CNN Tells It Like It Is About Elections

This time, all politics was local – CNN.com.

CNN published an article focusing on yesterday’s seemingly surprising election results which they summed up in four words:  ”All politics is local” – a phrase which CNN credited originally to former Speaker Tip O’Neill.

If you didn’t catch any news last night, incumbent  Governor Corzine lost his re-election in New Jersey to the Republican in spite of the fact that Obama campaigned for Democrat Corzine.  In New York’s 23rd District which is conservative, the Conservative candidate lost to the Democrat.  You will recall the controversy of the Republican candidate being forced out of that race and also out-of-state big-mouths like Sarah Palin campaigning for the Conservative, yet their guy still lost last night.

These results seem surprising only to those who don’t understand the unique character of the American People.  And to those who think that they can bring out political and/or media heavyweights to sell us on a candidate.

The CNN article is well written and makes a very important point.  But will those in Washington be listening?  If those now in Washington hope to stay in power after 2010 and 2012, they might want to carefully consider yesterday’s results and Speaker O’Neill’s insightful words.

It’s time that ALL the politicians in Washington, including Obama, realize that the results in NY’s 23rd District and New Jersey are  NOT unique.  If Washington politicos think that they can roll out big wheels on either side – be it Palin, Thompson, or even Obama himself – they may be sadly surprised by the election results.

Americans are not all the same, and we resent anyone thinking that we are!  We reject being boxed into “right or left” or “liberal or conservative” corners.  The American people are reasonable and can share a mixture of views.  Yesterday’s elections results demonstrate this.  And they also demonstrate something else too:  that the American People are waking up to machinations of big-power politics!  Those who would want to continue controlling Washington may discover that they are voted out or power in 2010 and 2012.

Americans can’t be “sold” on a politician using marketing tactics like famous celebrity endorsements and glitzy ads.  Our votes are not for sale.  Commercials, endorsements, media hype tends to turn us off.  We’ve been disappointed too many times in the past by glossy, glitzy candidates who fizzle out once elected.  We want to know what a candidate is truly for or against, who they are as people, and how strong their character is.  These are traits that can’t be boxed into a glossy PR campaign!

 

 

Afghan Leader’s Brother Is On Payroll Of CIA

No wonder President Obama is taking his time making a decision regarding Afghanistan.  The New York Times has just revealed that the brother of Afghan President Hamid Karzai has been on the payroll of the Central Intelligence Agency (C.I.A.) and is in also a major player in the illegal opium drug trade.

According to the New York Times:

‘More broadly, some American officials argue that the reliance on Ahmed Wali Karzai, the most powerful figure in a large swath of southern Afghanistan where the Taliban insurgency is strongest, undermines the American push to develop an effective central

government that can maintain law and order and eventually allow the United States to withdraw.”

To read more, here’s the link:  Brother of Afghan Leader Is Said to Be on C.I.A. Payroll – NYTimes.com

Technorati Tags: Afghanistan,government,Obama,NY Times,opium trade,CIA,war,Karzai

 

Kucinich Reminds Us of Consequences in Rush to Judgment

I received this email from Representative Dennis Kucinich (D – Ohio).  The contents of Kucinich’s message (below) spell out clearly why a rush to judgment – when it comes to whether or not we go to war, or stay in one – can have dire consequences.  The Bush Administration used whatever tactics were necessary to rush this country into war on two fronts.  They had no plan, no strategy, and, in the case of Afghanistan, did not finish the job there before getting us involved with Iraq.  Now, nearly a decade later, we are still trying to resolve the mess created by those reckless decisions of the previous Administration.

Rather than repeating the same mistakes, Obama is taking time to make an informed decision regarding Afghanistan by discussing possible solutions with everyone involved including the commanders in the field.  He will, after hearing from all sides, make a decision, and probably a tough one; this is the President’s job – to make the hard choices.

Obama’s approach is more intelligent than Bush’s hectic utilization of troops and treasure.  But those with vested interests in continuing this war, at the expense of the lives of American soldiers and of our economy, want to steer public opinion away from a President who thinks things through.

Let’s give President Obama a chance to get this country out of this mess.  For the sake of our soldiers, and all future soldiers, let’s all practice some patience and give Obama this time to make, God willing, the right choices.

OCTOBER 2002 – IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION REVISITED

COMING TOMORROW…
"The Condition of
Health Care."

