Liberty and Justice for All!

Because our idiot President distracted us from the people who caused 9/11 to people that had nothing to do with 9/11, Al Queda has gained back some of its pre-9/11 capabilities.

Here is a question to those people who chose Bush again in 2004. What happened to Republicans being the party that would be more likely to protect us from terrorism? It seems to me that by distracting us from the actual problem, President Bush has done NOTHING to make us any more safer from “turrists”. Are you happy with your choice now?

It is abundantly clear that the Republican middle east policy has failed. Vote for another one in the name of security and you are an idiot. Period.

Previously I discussed that Democrats need better wordsmiths. The debate tonight continues that concept. Hillary did have one good line where she stated that it took one Clinton to fix the mess one Bush made, maybe it will take another Clinton to fix the mess of this Bush.

However, she still needs some wordsmiths. Hillary was asked if she made a mistake or was naive when she voted to authorize force in Iraq.

She gave her answer which went all over the place. Her answer should have been:

“No. It was not a mistake. I made a decision based on what was presented to me as facts. The President lied. Had the President not misled us, I would have voted differently. But that was not my mistake, it was his lie. He should take all the blame. The question we should ask now is why are there still Republicans who still support his failed policies.”

It is really that simple. It is just like how John Kerry should have stopped saying “I voted for the war before I voted against it” and should have said “I voted to give the President power to take appropriate action. The action he took was not appropriate”.

I also had an issue with one of Obama’s answers. In the discussion of the decision to give the President power to take action. Hillary stated that we have used the threat of force to cause other people to take action before. Obama criticized the vote to authorize force because he said that she had to know that the President could take military action with the authority granted.

Now, hindsight is 20/20 and all reasonable people wish that we had not given the President the power to take action. However, how effective would legislation been that was geared to make Saddam take action if it lacked the teeth to back up the demands? It is like the mall security guard running after you saying “Stop! Or I’ll say ‘Stop’ again!”.

Basically, Congress should be able to authorize the President to use the threat of force and trust that the President will use that power responsibly. Because Bush failed to use his power responsibly does not mean that we should be blaming those who he misled.

Before the SOTU, Tim Russert was discussing the approval rating of the President (less than 40%). He then mentioned that the Congress has an approval rating of less than 20%. Of course, he ignores the reason why Congress has an approval rating that is so low. This reason is because the Democrats won the 2006 elections with a mandate to end the war and turn this country around. Republicans are obstructing that mandate. This is why the approval rating is so low.

Bush wants us to make the tax cuts permanent. Of course he does! He has no more control after this year and he feels that his cuts are actually a good idea. He is wrong. Does that mean that all tax cuts are wrong? No. Do I think that just because someone is rich that they never should get a tax break? No. I do believe that tax cuts must be responsible and that we should not be increasing spending while cutting taxes. And for those who would bring up the laffer curve, well, you have to prove you are on the correct side of the curve before you know that decreasing taxes will increase revenue. The argument that many blind followers of the party bring up is that decreasing taxes ALWAYS decreases revenue. This is obviously flawed.

Bush stated that he will issue an executive order prohibiting federal agencies from spending money that was not issued to them by a vote of Congress. Does this mean that he will stop spending money on faith based initiatives that come from his executive budget that circumvent the budget process as well? I don’t think so.

Bush discussed the idea of free trade, and that we can help domestic workers by opening up to foreign markets. That sounds nice and good but in reality it doesn’t work. When you sign free trade agreements with countries whose labor laws are less restrictive than ours, it places our workers at a competitive disadvantage. If corporations in other countries can develop cheaper goods and sell them here, our workers suffer. If corporations in our country can find cheaper labor overseas, our workers suffer. The blind faith that conservatives have in free trade is flawed and dangerous. They do so at their own peril.

Bush wants to empower judges who say that the Constitution means what it says. He then states that the judges deserve an “up or down vote”. I challenge the President, or any other conservative who likes to use the phrase ”up or down vote” to show me where the Constitution requires an up or down vote on judicial nominees.

Towards the end, Bush continued to say all that terrorists are doing around the world. I would comment on that as well. However, why should we believe anything this President has to say on terrorism after 7 years of lies and deceit?

Yes I support the troops, that’s why I want them home. Yes I support going after terrorists, kill them before they kill us. But like the little boy who called wolf, Bush can no longer be trusted.

