« May 2005 | Main | July 2005 »

Bush the arsonist. Bush is why we may lose in Iraq.

Bush's speech on 6/28 was a study in deceit. He says that we're fighting terrorists in Iraq to keep the fires of terrorism from reaching our shores. But the terrorists we're fighting now didn't exist until after we invaded.... Bush's short-sighted and immature foreign policies created the terrorists we fight today. What is more, it is estimated that only 10% of the fighters arrayed against our troops in Iraq are jihadists--terrorists who would attack Americans anywhere, anytime. Most of the terrorists in Iraq are nationalists of one sort or another. They are inflamed by U.S. presence in their nation.

Bush lied to the world about weapons of mass distruction to justify an invasion. The occupation now creates the terrorists.

Bush is the accidental arsonist who lit the flames we now fight!

But, there is no doubt that those flames are real, and could spread.

The questions are
*what is fanning them and
*what--if anything--is squelching them?

*Does our military presence fan the flames of terrorism?
*Or shall we wager that our presence is like a lake to absorb the fires until they are spent? Such a wager is dangerous, for that lake is a pulp of the blood of our soldiers and the cash of the Treasury of the United States, and it forms the nutrients off which military contractors--already too powerful in our Republic--feed and grow fat.

The truth of the matter: Bush is spent.

He is played-out.

None of the players involved with Iraq--from our enemies to our allies to the Iraqi people--trust him. So long as he is President, Iraq will worsen. That does not mean it will all end badly, in the long run.

However, voting in Democratic Presidential leadership in 2008--with a new cast of diplomats, strategists, and thinkers--is the next great opportunity our nation will have to redeem the situation in Iraq.

Only with such a change can we rally, reasserting the effort free from the taint of not only the current administration's lies about weapons of mass destruction (there were none) and a 9/11-Iraq link (there wasn't one), but the corruption that has marred their business dealings relative to Iraq.

We need a new effort, and the current administration is unfit to lead it.

Kerry's Iraq speech

Here is the speech Sen. John Kerry gave in the Senate on 6/28:

Tonight President Bush will speak to the nation about the situation in Iraq. And I think we all have a sense of what he'll say. He'll talk about the march of democracy and the courage of our troops across the world. He'll speak with pride about Iraqi elections and the end of tyranny, and stress the importance of fighting terror. And that's fine -- we all agree with that -- but those words alone won't be enough to improve a situation clearly headed in a perilous direction. We need new, strong policy to get it right in Iraq.

Today, we have no realistic strategy to reduce the risks to our soldiers and achieve our goals. While our military has done a superb job, our civilian leadership has not, and our soldiers are paying the price every day. We need a realistic plan for success.

To do that, we must tear down the wall of arrogance. When the Vice President absurdly claims the "insurgency is in its last throes," he insults the common sense and intelligence of the American people, and diminishes our stature in the world. And how can we expect the Iraqi people to take us seriously and do their part when the White House says the insurgency is fading, yet they live in constant fear, the explosions waking them up at night, reminding Iraqis of the danger inherent in even the short walk to work or school the next morning.

While we shouldn't dwell on mistakes, we need to understand their consequences on our ability to effectively move forward. With allies reading the Downing Street memo, and the American people realizing the rationalization for this war changed midstream, it becomes that much harder to rally the collective strength of the nation and the world to our cause.

We have to acknowledge the past to overcome it, because the truth is the stubbornness of this administration matters. It hurts our chances for success. It leads to frustrated expectations at home, makes it so much more difficult for the Iraqi people to embrace this cause, and makes it so much easier for sidelined nations to turn their back on a common interest and say: "OK, it's their deal."

And the bottom line is that when it comes to war and the safety of American troops, there is no time for excuses. It's time for the administration to tell the truth about what's happening on the ground and open up to new ideas about how to get the job done.

Admitting mistakes is a necessary hurdle and a constructive tool for this administration if it wants to build the strength necessary to get it right in Iraq. Admitting mistakes paves the way for elected officials and the American people to come together to move forward. Admitting mistakes lays the groundwork for a climate of cooperation that allows allies to add to our own strength. Admitting mistakes eases the concerns of the Iraqi people, and helps us make them understand that there will be no success unless they embrace the burden of their own future.