Download, print and circulate the petition among friends and neighbors.

Dear Friends,
Seven years ago this week the House of Representatives debated the Iraq War Resolution which was presented by President Bush. I made the case for NOT going to war. I analyzed the Bush war resolution, paragraph by paragraph, and pointed out "Key Issues" which argued against Congress voting to go to war. I distributed the attached analysis, personally, to over 200 members of Congress from October 2, 2002 until October 10, 2002 when the vote occurred.
When you hear people say: "If only we had known then what we know now," remember, some did know of the false case for war against Iraq. And since so many know now that we should not have gone to war against Iraq, then why are we still there?
Please read this analysis and let me know what you think.
Thank you.

P.S. – The "Whereas" clauses were verbatim from the 2003 Bush Iraq War Resolution. The "Key Issue" represented my commentary.

---

Analysis of Joint Resolution on Iraq
by Dennis J. Kucinich
October 2, 2002
Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq’s war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;
KEY ISSUE: In the Persian Gulf War there was an international coalition. World support was for protecting Kuwait. There is no world support for invading Iraq.
Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;
Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
KEY ISSUE: UN inspection teams identified and destroyed nearly all such weapons. A lead inspector, Scott Ritter, said that he believes that nearly all other weapons not found were destroyed in the Gulf War. Furthermore, according to a published report in the Washington Post, the Central Intelligence Agency has no up to date accurate report on Iraq’s WMD capabilities.
Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;
KEY ISSUE: Iraqi deceptions always failed. The inspectors always figured out what Iraq was doing. It was the United States that withdrew from the inspections in 1998. And the United States then launched a cruise missile attack against Iraq 48 hours after the inspectors left. In advance of a military strike, the US continues to thwart (the Administration’s word) weapons inspections.
Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq’s continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
KEY ISSUE: There is no proof that Iraq represents an imminent or immediate threat to the United States. A "continuing" threat does not constitute a sufficient cause for war. The Administration has refused to provide the Congress with credible intelligence that proves that Iraq is a serious threat to the United States and is continuing to possess and develop chemical and biological and nuclear weapons. Furthermore there is no credible intelligence connecting Iraq to Al Qaida and 9/11.
Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
KEY ISSUE: This language is so broad that it would allow the President to order an attack against Iraq even when there is no material threat to the United States. Since this resolution authorizes the use of force for all Iraq related violations of the UN Security Council directives, and since the resolution cites Iraq’s imprisonment of non-Iraqi prisoners, this resolution would authorize the President to attack Iraq in order to liberate Kuwaiti citizens who may or may not be in Iraqi prisons, even if Iraq met compliance with all requests to destroy any weapons of mass destruction. Though in 2002 at the Arab Summit, Iraq and Kuwait agreed to bilateral negotiations to work out all claims relating to stolen property and prisoners of war. This use-of-force resolution enables the President to commit US troops to recover Kuwaiti property.
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;
KEY ISSUE: The Iraqi regime has never attacked nor does it have the capability to attack the United States. The "no fly" zone was not the result of a UN Security Council directive. It was illegally imposed by the United States, Great Britain and France and is not specifically sanctioned by any Security Council resolution.
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
KEY ISSUE: There is no credible intelligence that connects Iraq to the events of 9/11 or to participation in those events by assisting Al Qaida.
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;
KEY ISSUE: Any connection between Iraq support of terrorist groups in the Middle East, is an argument for focusing great resources on resolving the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. It is not sufficient reason for the US to launch a unilateral preemptive strike against Iraq.
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
KEY ISSUE: There is no connection between Iraq and the events of 9/11.
Whereas Iraq’s demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
KEY ISSUE: There is no credible evidence that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction. If Iraq has successfully concealed the production of such weapons since 1998, there is no credible evidence that Iraq has the capability to reach the United States with such weapons. In the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq had a demonstrated capability of biological and chemical weapons, but did not have the willingness to use them against the United States Armed Forces. Congress has not been provided with any credible information, which proves that Iraq has provided international terrorists with weapons of mass destruction.
Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;
KEY ISSUE: The UN Charter forbids all member nations, including the United States, from unilaterally enforcing UN resolutions.
Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";
KEY ISSUE: The UN Charter forbids all member nations, including the United States, from unilaterally enforcing UN resolutions with military force.
Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq’s repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";
KEY ISSUE: This clause demonstrates the proper chronology of the international process, and contrasts the current march to war. In 1991, the UN Security Council passed a resolution asking for enforcement of its resolution. Member countries authorized their troops to participate in a UN-led coalition to enforce the UN resolutions. Now the President is asking Congress to authorize a unilateral first strike before the UN Security Council has asked its member states to enforce UN resolutions.
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;
KEY ISSUE: This "Sense of Congress" resolution was not binding. Furthermore, while Congress supported democratic means of removing Saddam Hussein it clearly did not endorse the use of force contemplated in this resolution, nor did it endorse assassination as a policy.

