Before Super Tuesday, when all the candidates for the Democratic nomination I would have preferred to vote for pulled out, the lineup — and the order in which I would have voted for them in the primaries — was:
• Dennis Kucinich • Mike Gravel • Bill Richardson (yes, despite the LOGO debate and the maricon remark) • Chris Dodd • Joe Biden • John Edwards • Hillary Rodham Clinton • Barack Obama
Not that it even begins to compensate for my deep unhappiness with the President we ended up getting, but I am glad to see that my instincts remain trustworthy. After the three actual liberals at the top of the list, I liked Dodd for a number of reasons, not the least of which was that he made noises — not direct statements, but low rumbles — indicating he wasn’t such a hard-ass when it came to LGBT equality, particularly on marriage.
Mention to someone that you’re thinking about voting for former Georgia Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney or Ralph Nader and they’ll respond, “So, you’re voting for McCain!” Or they’ll say, “You’re wasting your vote.” And if you’re black and not planning on voting for Obama, you may be labeled a “hater” or an “Uncle Tom.” I know. I’ve been called those names. Poet Amiri Baraka, never one to be shy, has labeled all those not supporting Obama as “rascals.”
It doesn’t matter that McKinney is herself African American or that Rosa Clemente, her running mate on the Green Party ticket, is a hip-hop activist and an Afro-Puerto Rican. What matters, for most, is that Obama represents the first realistic chance for a black American to win the White House, and that he is better than McCain.
But should those be the overriding considerations?
While Obama is cosmetically attractive, he is still a status quo politician. What’s more, he has gone out of his way to disparage members of the African American community as a way to ingratiate himself with white voters. And he sometimes defends the same rightwing positions as his Republican counterpart, as when Obama supported Bush on the FISA bill and agreed with Scalia on the D.C. gun ban. …
McKinney, who served as a Democrat in the U.S. House of Representatives for twelve years, left the Democratic Party last year to join the Greens. In Congress, she had one of the most progressive records. And as a Presidential candidate, she offers up a coherent agenda. …
Whether the subject was the Iraq War, or Afghanistan, or Katrina, or veterans’ rights, or Blackwater, or civil liberties, or the environment, or universal health care, or equal pay for equal work, or free college education, or the repeal of the Bush tax cuts, McKinney hit the progressive high notes. (But she was a little off key when she indulged the “9/11 truth” people.) …
McKinney’s platform resembles that of Dennis Kucinich, the Ohio Representative who ran as the most progressive candidate in the Democratic primaries. …
But having a shiny progressive platform does not guarantee progressive votes. I recall a rule of organizing in the 1988 Jesse Jackson campaign: “Define your own win.” Reason being: If it’s about who has the most money, resources, access, etc., those going against the flow or those who are resource poor will always be sold short. Especially when the powerful set the rules and call the game.
Running was Shirley Chisholm’s win in 1972.
Jackson’s win was successfully advancing a progressive, multiracial, multi-issue agenda.
So what’s McKinney’s win?
She says the Greens want to pick up “5 percent of the national vote” in the coming election with the hope it “confers major party status” on them.
“Then we will have an official third party in this country,” McKinney said in Chicago, “and public policy that truly reflects our values.” …
This election season the Greens have abandoned the discredited “safe state strategy,” says Brent McMillan, political director of the party. Mc-Kinney and Clemente are on the ballot in thirty states, according to the Green Party. …
Given these difficulties, the question once again arises: “Why bother?” To which Clemente replies, “People have to make some clear choices about which side are they on.” The goal, she says, is “building the new imperative.” …
But let me put a word in for being contrary, for refusing to go with flow, and for rejecting the choices we are given when we have that opportunity. Sometimes it is necessary to stand up and say, “I’m not with that.” Defying the corrupt two-party corporate system may be one of those times.
The choice is yours. And mine. And for me, it’s not an easy one.