And that includes acknowledging that Iraq today is something it wasn't before the war: a breeding ground for jihadists. Today there are 16,000 to 20,000 insurgents, and the number of jihadists among them is growing. This is a growing challenge, and we need to take immediate steps to address it. Our officer corps reports that every time our troops kill or capture an insurgent, three more step forward to take his place. That is not a compelling strategy for success.

So I hope tonight that we hear something new from the President. I hope the President recognizes that the people demand more than a new communications strategy -- they demand real leadership and a strategy for success in this war that gets our troops home. If the President does this, he will begin to restore the confidence of the American people and the respect of the world. In showing real leadership, he will make clear to the Iraqi people that it's time for them to take the lead.

I also hope the American people understand that there still can be a plan for success in Iraq if we move quickly. The mistakes we have made don't change the fact that our military is the most powerful in the world, and that democracy is one of the world's most powerful ideas. The mistakes don't change the fact that the Iraqi people understand through the powerful memory of generations that they have a unique opportunity to shape their own future. If the President gets serious about getting this right and telling the truth, and the Iraqi people get serious about doing their part and bearing the burden, we can have success in Iraq.

So what can the President say tonight to get things right in Iraq, and put us on the road to success? The President can start by immediately declaring that the United States does not seek bases or any permanent military presence in Iraq. Erasing suspicion of indefinite occupation is critical to eroding support for the insurgency.

Getting it right also means using our overwhelming leverage to get the Iraqis to do their part. Our massive military presence is all that stands between the Iraqi people and complete chaos. Our special forces are protecting Iraqi leaders. With this kind of leverage, it's shocking that the administration allowed six months to go by before including Sunnis in the political process. This was an obvious, crucial prerequisite to success, yet there was no sense of urgency, and minimal pressure applied. It's time for the administration to use its leverage to insist the Iraqis to do their part, establish a truly inclusive political process, and meet the deadlines for finishing the constitution and holding new elections in December.

Getting it right also means putting together a real plan for the training of Iraqi troops and following through on it. This should be our top priority. It's the key to getting our troops home and avoiding a humiliating withdrawal. It's time to move beyond fudging the numbers and finally put the training of Iraqi troops on a true six-month wartime footing, which includes ensuring the Iraqi government has the budget necessary to deploy them. It's also time to stop using the in-country training requirement as an excuse for refusing offers made by Egypt, Jordan, France and Germany to do more. Why would we turn down this opportunity to give our troops the relief they deserve?

Getting it right also means drawing up a detailed plan with the clear milestone of transfer of military and police responsibilities to Iraqis after the December elections. The administration's plan should take into account both political and security objectives, including Iraqi force structure, and be specifically tied to a defined series of tasks and accomplishments. This plan must be more than dates and numbers -- it must make clear to the Iraqi government that American patience is limited.

The Iraqi people need to understand that in America, when we see Army recruitment suffering, and families organizing to protect their kids from recruiters, and the divorce rate for military officers skyrocketing, we take it very seriously. I know the Iraqi people already understand that our troops are skilled and brave -- now they need to understand that we must see legitimate progress that offers a real chance of American troops beginning to come home.

At the same time, if the administration really wants to get the Iraqis to bear the burden, they need to move beyond the hollow "stay as long as it takes no matter what" talk that provides an endless security blanket -- a disincentive for Iraqis to stand up for Iraq -- and instead talk forcefully about how to transfer of responsibility.

If the administration gets this plan right, and the Iraqis succeed in adopting a new constitution and holding elections as planned, trained Iraqi security forces should be ready to take on more responsibility at the critical moment when support for the insurgency is diminishing. That's the kind of careful, strategic planning we need to set the stage for American forces to begin to come home as Iraqi security forces assume more of the mission. But, again, this won't happen if the Iraqi people don't do their part. We must make the Iraqi government understand that the patience of America is finite, and that real progress must be achieved.

There's no question that deploying capable Iraqi security forces is imperative to success. But the administration would have us believe that Iraqi forces alone could end the insurgency. That's not enough. And I hope that the President strikes a different tone tonight, and commits to work simultaneously on all fronts -- security, economic and political.

The administration should know by now that overly optimistic predictions for rebuilding Iraq have been a drag on our mission. Reconstruction lags behind even in the Shiite south and the Kurdish north, where security is less of an issue. This sends the wrong message to those we ask to sacrifice for freedom. We need to speed up work in these areas to demonstrate that progress will be made in the rest of Iraq. If Iraqis, particularly Sunnis who fear being left out in the cold, see electricity flowing, jobs being created, infrastructure being built, and a government of their own choosing being formed, the lure of insurgency will diminish. The violence and risk to our troops will decrease. To get it right in Iraq, we must show all Iraqis that they're fighting not only for a future of freedom, but for a tangibly improved future for their children.

