DISQUS

Obama needs Clinton and her supporters to win in November. At the very least he needs them to act civil. If he wins in November, I'm sure that he and his people will make damn sure that he doesn't need any of them in 2012.

"Is anyone on this blog going to put up a post re: Obama caving on FISA or disagreeing with yesterday's SCOTUS decision (he says he believes that people found guilty of raping children should get the death penalty), or are we just going to keep pretending that this is change you can believe in?"


Yes, that would be a good discussion but I fear that too many of us either agree with Obama's positions or don't want to raise a stink about his stance on these matters.

What Nader said was flat-out wrong and he owes Obama an apology but he is not an enemy. Obama's response was appropriate and to the point. Nader has been warned and won't make the same mistake again. Obama put him in his place.

Before this battle is over a whole lot of white folks are going to wig completely out. The prospect of Obama winning is driving them crazy. It will get worse.

"And that's that."


I don't exactly understand what you mean, Craig. Am I supposed to keep my opinions to myself on this issue or refrain from making any effort to change yours.



If it is the latter, then that is okay. If you mean the former, well, no, that is not that.

"Obama on Nader: 'He's become a perennial political candidate'..."


Yes, but there is a big difference between Nader and what he represents and, say, the late Harold Stassen, the Republican once known as the "Boy Wonder."



Norman Thomas was a perennial presidential candidate too and I did never saw any harm in him running. In a democracy it is always good to have more than two candidates running for public office. Thomas and Nader always spoke truth to power.



I understand why Obama cannot do the same but I wish that folks took a longer view about this process.

Ralph Nader is not part of our enemies and he is most emphatically not our enemy. I don't care for what he said but I understood the point that he was trying to make whether I agree with him or not. Nader is not enemy and we need to keep this in mind as we move forward.

Nader should not have made this remark in this way. What he should have said was that in his opinion Obama is trying to avoid appearing confrontational and threatening, which is absolutely true. In any case, I think we need to cut Nader a little slack here. He was wrong but he is not our enemy. And, folks, he did not cost Al Gore the election in 2000. Al Gore, the Clintons and the DLC cost Al Gore the election.

I thought Br. Bill understood that it only hurts when its poker.

I'm enjoying watching whites, Jews and other non-blacks trying to wrap their minds around this Obama fellow in this post-Civil Rights beyond race epoch of American life. It is fascinating.


Can you imagine how Weisman and others might respond if someone wrote that Joseph Lieberman was more white than Jewish? Like how exactly is that measured?



This is going to be fun.

I Googled "Iraq Survey Group" and found this entry on Wikipedia. I have no idea why D referred us to this report because it appears not to support his arguments.




Interim Progress Report



After six months searching for WMD, the ISG issued an Interim Progress Report on October 3, 2003. The team has found evidence of "WMD-related program activities" but no actual chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. In addition to details of dormant WMD programs, the October 2003 report also includes discoveries of non-WMD programs banned by the U.N. and concealed during the International Atomic Energy Agency and UNMOVIC inspections that began in 2002. Lines of enquiry adopted by the ISG include the examination of sites across Iraq, as well as interviewing scientists, truck drivers and other workers with possible knowledge of WMD. The failure to find any stockpiles of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons has proved a problem for Washington and London, who used intelligence indicating that Iraq did possess WMD stockpiles as one of the primary justifications for the invasion of Iraq. The British government, in particular, placed very heavy emphasis on this intelligence.



David Kay resigns



On January 23, 2004, the head of the ISG, David Kay, resigned his position, stating that he believed WMD stockpiles would not be found in Iraq. "I don't think they existed," commented Kay. "What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last Gulf War and I don't think there was a large-scale production program in the nineties." In a briefing to the Senate Armed Services Committee, Kay criticized the pre-war WMD intelligence and the agencies that produced it, saying "It turns out that we were all wrong, probably in my judgment, and that is most disturbing." [1] Sometime earlier, CIA director George Tenet had asked David Kay to delay his departure: "If you resign now, it will appear that we don't know what we're doing. That the wheels are coming off."[1]



Kay told the SASC during his oral report the following, though: "Based on the intelligence that existed, I think it was reasonable to reach the conclusion that Iraq posed an imminent threat. Now that you know reality on the ground as opposed to what you estimated before, you may reach a different conclusion-—although I must say I actually think what we learned during the inspection made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than, in fact, we thought it was even before the war."



Kay's team established that the Iraqi regime had the production capacity and know-how to produce chemical and biological weaponry if international economic sanctions were lifted, a policy change which was actively being sought by a number of United Nations member states. Kay also believed some components of the former Iraqi regime's WMD program had been moved to Syria shortly before the 2003 invasion [2], though the Duelfer Report Addenda (see below) later reported there was no evidence of this.