Sapph’s take: It wasn’t an easy choice for me, by any means. But whereas some ask, “What would Jesus do?” I ask: “What would Thomas Paine do?”
That Paine wasn’t hanged for bucking the status quo gives me hope that I won’t be, either. I’ll stick with putting my “faith” in Paine — and in McKinney-Clemente.
Progressive voters leaning towards Ralph Nader or other third party candidates could make the difference between Barack Obama winning or losing the presidency.
Being marginal myself, I am very aware of how decisive third-party voters can be. I won the Democratic nomination to the California senate by less than one-percent in 1992. In the final two weeks, I mailed out an appeal to Green Party voters in my district, urging them to switch parties in order to vote for me. The mailer included cards to re-register from Green to Democrat for the primary, and another card to register again as a Green once the primary was over. Those hundreds of votes made the difference.
Late in 2000, I found myself enmeshed in torrid conversations between the Gore and Nader campaigns. The process wasn’t good. The Democrats were trying to push Nader off the ballot anywhere they could, thus refusing to recognize his core interest in establishing a new party. The Nader people refused to acknowledge that there was any difference between Gore and Bush, and denied that their votes could affect the outcome. My “Gore-Nader” proposal – that Nader endorse Gore in Florida and other close states, and become our most important progressive advocate in Washington after a Gore victory – went nowhere because Nader would have none of it.
So much was at stake in 2000 that, to this day, the wounds then inflicted have not healed. One side [in the tens of millions] believes that Iraq and the Alito Court would have been avoided and the first environmental presidency would have been launched. The other side [a few thousand] denies that the Nader vote caused Gore to lose Florida.
Rather than scrape those scabs one more time, my proposal is that progressives thinking of voting third party this time consider the historic chance to elect Barack Obama president. Such an open gesture would be enormously important to the people who most fervently favor Obama – young people, African-Americans, Latinos, and labor for example – and go a long way to heal and unify the progressive movement this time around.
Many of those Obama supporters share the criticisms of Obama made by the third party advocates – that he needs more pressure on Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, domestic spying, trade. But there is no sympathy, no comprehension, only something between irritation and rage, towards the third-party view that it doesn’t matter if John McCain wins and Barack Obama loses.
It is hard for many to grasp that an infintesimal fraction of voters could deny progressive hope and revive the failing fortunes of the neo-conservatives and the right-wing evangelicals. It is possible that Obama, fueled by the Wall Street economic scandal, will pull away, in which case everyone can vote their first preference. …
In the end, the only question in November is the basic question of which side you are on, a question that goes back decades and centuries and which this generation has the historic opportunity to answer.
Sapph’s take: I love ya, Tom, but you’re talking to the wrong audience. There’s no safer blue state for Obama than California, and my vote does not make a difference on anything but my state’s ballot measures. As I’ve said several times already, if there were any chance my vote would mean the difference between not-so-sucky Obama-Biden and hell-on-earth-whackjob-combo McCain-Palin, Obama would have my vote. But my vote will not affect the outcome of the 2008 presidential race, and so I am free — finally, gloriously free — to vote my head, my conscience, my clarity.
I would, however, urge swing-state third-party voters to heed your call. Where every vote counts, you are dead-on correct.
Anti War activist and challenger for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s Congressional Seat (CD 8, California), Cindy Sheehan has indicated her intention to launch a National political party after the U.S. Election of Nov. 4 …
While discussing a potential third party unity movement, Sheehan indicated that her own candidacy against House Speaker Pelosi has seen a broad coalition of support from Greens, independents, disillusioned Democrats such as herself (Sheehan left the Democratic Party in May of 2007 in response to the Democratic Party led House support for a funding bill to continue Iraq War funding), and Republicans, many of whom made up the traditional base of the GOP represented by Ron Paul.
Sheehan revealed that name of the new party would be The First Party. She reasoned “We don’t want to do third-party politics which has a stigma in the United States” The First Party, with a populist-progressive agenda, will be the first party that “cares about the people, will work for the people, and will actually be a viable party.”