Getting it right also means understanding the neighborhood -- and getting those with an interest in Iraq, like the Saudis, to act now. Iraq is surrounded by Sunni neighbors with significant resources, yet complaints about being left out fall on deaf ears. They could do so much more to help, and we should encourage them. Even short-term improvements, such as providing electricity from their power grids, or supplying diesel fuel -- an offer made yet unfulfilled by the Saudis -- will go a long way. But we have to do our part and address their legitimate concerns if we want these nations to step up to the plate and help us secure Iraq's borders, bring Sunnis into the political process, or rebuild Iraq's economy and infrastructure. We must offer a coherent strategic plan for regional security. We must address their fears of an Iran-dominated crescent, and their concerns about our sporadic mediation between Israel and the Palestinians. This administration needs to show that it understands there has to be some give and take.

The administration could also give a significant boost to the rebuilding effort by recognizing the great untapped potential of private sector contributions. The administration, working with the Iraqi government, should organize a development conference for Iraqi businessmen and their regional counterparts who wish to invest in Iraq. Regional investment would not only strengthen Iraq's economy -- it would give neighboring governments a greater stake in Iraq's success, and another incentive to do more to help. And the administration might want to consider the effect on regional businessmen when they read headlines about Halliburton's extraordinary dominance of local contracts.

Much of what I've discussed today, from administration mistakes to the steps needed to move forward, deal with laying the groundwork for long-term success. But the reality is the elections are six months off. Iraq won't be rebuilt overnight, and it will take time to get the Iraqi troops ready. In the coming months, even with perfect planning, there will be violence, turmoil and hardship.

That's why tonight it's critical that President Bush makes clear tonight that there are actions we can take in the short-term to ease the burden on our troops. He needs to get this right, not only to save American lives, but to elevate the confidence of the American people. For this to happen, the President must reconsider some hastily brushed-aside options.

To date, the administration has been unwilling to entertain the idea of empowered militias, instead singularly focusing on a unified Iraqi security force. But Iraq, like Afghanistan, has numerous tribal, religious and ethnic militias such as the Kurdish peshmerga and the Shiite Badr Army. These forces are structured, and most importantly accepted by provincial populations and capable of providing protection while helping with reconstruction. In the interim, while a fully capable Iraqi security force is established, these forces could meet some of the critical security needs. If they can help do the job, why not let them? It's time for the administration to put aside its concerns and prod the Iraqi government to give the militias legitimacy. We can do this by integrating them into a National Guard-type force and using them to provide security in their own areas, where they are respected.

The administration also needs to get it right on border security if we want to ease the burden on our troops in the short term. The truth is border security has been absent from day one, which is a shame because this is exactly where our allies can help. As opposed to providing security in urban areas, border security is generally less risky for troops. The administration must work with the Iraqi government to reach out to the world and establish a multi-national force to secure Iraq's borers. Such a force, if sanctioned by the UN Security Council, could attract participation by Iraq's neighbors, and powerful nations with a vested interest, like India.

The administration has narrowed our options in Iraq, but there are still better choices available to us. There is still time to get it right in Iraq, and I hope for the sake of our troops that the President begins to get it right tonight. We are at a critical juncture in this conflict, both at home and abroad, and the last thing we need is the administration growing even more stubborn or defensive. Today, our nation needs honest leadership and a comprehensive strategy for success. It's time for the President to reach out and work across the aisle and across the globe to clean up this mess.

The President must seize this opportunity to move forward, as the next months are so critical to the future of Iraq and our security. If the administration fails to take the steps available to them -- and fails to hold the Iraqis accountable -- we will stumble along, our troops at greater risk, casualties rising, the patience of the American people wearing thin, and the specter of quagmire staring us in the face.

Every missed step, every measure untaken, every wise course not followed, carries an unbearable cost. The American people have a right to expect accountability from their leaders. We need to decrease the risk to our troops and strengthen our chances for success. Our troops deserve better than what they're getting. They deserve leadership equal to their sacrifice.

