be making the same mistake John Kerry did in ignoring the great Democratic State of Illinois.

Obama is also not making other mistakes that Kerry made. He's not allowing himself to be swiftboated for several days without reaction and has handled the ridiculous and racist criticism created by the right-wing media.

Giangreco also discussed the tone of the Obama campaign as one of bringing this country together. He described what they see republicans doing to this country (dividing it) by telling a little joke using one of the famous Tenth Dems water bottles. He said, "a Democrat will look at this bottle and say it's half full. A republican will look at the bottle and cry out 'which one of you drank half the water out of my bottle!'" They are always looking for someone to blame and accuse, thereby dividing the country.

Obama is great at talking to people from all walks of life and they identify with him. Not only is he a great candidate, but he'd be a great president because of his great diplomacy skills that we need to heal this country after what will be 8 years of Bush and congressmen like Kirk. He can also help heal the wounds and bridge the divisions, all that has created around the world. Good Luck Pete and Barack!

If you want to join the Tenth District Barack Obama Meetup, go here. If you want to be an organizer, we could use 5 of them, let me know.