“I have spoken to Green Party Presidential Candidate Cynthia McKinney and the Nader Campaign” and as disillusionment with the two party system increases,”this is the time to build on that energy.” …
…some public opinions of her ability to lead have changed, and could indicate a tipping point for the Sheehan Campaign. She notes that responses have been favourable pointing to an email she recently received,”Two weeks ago I thought you should be shot, but now I’m awake, I’m not going to be a slave anymore, and I support what you do.” …
Sapph’s take: I want to hear more. Somebody ask Cindy if we can talk on the phone for an hour. I want to see where this is going.
WASHINGTON — July 16 — Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) sent the following letter to President Bush yesterday:
The Honorable George W. Bush President 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20500
Dear President Bush:
Thank you for requesting that the Department of State respond to my letter of May 14, 2008 regarding the ongoing crisis in Gaza and Israel.
Your letter states that “it is Hamas’ behavior that is responsible for the current crisis, and any meaningful improvements on the ground will require Hamas to end its attacks against Israel.” This response is very troubling.
The responsibility to care for the civilian population in Gaza is Israel’s, pursuant to the Fourth Geneva Convention (FGC) which defines the protection afforded civilians in times of war and military occupation. Israel’s right to national security indeed affords it the right to take action against Hamas. However that action should not and cannot amount to collective punishment as it does today. The current crisis may be exacerbated, instigated, even perpetuated by Hamas, but the responsibility for beginning and ending the humanitarian crisis is certainly not Hamas’s.
As an occupying power, only Israel has the ability to resume the flow of basic goods and humanitarian supplies into, and out of, the Gaza Strip. To make the resumption of such goods contingent on Hamas’s behavior is to endorse the collective punishment of Gaza’s 1.5 million population in contravention of Article 33 of the FGC. Moreover, by supporting Israel’s practice of collective punishment in response to Hamas’s abominable attacks, the U.S. State Department effectively abdicates its diplomatic principles and its role as a “honest broker”.
The Gaza-Israel ceasefire, enacted on June 19, 2008, has done little to mitigate the humanitarian crisis wrought by the Israeli-imposed blockade of Gaza. The United States can and should use its influence to urge Israel to continue to ease restrictions on goods, economic activity and movement into and out of the Gaza Strip.
Additionally, the United States can help to improve conditions in Gaza by supporting United Nations programming. At present, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) is able to provide an additional 12,500 jobs in Gaza as part of their sponsorship of The Summer Games. To create these jobs, UNRWA needs an additional $30 million in funding. The U.S. should work with the international community to fill this funding gap.
I look forward to your prompt response regarding the above concerns. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Statement by US Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich Presenting an Article of Impeachment of the President
WASHINGTON — July 10 — Yesterday in the House, we had a moment of silence for the troops. Today it is time to speak out on behalf of those troops who will be in Iraq for at least another year, courageously representing our nation while their Commander in Chief sent them on a mission that was based on falsehoods about the threat of WMDs from Iraq.
Throughout the summer and fall of 2002, the Congress, the media and the American people heard the terrifying drumbeat of fear from the Bush White House in the form of loud, well-advertised and orchestrated chanting by the President and his Administration about “Weapons of Mass Destruction,” “Nuclear Threats,” “Biological Weapons,” “Chemical Weapons,” “Threats of Imminent Attack,” all calculated to gain media attention, public support and Congressional support for a war against Iraq.
This afternoon I will introduce a single Article of Impeachment of the President.
The Article is entitled: “Deceiving Congress with Fabricated Threats of Iraq WMDs to Fraudulently Obtain Support for an Authorization of the Use of Military Force Against Iraq.” The Impeachment resolution focuses narrowly on what the President presented to Congress in the Authorization of the Use of Military Force. It does not address the voluminous evidence of orchestrated deceptions which have been well documented by various governmental, non-governmental and media sources.