Update #1: As I watch this on my DVR (after much pausing) I heard Bush talking about honoring those who serve our country. How can he say this with a straight face after saying that a pay raise for them is unnecessary?

And for Bush to talk about Liberty? That is just laughable.

The Center for Public Integrity came out with its “War Card“, a report on how many times Bush and his administration gave false statements to the public. Their count is at least 935!

President George W. Bush and seven of his administration’s top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Nearly five years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.

The center points out key false statements made by officials and point out why they are wrong. I am disappointed in our administration, the least they could have done is gotten an even 1000. But you know our President, always underachieving.

I may post more on this later. However, the site needs to be forwarded to as many people as possible so I thought it best to provide the link now.

When Hillary Clinton was asked “Are you looking to end this war or win it?” she responded “I’m looking to bring our troops home”.

Progressives, liberals, Democrats and any of the other labels you want to place on those who want and end to this war will stand up and applaud those comments. However, we need to not just pander to our base. We need to have our candidates anticipate the Republican attacks on the statements that are made and cut them off at the pass.

By saying what she said, anybody can see the Republican attack on it now. “When Hillary Clinton was asked if she wants to win the war, she did not say yes”. The flag will be flying in the background, with a shot of our troops, and maybe some 9-11 imagery.

Assuming the view that we have not won the war yet is correct, Hillary Clinton should have said is this:

“The only way to win the war is with diplomacy and an expectation of Iraq to take its duty to defend itself seriously. By bringing our troops home and uplifting a Democratically elected Iraq, we win this war by winning the peace.”

Now, I am of the opinion that the war was won years ago when Saddam was toppled and the reason Bush is still in Iraq is to use it as a terrorist magnet (and thus perpetuating the terrorist problem with our own actions and justifying, in his mind, our continued presence). So if I was on the stage, I would have stated:

“This war was won when we toppled Saddam’s regime. Now we have to win the peace and we cannot do so without the Iraqi people embracing their duty to take care of themselves. The best way to do this is a structured withdrawal from Iraq that includes the training and equipping of the Iraqi military. Such provisions where included in HR 1591. However, the Republican obstructionists who are blindly following the failed “stay the course” policies of our President blocked that legislation from coming forward”.

By saying something like this, Hillary would have been able to both get the applause from the progressives while also presenting a preemptive attack against the Republican statements that we all know will come.

It seems like our President doesn’t understand simple math. The President pushed for an increase of troops, against the will of the American people, in this so called “surge”.

Now the President is supporting a reduction of troops to “pre-surge levels” by next summer.

So what does that mean? We would have a net decrease of 0 troops in Iraq. Does the President actually think we will buy that garbage?

How about, instead of trying to see how many troops we can pack into Iraq, we actually work to train the Iraqi troops so that our troops are no longer needed.

That’s right, I said it. I am a “liberal” and Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan are acting like a couple of idiots. Why? Well it all centers around the whole approval rating for Congress. 

Michael Moore was on Larry King the other day pushing his new movie about the healthcare industry when he made a comment about the Democrats not doing what they where elected to do. He said that if Democrats in Congress don’t do what they where elected to do then people will not come out and vote for them in 2008. 

Cindy Sheehan is also in the fray because she has announced that she will run against Nancy Pelosi if Pelosi doesn’t sponsor a bill calling for Bush to be impeached. Again, she is being critical of Democrats for not doing something to prevent Bush from “staying on his course”. 

Many others have bought into this idea that the Democrats are to blame for this. They rank Congress with an approval rating lower than the one for the President. They try and make it seem like the Democrats are not even trying to do anything. However that couldn’t be further from the truth. 

The Democrats are not “veto-proof”. Because of this, any legislation that they want passed will have to either include them getting many republicans to join them or to water down any legislation that they want to get accomplished. When republicans in Congress continue to drink the Kool Aid and follow Bush’s failed Iraq policies, it becomes impossible to get any meaningful legislation accomplished that deals with Iraq or any other issue the Republicans disagree with. 

Moore, instead of blaming Democrats for not doing what they got elected to do, should put his head on straight and blame the Republicans for continuing their obstruction of the will of the American people. 

