Embrace the Base

WHO

IS

OUR

BASE?

Click "READ MORE" to find out why its important to embrace the base....

"Strength" and "Weakness"

There is a difference of opinion in our country about what constitutes "Winning," and what constitutes "Losing" - about what we see as "Strength," and how we view "Weakness."

We seem to have a disagreement in our culture about this. The disagreement tends to come out a lot in our politics: how we view "Liberals," and how we think of "Conservatives."

Certainly, we tend to value "The Fighter" over "The Peacemaker" - this is something our party of Democrats has had to contend with for some time; a characterization that is not really accurate - we have always been called "weak", but it only depends on which value system you use to weigh "Strength" or "Weakness."
For me, war is fear, and fear is weakness.

Is the answer for liberals simply that we act "Tougher?" Is it true to our values that we emulate the very traits we are supposed to stand against?

Not for me. Not my value system. My values are based in what the great orator Martin Luther King Jr. called The Strength To Love.

King reminds us:

Fear is mastered through love. The New Testament affirms, There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear. This kind of love is not soft, anemic, and sentimental. Such love confronts evil without flinching and shows in our popular parlance an infinite capacity "to take it." Such love overcomes the world even from a rough-hewn cross against the skyline.
(p120 Antidotes for Fear)

President Bush is a coward

President Bush is a coward for sending Gen. Peteraeus to congress.

The president cannot defend his own decisions - so he sends s soldier to deliver a scripted progress report.

A soldier follows orders - and by all indications, Petraeus is a good soldier.

But a good soldier will not offer criticism, nor will a soldier question their mission objective.

Its not the soldier's fault that he had to read from a script, its not the soldier's fault that our progress remains as it was a year ago.

No, it is the fault of the president - who sent these soldiers on a flawed and fatal mission. They will continue to attempt to succeed against great odds, but it's not a failure of our soldiers when they can't complete an impossible mission: it is the fault of their commanders.

And there is one commander who set this all in motion: that is president Bush - the "Commander in Chief" - who hides his decisions behind his "Commanders on the ground."

And who sent a soldier to congress to defend his fatally prideful objective: forcing a country you have bombed to oblivion to become your friend; pointing a gun at religious sects that have been historical enemies and expecting them to get along. Killing over a million civilians and asking their relatives to like you. Folks, that's just not gonna happen.

Iraqis don't want Al Qaeda in Iraq - but as long as we stay in Iraq attracting foreign fighters we are only making it more difficult for real Iraqis to come together.

No one is saying we should recklessly retreat. But the only way to stop the inflow of foreign fighters is by redeploying to the border areas and by asking the Saudis to do more to stop them; and the only way to make Iraqis come to a consensus about how to run their country is by getting out of the way and letting them run their country.

But unfortunately there is another untold story here - a mission objective of the President's that doesn't get talked about enough: his friends at KBR and Halliburton and the billions of tax dollars they have pilfered in this war. They are addicted to our tax dollars and perhaps that is the real reason the president makes us stay: is he using our military as glorified security guards for his rich friends?

Its a depressing thought, but at this point nothing this coward with a fake Texan accent does would surprise me.

Most Suicide Bombers in Iraq Come from Saudi Arabia

(note, this was originally posted here; my friends, we must be vigilant always: already the news media is repeating the fraudulent Iran-insurgency connection. We cannot allow president Bush to continue to spread this lie)

-----

Today's L.A. Times confirms that most foreign fighters and suicide bombers in Iraq are actually from Saudi Arabia, NOT Syria or Iran:

Although Bush administration officials have frequently lashed out at Syria and Iran, accusing it of helping insurgents and militias here, the largest number of foreign fighters and suicide bombers in Iraq come from a third neighbor, Saudi Arabia, according to a senior U.S. military officer and Iraqi lawmakers.

White House Press Corps, are you listening? Personally, I would like to see the White House Press Corps do its job and ask the president to explain why he supports military action against Iran, when Saudi Arabia is responsible for more suicide bombers than anyone else.

Since we can't contact the press corps directly, this is a perfect opportunity to Write a letter to the editor of your local paper. Clicking on this link will take you to the Partybuilder Letter-writing Tool. Simply enter your zip-code, select the paper you wish to write to, and send your letter. Simple as that!

Click "Read More" to see what I wrote, and feel free to copy & paste for your own letter!

McCain's God Problem

For those of you who don't know him, Deepak Chopra is a medical doctor and widely published author on Spirituality.

I came across this great article Chopra wrote on John McCain and his islamophobic preacher Rod Parsley, who calls Islam a "false religion" that should be "destroyed."

I recommend this short article to any voter interested in spirituality, and in changing course of our "war on terror."

Deepak Chopra: McCain's Islamic Problem Isn't a Preacher Problem

But McCain does have an Islamic problem, because Rev. Parsley's view that Islam is a false religion is a view that millions of Americans agree with.
...
Our avid warmakers would be outraged if told that "shock and awe" is a sanitized way of describing terrorism, yet anyone on the ground in Baghdad was certainly terrorized. There's no doubt that an innocent Iraqi citizen is just as dead whether killed by American shrapnel or abducted in the dead of night and murdered by Shiite thugs who drill holes in his head.
...
Which brings us to McCain's central problem, which is that he shows signs of false consciousness born of ideology when it comes to the war. It's a distressing symptom in someone who otherwise seems to be guided by a steady moral compass. Without stooping to the dishonesty and misinformation that the Bush administration used to launch the war, McCain has arrived at the same doomed conclusion: this is a war of honor. Unfortunately, it isn't. It's a war of atavistic vengeance and tribalism on one side and militaristic nationalism and arrogance on the other. It would be easier if McCain only had a preacher problem when in actuality he has a God problem, specifically, an all-too-common American tendency to want to play God around the world.