I understand that many members of Congress voted in good faith to authorize the use of force against Iraq. And I understand that many in the media supported that action. When the President of the United States makes representations on matters of life and death, we all want to believe him and give him the benefit of the doubt. Trust is the glue which holds the fabric of our nation together.
Those in Congress and in the media who acted on the President’s representations of the threat of Iraq WMDs did so trusting that those representations were honest. Unfortunately, they were not. We all know the consequences of the war, the loss of lives and injury to our troops, the deaths of innocent Iraqis, the cost to the American taxpayers. There has been another consequence: Great damage to our Constitution through an unnecessary, illegal war and the destruction of the superior role of Congress in the life of this nation.
Congress must, in the name of the American people, use the one remedy which the Founders provided for an Executive who gravely abused his power: Impeachment. Congress must reassert itself as a co-equal branch of government; bring this President to an accounting, and in doing so reestablish the people’s trust in Congress and in our United States system of government. We must not let this President’s conduct go unchallenged and thereby create a precedent which undermines the Constitution.
In the final analysis this is about our Constitution and whether a President can be held accountable for his actions and his deceptions, especially when the effects of those actions have been so calamitous for America, Iraq and the world. Unless Congress reasserts itself as the power branch of government which the Founders intended, our experiment with a republican form of Government may be nearing an end. But when Congress acts to hold this President accountable it will be redeeming the faith that the Founders had in the power of a system of checks and balances which preserves our republic.
DRAFT
AN ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH
INTRODUCED BY CONGRESSMAN DENNIS J. KUCINICH
JULY 10, 2008
Resolved, that President George W. Bush be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following Article of Impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:
An Article of Impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against President George W. Bush for high crimes and misdemeanors.
ARTICLE ONE
DECEIVING CONGRESS WITH FABRICATED THREATS OF IRAQ WMDs TO FRAUDULENTLY OBTAIN SUPPORT FOR AN AUTHORIZATION OF THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ.
In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” deceived Congress with fabricated threats of Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) to fraudulently obtain support for an authorization for the use of force against Iraq and used that fraudulently obtained authorization, then acting in his capacity under Article II, Section II of the Constitution as Commander in Chief, to commit US troops to combat in Iraq.
To gain Congressional support for passage of the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq, the President made the following material representations to the Congress in SJ Res 45:
1. That Iraq was “continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability. …”
2. That Iraq was “actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability. …”
3. That Iraq was “continuing to threaten the national security interests of the United States and international peace and security.”
4. That Iraq has demonstrated a “willingness to attack, the United States….”
5. That “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. …”
6. The “attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat that Iraq will transfer weapons of mass destruction to international terrorist organizations…”
7. That Iraq “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, …”
8. That an “extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack,. .. .”
9. That the aforementioned threats “justify action by the United States to defend itself; …”
10. The enactment clause of Section 2 of SJ Res 45, the Authorization of the Use of the United States Armed Forces authorizes the President to “defend the national security interests of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq…”
Each consequential representation made by the President to the Congress in SJ Res 45, in subsequent iterations and the final version was unsupported by evidence which was in the control of the White House.