Same-sex marriage passes in Canada

FROM THE CBC:

The Liberals' controversial same-sex marriage legislation has passed final reading in the House of Commons, sailing through with a vote of 158 for and 133 against.

        Supported by most members of the Liberals, the Bloc Quebecois and
        the NDP, the legislation passed easily, making Canada only the
        third country in the world, after the Netherlands and Belgium, to
        officially recognize same-sex unions.

        But the passage of Bill C-38, once again, came with a political
        price tag for the government. Joe Comuzzi, resigned from the
        cabinet so he could vote against the bill - an open rebuke of the
        government legislation.

Comuzzi was the minister responsible for Northern Ontario.

Although he was the only cabinet minister to break ranks with Prime Minister Paul Martin over the controversial plan to legalize the marriage of gays and lesbians, it highlighted the divisions within Canada and within the Liberal party, pitting supporters of equality rights against those who are defending religious freedoms.

For Comuzzi, the decision to resign meant putting principles ahead of the privileges of cabinet. "In 2004, during the election, I promised faithfully to the people of Thunder Bay-Superior North, that I would defend the definition of marriage," he said, explaining his move.

The prime minister said he regretted the decision of a man he called an "old friend," but accepts it because the government must speak with one voice on same-sex marriage.

        The "vote is about the Charter of Rights," said Martin. "We're a
        nation of minorities and in a nation of minorities you don't cherry-
        pick rights."

The government has moved over the last few months to appease critics both within Liberal ranks and among Canadians at large. Amendments were introduced to ensure no religious group or charitable organization is forced to accept same-sex marriage. But in spite of those amendments some groups remain unconvinced.

Same-sex marriage remains one of the most difficult issues ever to confront Canadian politicians. In large part passage of the bill is the reason the parliamentary session was extended for the first time in 17 years.

But while Tuesday night's vote closes off the debate in the Commons, the Conservatives insist there is no closure for Canadians who believe marriage should continue to be defined as the union of a man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others.

        Conservative Leader Stephen Harper says if his party forms the
        next government, the law will be revisited.

Harper made the promise one day after suggesting the adoption of the law lacked legitimacy because it relied on the support of the separatist Bloc Quebecois. Harper said he believes Bloc MPs are the legitimate representatives of Quebec voters. But he argues most Canadians aren't buying it as a final decision since most federalist MPs are opposed to same-sex marriage.

Harper says a Conservative government would hold a free vote for all MPs on the matter, rather than forcing cabinet ministers to vote with the government.

NY co.'s w/ same-sex benefits up 39% !

Crain's New York Business is reporting that the number of NYC companies offering domestic-partner benefits jumped to 228 in 2004 from 163 in 2000.

"Five years ago, only about half of the Fortune 500 companies headquartered in the city gave couples the option to sign up for the benefits. Today, more than 80% of those firms offer the benefits.

"Market forces have driven the change... Goldman Sachs even holds gay-recruitment drives at Wharton and Harvard....

"Companies are also realizing that the cost of domestic partner benefits isn't as high as feared."

Also from the article, which carries the subtitle, "Firms find costs to cover domestic partners are less onerous than feared:"

"Advocates of domestic-partner benefits got a boost in March. The Realty Advisory Board, which represents real estate owners and operators, agreed to provide domestic partner coverage for more the 50,000 building-service workers in the tristate [NY, NJ, CT] area."

The Crain's article was written by Samantha Marshall. The article is available online, but a paid subscription is required.

BUY BONDS! Hot, new DNC website: Digital but not virtual

The new website for the Democratic Party is great!

Democracy_bonds

BUY DEMOCRACY BONDS! What a fantastic idea these bonds are from a branding standpoint. They evoke FDR, sacrifice for a great cause, and building for the future.

Democracy diluted in Israel: Parade banned

The ideals of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly--as well as democratic pluralism itself--have suffered another blow in Israel.

The news: "Officials in Jerusalem plan to ban the yearly Gay Pride parade set for next week, claiming the march would upset many of the city's neighbors."

Another fact: "While Jerusalem city officials claim they are worried about public disturbances, the past three Pride parades in Jerusalem have been peaceful, with only minor incidents of vandalism and protest."

Update on ban vs. gay Americans in military

Summary of AP piece highlighted on Military.com:

***"Critics of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy are gaining new allies, including a few conservative congressmen and a West Point professor."