I am a peace democrat who marched against the war with millions of other Americans. 133 members of Congress voted against this war. Other courageous leaders spoke out against it.

Just as I mourn the 3,000 people killed on 9/11 and the more than 4,000 soldiers killed in Iraq, my conscience also requires that I mourn the more than 1,000,000 Iraqis killed as a result of our invasion.

How ironic is it that the American Invasion of Iraq will have killed more Iraqis than Saddam himself in his acts of "Genocide." It is an irony worthy of a Greek tragedy, but it is not over yet - we will continue down this disastrous course as long as we have leaders who refuse to talk with our enemies; leaders who choose preemptive war over investigation and international law.

For those leaders who continue to gamble with the lives of our troops and the lives of countless innocents who will die from our bombs; leaders who refused to condemn this war - who refused to speak out against this immoral invasion: The blood of innocents is on your hands, and as Bob Dylan once sung in Masters of War, "Even Jesus would never forgive what you do."

"Warmonger" comment upsets McCain

war·mon·ger: -noun a person who advocates, endorses, or tries to precipitate war.

The Arizona Senator's feelings were hurt when radio talk show host Ed Schultz referred to him as a "Warmonger" at North Dakota Democratic Party event.

Obama campaign spokeswoman Jen Psaki responded to the flap by saying,

"John McCain is not a warmonger and should not be described as such. He's a supporter of a war that Senator Obama believes should have never been authorized and never been waged,"

If McCain is so sensitive about people thinking of him as a warmonger, maybe he should re-think his association with the Republican Party; after all, its not too hard to figure out why people think of him that way: John McCain is a member of a party that has actively endorsed war as a means for solving problems. He supports the platform of an administration that has precipitated war. John McCain voted for the Iraq War, and has been a member of a political party that continually seeks to profit financially from war.

Indeed, the "Warmonger" comment was technically accurate if we look at the definition of the word. John McCain's association with the GOP is an endorsement of those values. Since John McCain is so upset about being thought of this way, maybe he should think about the people and ideologies he represents in his run for the presidency.

Maybe he should leave the GOP and just drop out of the race now, if he can't handle being associated with the warmongering Republican Party.

Rumors have circulated that he considered switching the the Democratic Party - well, if he changes his tune about 100 years in Iraq, he might be welcome - but take note John, us Democrats are plenty used to being called much worse. If you can't take the heat, get out of the fire.

Power to the People

Normal people like you and I are taking back our country. We're tired of lobbyists and special interests who think they own our government. The Founders were clear: we shall not be taxed unless we are represented.

Barack Obama's campaign is a shining example of what happens when normal people take on the special interests. Today, it was reported that Obama raised over $40 million from more than 442,000 individual donors.

Barack Obama's campaign announced a March haul of more than $40 million, raised from more than 442,000 donors. There were more than 218,000 first-time donors, and the average contribution level was $96.

Meanwhile, CNN reports the Clinton campaign is staying silent about their fundraising, waiting until the official deadline to post their earnings - two days before the Pennsylvania primary

What is the Clinton campaign afraid of releasing? Clearly, they think this information might hurt them in the Pennsylvania primary. Otherwise, you'd think they want the information out there.

Maybe its because Hillary Clinton accepts so much money from Washington Lobbyists - in fact, Clinton has received more money from the Drug Industry than any of her Senate colleagues, including republicans.

Or maybe it's must that she doesn't have so many individual donors - and relies more on large, corporate donations.

One thing that this election has shown is that ordinary Americans are sick of politics as usual, and when we come together and pool our resources we can compete with the big-money special interests that have dominated Washington for too long!

Bonus information on the highly anticipated Clinton tax returns:

Wolfson also said he expected Clinton's tax returns to be released soon. Clinton pledged on March 25 that she would release her returns within a week.

Note: it has been 8 days. Ahem. We wait.

Pragmatic Visionary and Tough

These are words Foreign Policy expert Lee Hamilton - top Democrat on the Sept. 11th Commission and co-chairman of the Iraq Study Group - used to describe the leadership of Senator Barack Obama.

Hamilton, who was chairman of the Foreign Affairs and Intelligence Committee during his 30 year career in the House of Representatives, endorsed Obama for president today:

Lee Hamilton endorsed Sen. Barack Obama for president Wednesday, praising his ability to transcend partisan division and calling his foreign policy outlook "pragmatic, visionary, and tough."
...
"Barack Obama has the best opportunity to create a new sense of national unity and to transcend divisions within this country, not by ignoring them or smoothing them over, but by working together with candor and civility to meet our challenges,"

Barack Obama's foreign policy ideas are indeed a refreshing change from the reckless swaggering of the Bush/Cheney administration. Of all the candidates running for our highest office, Barack Obama is the only one to adopt John F. Kennedy's ideal of never negotiating out of fear, but never fearing to negotiate.

The presidency is not a pulpit of pride, as the other candidates would have us believe; no, the president must be willing to put themselves on the line on behalf of the American People. It is not the other way around - where our troops pay the price for the inability of world leaders to simply talk with each other.

Regardless if we agree with all these foreign leaders, the president must have the courage and humility to put themselves on the line first. Anything else would be prideful and cowardly.

And we've certainly had enough chicken-hawks in Washington these last few years. Its time for a change, and there is only one candidate who offers us a new direction in foreign policy leadership.