1. Iraq was not “continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability…”
“A substantial amount of Iraq’s chemical warfare agents, precursors, munitions and production equipment were destroyed between 1991 and 1998 as a result of Operation Desert Storm and United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) actions. … There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons or whether Iraq has–or will–establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities.” Defense Intelligence Agency. Iraq–Key WMD Facilities–An Operational Support Study. September 2002. Available: http://www.fas.org/…
“Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq’s chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community’s uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.” Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Report on Whether Public Statements Regarding Iraq By U.S. Government Officials Were Substantiated By Intelligence Information. June 5, 2008. Available: http://intelligence.senate.gov/…
“In April and early May 2003, military forces found mobile trailers in Iraq. Although intelligence experts disputed the purpose of the trailers, Administration officials repeatedly asserted that they were mobile biological weapons laboratories. In total, President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell, and National Security Advisor Rice made 34 misleading statements about the trailers in 27 separate public appearances. Shortly after the (mobile trailers were found, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) issued an unclassified white paper evaluating the trailers. The white paper was released without coordination with other members of the intelligence community, however. It was disclosed later that engineers from DIA who examined the trailers concluded that they were most likely used to produce hydrogen for artillery weather balloons. A former senior intelligence official reported that “only one of 15 intelligence analysts assembled from three agencies to discuss the issue in June endorsed the white paper conclusion.” House Committee on Government Reform- Minority Staff. Iraq on the Record: Bush Administration’s Public Statements about Chemical and Biological Weapons. March 16, 2004. Available: http://oversight.house.gov/…
Former chief of CIA covert operations in Europe, Tyler Drumheller, has said that the CIA had credible sources discounting weapons of mass destruction claims, incuding the primary source of biological weapons claims, an informant who the Germans code-named “Curveball” whom the Germans had informed the Bush Administration was a likely fabricator and including the Niger Yellowcake forgery. Two other former CIA officers confirmed Drumheller’s account to Sidney Blumenthal who reported the story at Salon.com on September 6, 2007.
“In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced biological weapons (BW) weapons quickly. The Iraq Survey Group (ISG) found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes. Indeed, from the mid-1990s, despite evidence of continuing interest in nuclear and chemical weapons, there appears to be a complete absence of discussion or even interest in BW at the Presidential level. In spite of exhaustive investigation, ISG found no evidence that Iraq possessed, or was developing BW agent production systems mounted on road vehicles or railway wagons. … ISG harbors severe doubts about the source’s credibility in regards to the breakout program.” Duelfer, Charles. Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the Director of Central Intelligence on Iraq’s WMD. Available: http://www.lib.umich.edu/…
“While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered.” Duelfer, Charles. Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the Director of Central Intelligence on Iraq’s WMD. Available: http://www.lib.umich.edu/…
2. Iraq was not “actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability.”
The key finding of the Iraq Survey Group’s (ISG) Report to the Director of Central Intelligence found that “Iraq’s ability to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program progressively decayed after that date. Saddam Husayn (sic) ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program.” Duelfer, Charles. Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the Director of Central Intelligence on Iraq’s WMD. Available: http://www.lib.umich.edu/…
Claims that Iraq was purchasing uranium from Niger were not supported by the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research in the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of October 2002.
The CIA had warned the British not to claim Iraq was purchasing uranium from Niger prior to the British statement that was later cited by President Bush. George Tenet, July 11, 2003
“One, there is no indication of resumed nuclear activities in those buildings that were identified through the use of satellite imagery as being reconstructed or newly erected since 1998, nor any indication of nuclear-related prohibited activities at any inspected sites. Second, there is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import uranium since 1990. Three, there is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import aluminum tubes for use n centrifuge enrichment. Moreover, even had Iraq pursued such a plan, it would have been — it would have encountered practical difficulties in manufacturing centrifuges out of the aluminum tubes in question. Fourthly, although we are still reviewing issues related to magnets and magnet production, there is no indication to date that Iraq imported magnets for use in a centrifuge enrichment program. As I stated above, the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) will naturally continue further to scrutinize and investigate all of the above issues.” ElBaradei, Mohamed. Director General, International Atomic Energy Agency. Statement to the United Nations Security Council on The Status of Nuclear Inspections in Iraq: An Update. March 7, 2003. Available: http://www.iaea.org/…
3. Iraq was not “continuing to threaten the national security interests of the United States.”
“Let me be clear: analysts differed on several important aspects of [Iraq’s biological, chemical, and nuclear] programs and those debates were spelled out in the Estimate. They never said there was an ‘imminent’ threat.” Remarks as Prepared for Delivery by Former CIA Director George J. Tenet at Georgetown University. February 5, 2004. Available: http://www.fas.org/…
“We have been able to keep weapons from going into Iraq … We have been able to keep the sanctions in place to the extent that items that might support weapons of mass destruction have had some controls on them … it’s been quite a success for ten years.” Powell, Colin. Secretary of State. Interview with Face the Nation. February 11, 2001.