***"The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network say in a new report that many highly trained specialists - including combat engineers and linguists - are being discharged involuntarily while the Pentagon 'is facing extreme challenges in recruiting and retaining troops.'"

***A federal court hearing is scheduled in Boston next month on a lawsuit by 12 former service members challenging the 12-year-old policy.

***Four Republican Congressmembers have joined 81 Democrats co-sponsoring a bill to repeal the policy. Republican co-sponsor Gilchrest  changed his view "partly out of respect for gay Marines he served with in Vietnam and for his brother, who is gay."

***"A U.S. Military Academy professor, Lt. Col. Allen Bishop, wrote a column this spring in Army Times urging Congress to repeal the ban."

***"On July 6, the Bush administration plans to ask a federal court in Boston to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the policy."

***"More than 9,400 troops have been discharged since the policy was implemented. Discharges peaked at 1,227 in 2001, and declined to 653 last year, a drop which critics attribute to reluctance by war-zone commanders to deprive their units of experienced gay and lesbian personnel during difficult missions."

***From the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network report: those discharged last year included 41 health care professionals, 30 sonar and radar specialists, 20 combat engineers, 17 law enforcement agents, nine language specialists and seven biological/chemical warfare specialists.

"The military continues to sacrifice national security and military readiness in favor of simple prejudice," said SLDN Executive Director C. Dixon Osburn. "Americans do not care if the helicopter pilot rescuing a wounded soldier or the medic treating that soldier is gay."

Among the recently discharged soldiers is Robert Stout of Utica, Ohio, who was wounded while serving in Iraq and wanted to remain in the Army as an openly gay soldier.

Professor Bishop of West Point: "Despite our government's claim of liberty for all, we leave homosexuals out.... If the American military sees and is allowed to see itself as the protector of some but not all American, democracy fails."

Pride Week in NYC

This weekend's "official" events here in NYC.

What were the Stonewall riots? Here's one take.

Oliverpride

Sign letter calling on Bush to fire Rove

Karl Rove, Bush's chief political advisor, treacherously stated on Thursday that, "Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." Conservatives, he said, "saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war." He then said that groups linked to the Democratic Party called for "moderation and restraint" after the terrorist attacks.

Bullshit. Calling for a war in terrorism instead of a war on Iraq is NOT a call for "moderation and restraint."

Karl Rove's comments are an offense against the families and victims of 9/11 and to the residents of New York City, Long Island, and New Jersey—and to the residents of Manhattan island in particular. Manhattan voted 83% for Sen. John Kerry for President; it is a Democratic island; it is where thousands of lives were lost. To suggest that the reactions of Democrats and liberals--which by definition means 100,000’s of New Yorkers!--was to give aid and comfort to the enemy who attacked our city and killed our friends demands an apology. Rove's immature comments are sick and inappropriate.

What is more, Karl Rove typically bears false witness against his fellow countrymen with his offensive description of what were actually protests against the war in Iraq, not protests against a hard line on terrorism. By deliberately conflating protests against the invasion of Iraq with being soft on terrorism—as the White House persistently and dishonorably does—and which Mr. Rove’s "therapy and understanding" baloney furthers, is dishonest. It is exactly because many people legitimately felt that invading Iraq was not going to help stop terrorism that the invasion of Iraq was opposed in the first place! STOPPING TERRORISM is an arch-liberal and arch-progressive goal. It is one shared by many Republicans. (Gee, that used to be called unity, Mr. Rove, which used to be seen as a good thing, not something to destroy!) To question the patriotism of people who had a different opinion about how to stop terrorism is completely out of line.

Mr. Rove needs to apologize immediately to New York City and Democrats nationally or resign.

Sign the petition calling on the President to fire Rove.

Also, e-mail NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg and request that he renounce Rove's comments, which he has not done.

Puppets take pachyderms!

ANOTHER VICTORY! Giving into pressure, the Christianist-controlled U.S. House voted to restore $100 million in threatened cuts from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting funding.

But Republicans keep positioning for their future destruction of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. They named Patricia Harrison, a former co-chairman of the Republican National Committee, as its new president and CEO! Such a cravenly political person has no business heading a non-partisan organization.

Thank Sen. Chuck Schumer, Common Cause, Free Press and the Center for Digital Democracy for there efforts tokwards alerting Americans during the last week about the threats to CPB and PBS.

Schumer_elephantsSchumer at a press conference with an image of elephants charging famous PBS children's icons.

Full story.