Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts

Thursday, May 22, 2008

News and links

I've added a number of new articles to my Google shared items here. This headline in particular caught my attention.

Is Clinton acting out because Obama told her no to VP?

The words "acting out" evoke a certain image in my mind. Something like this...




And a couple of not-so-new but possibly forgotten quotes...

From October 2007
"It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything," Clinton said Thursday during an interview on New Hampshire Public Radio's call-in program, "The Exchange." "But I just personally did not want to set up a situation where the Republicans are going to be campaigning between now and whenever, and then after the nomination, we have to go in and repair the damage to be ready to win Michigan in 2008."

And from February 2007...
“If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from,” Mrs. Clinton told an audience in Dover, N.H., in a veiled reference to two rivals for the nomination, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina.

Honestly, Hil--it's like you don't think hard working Americans know how to use the internets to look this kind of stuff up.

Haloscan comment thread

Saturday, April 07, 2007

Howard Dean's Radio Address on Iraq

Via Democrats.org Dean: We Will Do What the American People Have Asked Us To Do and Bring Our Troops Home" :


As Americans, we are united in our support for our troops. And because we support our troops, Democrats have put forward a plan for success in Iraq. A plan to get us out of Iraq.

We have made it clear that we will work with the President to find a solution. In response, the President continues to say "my way or the highway," and Vice President Cheney uses divisive rhetoric to question the patriotism of members of Congress who disagree with him. That's not what the country needs right now.

It is time for the President and Republicans in Congress to stop try to bully their way through this and work with Democrats to end the war. It's time for the President to show respect to the American people, who voted overwhelmingly to leave Iraq.

President Bush and his Republican allies did not have a clear plan when they misled our nation into this war and they do not have a clear plan to get our troops out. The Republicans sent our brave men and women in uniform to Iraq without proper body armor, equipment or training.

Our military is now stretched to a breaking point. Just this week, the Army announced they will send large division units back to Iraq without giving them at least a year's rest at home, as the Pentagon's standards require. Because our forces have been so badly depleted, the Pentagon just yesterday announced they are deploying an additional 12,000 National Guard reserves to Iraq.

The disgraceful conditions at Walter Reed and veterans' hospitals across the country are an appalling example of the way that President Bush and Republicans in Congress have failed our men and women in uniform. Upon returning home from Iraq, too many of our troops face a system that has been starved of resources for six years, and cannot adequately provide the care and services our troops deserve.

That is wrong.

Click here for the rest, including a link to the audio of Howard Dean's address.

Alternate link for comments

Tuesday, April 03, 2007

Obama responds to claims that he "caved" to Bush

From the Union Leader:


U.S. Sen. Barack Obama says he has not softened his position on Iraq, despite suggestions to the contrary from other presidential camps and liberal blogs.

The Democratic presidential candidate took issue with a weekend report suggesting that he believes that if President George Bush vetoes a withdrawal bill, Congress should quickly provide full funding with no strings attached. Other campaigns privately pointed out the Associated Press report and questioned if Obama has changed his stance. The liberal blog Daily Kos carried a headline on Sunday stating, “Obama Caves to Bush.”
...
He said it would be unacceptable for Congress “to fold up tent because the President vetoed the bill.”
You can read the rest of the article here.

Bryan at Buckeye State Blog has weighed in here and here about the way some of the big names in the Democratic blogosphere were piling on Barack Obama yesterday.

Alternate link for comments

Friday, March 23, 2007

Dean on the Passage of the Iraq Supplemental Bill

Via the DNC blog, Howard Dean's remarks on the passage of the Iraq Supplemental Bill...

"Last November the American people demanded a new direction in Iraq, and that is exactly what the Democrats offered today. President Bush's open-ended commitment to a failed Iraq policy is not good enough for our brave men and women fighting in Iraq. Democrats will continue to wholeheartedly support our troops by providing the resources to keep them safe and get them home, holding this Administration accountable, and demanding that Iraqis take responsibility for their own country.

“President Bush’s decision to stifle the essential debate on our course in Iraq by threatening to veto this bill stands solidly against the will of the American people, and is an insult to the brave men and women serving in Iraq. It is time for Republicans to put partisanship aside and join our Democratic leadership in fighting for the new direction in Iraq. It’s what our troops deserve and what the American people have demanded.”
Alternate link for comments

Thursday, February 01, 2007

Troop surge to be double what Bush claimed

Just saw this story on AmericaBlog:

BREAKING: Bush "surge" likely sending DOUBLE the number of troops to Iraq - 35,000 to 48,000 - NOT 21,000

That post references this entry on DefenseTech.org

President Bush and his new military chiefs have been saying for nearly a month that they would "surge" an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq, in a last, grand push to quell the violence in Baghdad and in Anbar Province. But a new study by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office says the real troop increase could be as high as 48,000 -- more than double the number the President initially said.
Can we *please* impeach him now?

We are the people who run this country. We are the deciders....Molly Ivins

Alternate link for comments

Saturday, January 27, 2007

Hillary's call to "conversation"

Lately, if one visits many of the high traffic Democratic/progressive blogs, one can't help but be greeted by Hillary Clinton's face, with words along the lines of "Be part of the conversation from the start." Oh, that's rich. In *so* many ways.

She's using that conversation meme pretty consistently. Now, where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, Howard Dean said something about a "Great American Conversation" didn't he?

But, Hillary, what on earth do you mean, "from the start"? We've been *having* a conversation for several years now, and we've done a lot more than talk. We *knew* with every fiber of our beings that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was a *bad* idea. And we did everything we could to make our voices heard. But very few people have access to the kind of megaphone that would allow us to *really* be heard, so we were thrilled to find people like Howard Dean who were willing to carry *our* message to a larger audience. Want to know why some of us get so upset when people attack Howard Dean? Because he's often speaking for *us*--he's saying what *we* would say, if we had access to that kind of megaphone. So, when you diss Howard, you *are* dissing us. Please keep that in mind, and try not to act too surprised when we don't want to jump on your bandwagon after you've attacked our messenger.

Another reaction I have is that this whole "conversation" meme must be something that Hillary and her advisers decided would "sell" to bloggers. Sort of the way she came up with this:

In her statement, she also called for “bold but practical changes” in national policy, a four-word formulation that her advisers said was carefully chosen, given that she has sought to portray herself as both a pragmatist and someone who thinks big. Some Democrats dismiss the latter image, finding her too cautious. Yet her pledge of boldness reflects her well-known desire to disprove the notion that she is hesitant or calculating.
So, I *do* have my eyes open here, Hillary. I don't believe you want to have a conversation. I believe that you're using those words because you think they are effective marketing tools.

And besides, how *can* we have anything resembling a real "conversation" when it is to take place on your turf, on your terms? I would *love* to have a real conversation, where we talk about who we are as America, at our best, and how to find our way back there--or at least get closer to that place. It would be wonderful to talk about another way of relating to other nations, rather than just accepting the "Bush doctrine" as status quo. But from you, today, I heard this:

Clinton said her view is that the nation is engaged in a deadly fight against terrorism, a battle that she contends Bush has botched.

"I do think we are engaged in a war against heartless, ruthless enemies," she said. "If they could come after us again tomorrow they would do so."
So, even though he "botched" things, you can't resist using the fear tactic that has been (apparently) so successful for Bush. And that's another thing that bugs me, by the way. For all the hoopla about you potentially being the first woman elected president, you are way too closely aligned with the patriarchy for my liking. And, for me at least, mindset and worldview are more important than whether a candidate has a matching set of X chromosomes or an X and a Y.

NOW Hillary wants a conversation?
Bumper sticker by jc


Alternate link for comments