“[British Secret Intelligence Service Chief Sir Richard Billing Dearlove] reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime’s record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action. … The Foreign Secretary (of England) said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.” Rycroft, Matthew; Private Secretary to Prime Minister Tony Blair. Memo to British Ambassador to the United States David Manning. July 23, 2002. Available: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/…
4. Iraq did not have the “willingness to attack, the United States.”
“The fact of the matter is that both baskets, the UN basket and what we and other allies have been doing in the region, have succeeded in containing Saddam Hussein and his ambitions. His forces are about one-third their original size. They really don’t possess the capability to attack their neighbors the way they did ten years ago.” Powell, Colin. Secretary of State. Transcript of Remarks made to German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer. February 2001. Available: http://www.usembassy-israel.org.il/…
The October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) concluded that “Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or [chemical or biological weapons] against the United States, fearing that exposure of Iraqi involvement would provide Washington a stronger case for making war.” Available: http://www.globalsecurity.org/…
5. Iraq had no connection with the attacks of 9/11, or with al-Qaida’s role in 9/11.
“The report [of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence] documents significant instances in which the Admnistration went beyond what the Intelligence Community knew or believed in making public claims, most notably on the false assertion that Iraq and al-Qaida had an operational partnership and joint involvement in carrying out the attacks of September 11th. The President and his advisors undertook a relentless public campaign in the aftermath of the attacks to use the war against al-Qaida as a justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein. Representing to the American people that the two had an operational partnership and posed a single, indistinguishable threat was fundamentally misleading and led the Nation to war on false premises.” Senator John D. Rockefeller IV. Chairman, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Additional Views of Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV. Page 90. Available: http://intelligence.senate.gov/…
Richard Clarke’s memo of September 18, 2001, titled Survey of Intelligence Information on Any Iraq Involvement in the September 11 Attacks found no “compelling case” that Iraq had either planned or perpetrated the attacks, and that there was no confirmed reporting on Saddam cooperating with Bin Laden on unconventional weapons http://www.9-11commission.gov/… (page 334).
On September 17, 2003, President Bush said: “No, we’ve no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th. What the vice president said was is that he (Saddam) has been involved with al-Qaida.” Available: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/…
On June 16, 2004, a Staff Report from the 9/11 Commission stated: “There has been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan [in 1996], but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. … Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States.” Available: http://www.washingtonpost.com/…
“Intelligence provided by former undersecretary of defense Douglas J. Feith to buttress the White House case for invading Iraq included “reporting of dubious quality or reliability” that supported the political views of senior administration officials rather than the conclusions of the intelligence community, according to a report by the Pentagon’s inspector general.
“Feith’s office ‘was predisposed to finding a significant relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda,’ according to portions of the report, released yesterday by Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.). The inspector general described Feith’s activities as ‘an alternative intelligence assessment process.’” Pincus, Walter and Smith, R. Jeffrey. “Official’s Key Report On Iraq Is Faulted, ‘Dubious’ Intelligence Fueled Push for War.” Washington Post. February 9, 2007. A1.
6. Iraq possessed no weapons of mass destruction to transfer to anyone.
Iraq possessed no weapons of mass destruction to transfer. Furthermore, available intelligence information found that the Iraq regime would only transfer weapons of mass destruction to terrorist organizations if under severe threat of attack by the United States:
According to information in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq that was available to the Administration at the time they were seeking Congressional support for the authorization of the use of force against Iraq, the Iraq regime would transfer weapons to a terrorist organization only if “sufficiently desperate” because it feared that “an attack that threatened the survival of the regime were imminent or unavoidable… ”
“Iraq probably would attempt clandestine attacks against the US Homeland if Baghdad feared an attack that threatened the survival of the regime were imminent or unavoidable, or possibly for revenge. Such attacks — more likely with biological than chemical agents — probably would be carried out by special forces or intelligence operatives.