On February 6, 2004, Bush convened the Iraq Intelligence Commission, an independent inquiry into the intelligence used to justify the Iraq war and the failure to find WMD. This was shortly followed by the conclusion of a similar inquiry in the United Kingdom, the Butler Review, which was boycotted by the two main opposition parties due to disagreements on its scope and independence [3].



In 2003, The U.S.-sponsored search for WMD had been budgeted for $400 million, with an additional $600 million added in 2004.



Kay's successor, named by CIA director George Tenet, was the former U.N. weapons inspector Charles Duelfer, who stated at the time that the chances of finding any WMD stockpiles in Iraq were "close to nil."

The head of the Iraqi government response to the Iraq Study Group report:


"Iraqi President Jalal Talabani called the group's conclusions "very dangerous" to Iraq's sovereignty and constitution, according to CNN. "As a whole, I reject this report," Talabani said.[19]"



So, D, why do you believe that folks need to read a report that has been rejected the Iraqi government? BTW, have you looked at the composition of the Iraqi Study Group?

"f, d. represents the mentality of those that are in charge of our government"


What is more alarming, in my opinion, is that far too many Americans because of the incessant propaganda and lies promoted by our government and the MSM have bought into this meme. Look at all of the people who still believe that we could have "won" the war in Vietnam if the politicians had just stayed out of the way. This is crazy. The French have had to go through the same thing about Algeria. Dreams of empire die hard.

"This war has already killed most of the country's will."


Well, it is kind of hard to get the populace stirred up on a full time basis when the kill ratio is close to 207 to 1 in your favor and the other side shows no signs of throwing up their hands and walking away. Two and half million Vietnamese had to die before we woke up to this reality: folks ain't rolling over anymore in the face of U.S. military power.



We also don't like Iraqis who employ suicide bombings and IEDs. We have some silly notion that folks who fight this way are not fighting fair.

D -


Re: Credible Threats



There is no country in the world that wants to get into a shooting match with the United States of America. You are arguing that because another nation's leader(s) don't like us we have the right to invade thagt country. Hugo Chavez doesn't like us but are you arguing that we should invade Venezuela? I'm sure that a lot of major league baseball players and their teams would not be happy campers.



My point about Israel is that there are very, very few nations that pose any credible threat to the sovereignty of the United States. In terms of military capability, we are the 1600 pound gorilla. Nobody else comes close. I'm not bragging. This is a fact. We are not, however, invincible. Wars like Iraq will eventually rob us of will; it is already robbing us of blood and treasure. If we follow your prescription, the end won't be a long time coming.

"Go make the deployments; go walk the blocks in Guantanamo. Then come talk to me about a personal tie to this conflict.


"I think you're a typical liberal: you'll second guess all day, but wouldn't lift a finger to defend this country if needed."



Look, D. in the first place I am not a liberal. You have no idea what a liberal is and you are simply repeating right-wing talking points. In addition, I don't owe you any special deference, as opposed to civility and respect, because you chose to serve in the military or agreed to participate in an illegal invasion of another country.



(The land that Guantanamo sits on, for example, belongs to the people of Cuba not the United States. The Cuban government at the time only agreed to sign a so-called lease because it was the only way to get our government to agree to accept and respect Cuban sovereignty to the small extent it ever did. [You don't really think the Brits owned Hong Kong do you or that the Chinese willingly signed a 99-year lease with England?])



Iraq posed no credible threat to the safety of the United States. The only country that poses a potential threat to this country is Israel because it has 250 nuclear weapons and the means to deliver their payloads to the United States.



If any foreign invaders show up in Puget Sound I will be among the first to confront them. Until that time...

"But...fine. Since I'll ultimately spend the next 4-8 years under liberal rule, why don't you tell me what the plan is after we surrender and flee."


Surrender and flee what? The North American continent? What are you referring to here. We have no right to be in Iraq. It is not our country and the Iraqis have never agreed to be one of our colonial possessions.



D - didn't the old folks ever tell you that you can't lose what you ain't never had?

"That's easy for someone who probably has no personal tie to the war to say."


Hey, d, check this out:



I am a citizen of a democratic republic. I may take issue with my government's actions but in all respects when my government acts, it is representing me even if I strongly disagree with its actions. Consequently, I have, as citizen of this Republic, a personal tie to any war my government is involved in.



My right to express my opinion is not dependent on whether I have a "personal tie to the war" whatever that odd phrase means. American military personnel who are involved in the American War in Iraq are not serving there because one morning they all woke up and decided to invade that country. They are in Iraq because our government - my government - sent them there. In a democratic republic - presuming you actually believe in such a form of government - public policy issues, and war is a public policy issue par excellence, and their resolution cannot be based on whether one has "personal ties" or not. There is no hierarchy that we are bound to respect with regard to such issues. All of us have a right and a duty to speak and debate about these matters.

"I only lose sleep when I think about the 4100 families in this country who have lost loved ones in Iraq."


I am deeply disturbed about the deaths of Americans and Iraqis but 800,000 people is a hell of a loss. I'm sorry that you don't regard Iraqis as human beings and are too chicken to say so.