Technorati Tags: Kucinich,Afghanistan

 

Nobel Peace Prize Awarded to President Obama

President Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, according to the Huffington  Post.  He is now the third sitting President to receive the award.  Reasons cited include his efforts to reduce nuclear arms and his work to improve relationships between the United States and the rest of the World.

Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize.

 

Olbermann Accuses Wilson of Racist “Stupidity”

The President may have accepted South Carolina Republican Joe Wilson’s apology for his outburst the other night, not because he believes the apology to be sincere, but more as a means to put the ugly incident aside and move on with health care.

Not so, however, for MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann.

Last night on “Countdown,” in a “Special Comment” lasting a little over 10 minutes, Olbermann didn’t buy Representative Wilson’s excuse that he was emotional when he shouted “You lie!” during Obama’s address to both houses of Congress.  Olbermann accused Wilson of “stupidity” and, worse, “racism.”

Citing Wilson’s involvement with the “Sons of Confederate Veterans” who, Olbermann says, are guilty of “harboring white supremacists,” he blamed Wilson’s disrespect on racism.

Olbermann also vented at the “rank willful stupidity” of Wilson and others who are, it appears now, becoming the voice of the Republican Party.

Olbermann is impressive and makes his point.  Even though the segment is long, it is worth watching (see link below).

One big point that Olbermann makes is showing where Wilson was wrong when he accused the President of lying about health care reform not covering illegal aliens.  Olberman cites Section 246 of the health care reform bill (HR 3200) which specifically outlaws any coverage to people who are not in the United States lawfully.

Checking this out for myself,  Section 246 is  on Page 143 and reads as follows:

SEC. 246. NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS.

Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.”

There it is – clearly written and stated.  The authors of this section even put the title in all caps and bolded for emphasis.

Wilson, being a member of the House of Representatives, the body which is working on HR 3200, should have known better, and probably did.  Olbermann accounts Wilson’s supposed lack of knowledge on Section 246 more to greed – he says that Wilson is indebted to health care special interests to the tune of “$435,296,” according to Olbermann.

“Of course you let your emotions get the best of you,” Olbermann said, “at a figure of $435,296 in campaign donations from the health sector to you,” referring to Wilson, “and your PAC.  Of course your emotions would take over when your gravytrain was threatenened.”

The next time Wilson feels compelled to shout out “You lie!” he should find a mirror!

Keith Olbermann “Special Comment” – Video – MSNBC.com

 

Critic on President’s School Speech Goes Too Far: Says It’s “Illegal” to Ask Kids to Plan Goals

It’s one thing to criticize the President (although some coming from the far right, like the “birthers” movement for instance, are real nutcase claims), but to include our nation’s school kids into the mix of their radicalism goes too far.

This morning’s speech by President Obama to the nation’s public schoolchildren should be viewed as backup for what all good parents tell their kids.  Speaking to grades Kindergarten through 12th via video link, on what is the first day of school this year for many, Obama told them to stay in school, turn off the t.v. or video games, and do their homework.

Obama emphasized  the link between education and getting a good job.  He talked about the importance of learning to fulfill goals.

Relating from his own personal experience, President Obama told kids not to give up no matter what the challenge from environment, friends, or anything else.  ”Every single one of you has something that you’re good at,” he told the students, encouraging them that education is vital to fulfilling what they want to do in life.

He encouraged the students, throughout the speech, to focus on what they want to achieve in life and not to give up because of obstacles.  He explained that kids who don’t get a good grade, for instance, are not failures but just need to study more to achieve their goals in life.

He encouraged goal planning and introspection on what every student could do to contribute to help make the world a better place by bettering themselves.

Good advice, most of us would agree.  All of us except at least one critic.