“The Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) probably has been directed to conduct clandestine attacks against US and Allied interests in the Middle East in the event the United States takes action against Iraq. The IIS probably would be the primary means by which Iraq would attempt to conduct any CBW attacks on the US Homeland, although we have no specific intelligence information that Saddam’s regime has directed attacks against US territory.
“Saddam, if sufficiently desperate, might decide that only an organization such as al-Qa’ida — with worldwide reach and extensive terrorist infrastructure, and already engaged in a life-or-death struggle against the United States — would perpetrate the type of terrorist attack that he would hope to conduct.
“In such circumstances, he might decide that the extreme step of assisting the Islamist terrorists in conducting a CBW attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him.” Available: http://www.globalsecurity.org/…
7. Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and therefore had no capability of launching a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so…”
Iraq possessed no weapons of mass destruction to transfer. Furthermore, available intelligence information found that the Iraq regime would only transfer weapons of mass destruction to terrorist organizations if under severe threat of attack by the United States:
According to information in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq that was available to the Administration at the time they were seeking Congressional support for the authorization of the use of force against Iraq, the Iraq regime would transfer weapons to a terrorist organization only if “sufficiently desperate” because it feared that “an attack that threatened the survival of the regime were imminent or unavoidable…” October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq. Available: http://www.globalsecurity.org/…
“Iraq probably would attempt clandestine attacks against the US Homeland if Baghdad feared an attack that threatened the survival of the regime were imminent or unavoidable, or possibly for revenge. Such attacks - more likely with biological than chemical agents - probably would be carried out by special forces or intelligence operatives.”
“The Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) probably has been directed to conduct clandestine attacks against US and Allied interests in the Middle East in the event the United States takes action against Iraq. The IIS probably would be the primary means by which Iraq would attempt to conduct any CBW attacks on the US Homeland, although we have no specific intelligence information that Saddam’s regime has directed attacks against US territory.”
“Saddam, if sufficiently desperate, might decide that only an organization such as al-Qa’ida - with worldwide reach and extensive terrorist infrastructure, and already engaged in a life-or-death struggle against the United States - would perpetrate the type of terrorist attack that he would hope to conduct.”
“In such circumstances, he might decide that the extreme step of assisting the Islamist terrorists in conducting a CBW attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him.”
As reported in the Washington Post on March 1, 2003, in 1995, Saddam Hussein’s son-in-law, Hussein Kamel had informed US and British intelligence officers that “all weapons–biological, chemical, missile, nuclear were destroyed.” Lynch, Colum. “Iraqi Defector Claimed Arms Were Destroyed by 1995.” Washington Post. A15. March 1, 2003.
“A substantial amount of Iraq’s chemical warfare agents, precursors, munitions and production equipment were destroyed between 1991 and 1998 as a result of Operation Desert Storm and United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) actions. … There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons or whether Iraq has–or will–establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities.” Defense Intelligence Agency. Iraq–Key WMD Facilities–An Operational Support Study. September 2002. Available: http://www.fas.org/…
8. There was not a real risk of an “extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack” because Iraq had no capability of attacking the United States.
“Containment has been a successful policy, and I think we should make sure that we continue it until such time as Saddam Hussein comes into compliance with the agreements he made at the end of the (Gulf) War. … [Iraq is] not threatening America.” Powell, Colin. Secretary of State.
9. The aforementioned evidence did not “justify the use of force by the United States to defend itself” because Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, or have the intention or capability of using the non-existent WMD’s against the United States.