"(that's a tempered response. I'm not going to say what I'm really thinking in this forum)"



I already know what you really think on this particular issue. You believe that Iraqis are not human beings and are less entitled to live than Americans. That is exactly what you believe. I have relatives who are retired senior military officers. They would have had someone like you watched very closely if you had been under their command.

"Personally, I look for vindication for our cause to come from history, cause it damn sure ain't coming from the majority of this country."


People who are looking for vindication in the future for acts committed here and now are either praying that their side writes all of the history books or hope that they'll be dead when history proves them wrong.



The thing is, however, is that you don't have to wait any longer for an answer. The invasion of Iraq has been a disaster.

"The reason why I view Iraq as part of the larger War on Terror is because when Saddam was given a chance to stand with us and renounce terrorism and extremism, he refused. I lose no sleep now that he's gone."




Since the desire to get rid of Saddam Hussein was a focus of the Bush Administration prior to the events of September 11, 2001 whether he chose to stand with our government or not is hugely irrelevant. In addition, international law and the governing covenants of the United Nations does not recognize or support military action against another sovereign state because that state declines to participate in a global "War on Terror."



What you are actually implying here is that Saddam Hussein and his regime had something to do with the events of September 11, 2001. This canard, which had been promoted by, among others, the Bush Administration has been discredited over and over again. Again, it is not true.



What is true is that more than 800,000 Iraqis have died since our illegal and unjustified invasion of that country. Yes, Hussein was a brutal dictator but the rate of carnage and mayhem that has afflicted that country since our invasion and occupation far exceeds anything that occurred under his rule.



You should lose sleep, if you have any decency, over the deaths of so many Iraqis including women and children.

d -


The president of the United States is commander-in-chief of the United States military services. The president is not commander-in-chief of the American people. No president ever has been not in war or peace. You can still act as if the president is your commander-in-chief but that is something that you choose to do. It is not something that you, me or anyone else not in the military is legally obliged to accept.

"It amazes me how liberals can complain about how their freedom is provided, but offer no thanks for being kept safe."


This is a profoundly absurd charge and argument that really does not merit any reasonable response. I am beginning to think that if you had an original thought it would die of loneliness.

The shoe that you want to use doesn't fit a lot of people. The issue is really not about when that person or this person became concerned about the Constitution. Your line of argument personalizes and trivializes an extremely profound issue: whether we are going to have a government based on laws or a government based on the whims of politicians and bureaucrats.


The fact that many of the founders of this democratic republic were slave owners (Thomas Jefferson) or closeted authoritarians and monarchists (John Adams) does not minimize the importance of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The fact that this same document and its protections were more often ignored than implemented to protect the lives and property of black folk does not mean that black people should ignore the dangers of FISA because a black man is running for president.



In my own life I have been harassed and threatened by government officials, FBI agents and the local police. In each instance I had to remind these folks that the Bill of Rights did not permit them to do what they were threatening to do to me. I know for a fact that the FBI spied and ran security checks on me and my neighbors simply because we lived across the street from the Black Panther Free Breakfast Program. It was not and is not a crime to live across the street from a Black Panther program. In addition, it was not illegal to feed hungry children either.



The police agencies of the state and, no, it doesn't matter what country we are talking about, are always trying to expand their reach and control over their citizens' lives. They will lie, cheat, steal, torture, harass, burglarize and, yes, even commit murder if necessary to advance their aims. These are well documented facts and they are not exclusive to the United States.



We have to resist these intrusions into our private spaces. The U.S. government and its police agencies had the necessary authority to prevent the airplane highjackings and subsequent destruction that occurred on September 11, 2001. There were at least two FBI agents, for example who thought it suspicious that foreign nationals with no flying expertise or experience were taking classes in this country to learn how to pilot passenger jets.



These two agents were blocked at every turn when they attempted to get their superiors to play closer attention to their suspicions. No, I don't think that 9/11 was a U.S. government sponsored conspiracy but I think it reveals, in part, that the people who are supposed to be protecting us lack a certain degree of imagination and are not very creative. No legal authority they are demanding over our lives will change this fact.



We live in a period of asymmetric warfare where many of the combatants are not states and they will not rely on the grid to communicate with each other. The argument that the government needs more authority to tap into the communications networks of terrorists is absurd. I am fairly certain that these terrorists are not going to take advantage of the latest price reduction in iPhones so that they can call each other faster and more cheaply.

"How many of you, prior to 9/11, really gave a damn? And more importantly, how many of you will continue to once Bush leaves office?'


At least since elementary school. My sixth grade teacher Pedro Jose Gonzales (He had to change his name to Peter Joseph to get a teaching job,) had us read the Bill of Rights and discuss what it meant. So did several of my teachers in junior high and high school. I remember all of their names and I still in touch with some of them but I suspect that you are impervious to a certain style of reasoning and belief.