Sheehan should, instead of blaming Pelosi for not putting up articles of impeachment against Bush, should work to help make sure that we get a Democratic President so we won’t have to worry about our Congress that is unable to overturn a veto. 

I will start this off by saying that Hillary Clinton is not my choice for President. I think she is a very intelligent woman who goes out and get what she wants. She is a strong person and has the ability to be an effective leader. I wouldn’t want to cross her; that is for sure. So you may be asking “so what is the problem”?

My problem with her is twofold. First, I have a problem with people who move just so they can run for a particular office. Second, I think that she would bring out the conservative vote against her. The right wing absolutely hates this woman with a passion and I think that Hillary Clinton may be the only way a Democrat loses in 2008. I don’t see any Republican in the field that will be able to rile up the conservative base more than a Hillary for President bumper sticker will.

That being said, I really think she did a good job at the debate last night. I didn’t get to watch the first few minutes. However, what I did see made her look really good. The comment I thought was the wisest one was the comment on people who are gay serving in the military. She finished her statement by quoting conservative Barry Goldwater by saying “you don’t have to be straight to shoot straight”. Goldwater hit it right on the head and Hillary also did the same thing by bringing up that line.

Other comments about gays in the military where spot on as well. Our men and women who serve our country in Iraq are serving along the side of soldiers from other countries that don’t have our restrictive policies on who can serve. The fact that our soldiers can do an effective job not knowing that the people serving next to them from England might be gay proves that the ban on gays in the military is archaic and needs to be removed. And it is absolutely ridiculous that our military fired Arabic translators who happened to be gay when we had a shortage of translators to begin with. Anyone who believes those people should have been fired does not take national security seriously.

But Hillary, by using the quote of a conservative to back her point and to remind people that she used to be a “Goldwater Girl”, was very wise. Not only was it a very well placed line, but it also goes to show how far the Republican Party has moved from actual conservatism.

She has the lead in the polls and it is really her race to lose. Any other year, that would be a good thing. I think our country is ready for a female president and it would be a huge step in the history of our nation. However, with an aging court and the possibility of having another opening on the Supreme Court any time soon, it is absolutely vital that elect someone who won’t put a conservative judicial activist on the bench. We need to make sure that a Democrat wins and I think we have a better shot with other candidates than we do with her.  

If she does get the nomination, I will be supportive of her. But if she does win the nomination, I hope I am wrong about the effect she will have on those conservative voters. I don’t want another 4 more years of suspended habeas corpus, erosion of individual freedoms, and a war that just won’t end.

Every day I have to hear from some Republican pundit, voter, or politician that we are “fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here” or that Democrats want to “cut and run” from Iraq and hand over victory to Iraq.
I have already described why setting up a timetable is good. It is not cutting and running or giving them a date where they can just “wait” for us to leave. When we leave, the Iraqi people will be trained to defend themselves. I have faith in the ability of our men and women in uniform to train others to be quality soldiers.
However, there are two examples in the recent news that shows why President Bush is absolutely wrong in his so called “plan” to protect us from the terrorists. Fighting them “over there” so we don’t have to fight them “over here” is not working.
In an AP report, a group of people where going to make a terrorist attack against Ft. Dix in New Jersey. It was the actions of a store clerk that protected us from a terrorist attack. It wasn’t the Iraq war. It wasn’t fighting them “over there’. It wasn’t even the “Patriot Act” that protected us. It was one citizen who stepped forward and reported a threat.
In a report on MSNBC.com, Iranian backed Hezbollah built a base of operations in South America and its doing so (in a very hard to police region) has increased the threat of a terrorist attack in America. Again, the Iraq war has not prevented Hezbollah from setting up this base, nor has the patriot act, the prison in Guantanamo Bay, or any other action by this administration.
The answer to all this is clear.  The sooner that we enable the Iraqi people to completely defend themselves, the faster we will be able to protect ourselves from the real threats facing our nation. If Bush cannot figure this out, it is time that the Republicans in Congress do. Otherwise, all our “fighting them” over there will only have served as a distraction to us in our attempts to increase national security and it will have aided our real enemies in their attempts to attack us.

The common conservative spin on timetables is that they somehow give the enemy a victory in Iraq. The President and his supporters will tell us that by setting up a timetable that we are telling the terrorists that we are defeated. This couldn’t be further from the truth. We have already won in Iraq. Saddam is gone and they have a new government.