Appearing on MSNBC this morning shortly after the President’s speech, this guy cited supposed Texas law which says it’s “illegal” to ask kids what they want to be when they grow up.  According to this nut job, teachers and educators cannot discuss goal planning with their students nor ask them questions on what they want to become as adults or what they want to achieve.

How outrageous!  It’s pathetic that the far right would go so far to try and stop our nation’s kids from learning how to plan for their future.  There seems to be no end to the radical-right’s Obama-hating tactics!

 

It’s Time For Obama to Step Up For Real Healthcare Reform

It was the dream of Senator Ted Kennedy that every American have qualilty health care.  And it’s no secret that Kennedy put his faith behind Barack Obama to get it done (remember that Kennedy “passed the torch” to Obama during the 2008 Democratic Convention).

Now, with the passing of Senator Kennedy, President Obama must step up to the plate to get healthcare reform done.  To do this, he’s going to have to unite Democrats by using his leadership to honor the life-long dream of Kennedy.

The only way to really to provide healthcare for every American is with a single payer system.  Democrats must get together to stand up to the myths and propaganda created by healthcare industry lobbyists.  They must also be ready to stand up to Republicans especially in the Senate (let them filibuster and make a spectacle of themselves in front of the nation if necessary!).

The United States is the only modern developed nation in the world that doesn’t provide healthcare for its citizens through a single payer system.  The reason we don’t is because too many of our lawmakers are intimidated by big-money healthcare industry interests.  If the Dems compromise on this issue by dumping the public option or by requiring all Americans to buy a private insurance plan (or be penablized through taxes), the American people will become the pawns of these big-money interests who will be forever more enriched at our expense.

With President Obama’s leadership and Democratic majority in both Houses of Congress, Americans can free themselves of healthcare lobbyists who are only interested in bottom line profit if – and only if – President Obama leads the way and the Democrats stand united, tough, and strong.

House bill HR 676 and its Senate equivalent S 703 will provide quality healthcare for all of us.  By clicking the links you can read these bills for yourself (online or download the pdf).  For those who want to keep their private insurance, they can opt out of these plans (similar to people who send their kids to private school and opt out of universal education).

Read this for more information:  Hudson Reporter – Support single payer health care.

 

Obama Acknowledges That HC Reform Will Be Difficult

“The easiest thing to do for a politician is to do nothing,” President Obama told supporters today during a health care forum which was streamed live on the Internet (see previous post).

Obama is not opting for making it easy on himself as he admitted that he will stand up to opponents who are trying to stand in the way of his efforts to reform health care.  He encouraged his supporters to do the same saying, “We’re gonna get this done one way or the other.”

In an obvious reference to Fox News, Obama reminded supporters of “that one tv news channel” which has been a major source of misinformation through commentators such as Glenn Beck and others.

Obama also came back against recent criticism that he is taking the public option off the table and that hc reform will provide insurance for illegals.

He cited both cases as examples of misinformation.

 

Obama Holding National Health Care Forum

President Obama will be taking questions from the American people during a national health-care forum live on the web.

The forum begins at 2:30 p.m. Eastern Time (11:30 Pacific Time).

If you would like to participate, here’s the link:  http://www.barackobama.com/forum/live.html.

Obama will also be taking questions via Twitter @BarackObama hashtag #hc09.

 

Single Payer Health-Care: Obama May Be Sliding It Past Opponents

For those who have followed President Obama’s rise in politics, it’s not a secret that Obama has always been for a single-payer health-care, or universal payer, system…that is, until recently.

Concerned about his party’s 2010 re-election and opposition from big-money health insurance interests, President Obama has appeared to change his position to one that would allow choice of private insurance along with a public option.

But, the change away from universal single-payer may be for appearance sake only if HR 3200 passes and is signed into law.

Section 102 A of HR 3200 (on Page 16) prohibits private insurance companies from accepting new members after the law goes into effect.

(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.—

11 (A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in

12 this paragraph, the individual health insurance

13 issuer offering such coverage does not enroll

14 any individual in such coverage if the first ef-

15fective date of coverage is on or after the first

16 day of Y1.

Essentially, anyone who is not covered by private insurance on the day that this law goes into effect – if it passes both houses of Congress and is signed by the President – will have to become part of the public option.

This link has more info:  Obama’s slippery transition to a single-payer health care system | Culpeper Star-Exponent.