10. Since there was no threat posed by Iraq to the United States, the enactment clause was predicated on lying to Congress.
Congress relied on the information provided to it by the President of the United States. Congress provided the President with the authorization to use military force that he requested. As a consequence of the fraudulent representations made to the Congress, the United States Armed Forces, under the direction of George Bush as Commander in Chief, pursuant to Section 3 of the Authorization for the Use of Force which President Bush requested, invaded Iraq and occupies it to this day, at the cost of 4,116 lives of US service men and women, injuries to over 30,000 of our troops, the deaths of over 1,000,000 innocent Iraqi civilians, the destruction of Iraq, and a long term cost over $3 trillion.
President Bush’s misrepresentations to Congress to induce passage of a use of force resolution is subversive of the Constitutional system of checks and balances, destructive of Congress’ sole prerogative to declare war under Article I Section 8 of the Constitution, and is therefore a High Crime. An even greater offense by the President of the United States occurs in his capacity as Commander in Chief, because he knowingly placed the men and women of the United States Armed Forces in harm’s way, jeopardizing their lives and their families’ future, for reasons that to this date have not been established in fact.
In all of these actions and decisions, President George W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and Commander in Chief, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States and of those members of the Armed Forces who put their lives on the line pursuant to the falsehoods of the President. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.
I thought I made it clear that I was speaking to the Obamaniacs — the Obama supporters who have made the last year of my life as a Democrat a living hell.
A lot of us never had any hatred towards Hilary, and are pretty insulted that Hilary supporters hate us for no good reason.
Now, who’s generalizing?
First, you have to remember I’m not a Hillary supporter — merely a Hillary voter by default. At the risk of putting myself to sleep by repeating it for the umpteenth time: I am a Kucinich woman. Clinton and Obama were my last two choices.
Second, not all Hillary supporters “hate” all Obama supporters — but those who hate many Obama supporters have lots of very good reasons. Honestly, don’t tell me you haven’t seen the name-calling, the threats, the F.U.’s… all in an attempt to silence criticism of Obama?
If you have a problem with someone individual, insult them, not the group they belong to. Get it?
If I were to name every last member of Obamanation I “have a problem” with — well, the task would be akin to typing out the contents of the Manhattan phone book.
Go back over some of the hate mail I’ve received. Go find me on Democratic Underground, before I gave up the futile effort of trying to talk sense to the brainwashed. Anyone who called me a racist, who told me my civil rights were a non-issue (which goes all the way back to 2002, pre-Obama), who accused me of being a Republican troll, etc., etc. — that’s who I’ve got a problem with.
(And, no, I don’t buy the line, “It’s only a message board.” I know there are real people behind those “anonymous” usernames. In fact, I had a long, wonderful history with a good many of those very real people before they were put on a drip feed of Obamania.)
Now, I definitely disagree on Obama with this, and on other important things. But the sad fact of the matter is the alternatives were worse.
Whoa, whoa, whoa! The only alternative — and the right one — was for Obama to stand tall, against his own party. Isn’t that what he’s supposed to be all about, doing the right thing, as opposed to the politically-expedient (and cowardly) thing?
Yet all he’s done is live down to my extremely low expectations of him. Don’t make me read off the long, long laundry list of his endless sell-outs — although one I haven’t mentioned much is NAFTA; that’s another prime example of Obama selling out on progressive Democratic values (and typical of the way he operates).
In any case, I truly believe he was not forced into a corner on FISA. Re-read Unqualified Offerings‘ take; UO’s “sneaking suspicion” is my “sneaking suspicion,” too:
I have a sneaking suspicion that, as the de facto leader of the Democratic Party, Obama could have kept the bill from getting even this far with a quiet word or two. Nothing stopped him from dragging Steny Hoyer and Harry Reid into the same corner where he buttonholed Joe Lieberman. If the House and Senate leadership really did sneak the bill past him last week, which I’m not inclined to believe, still nothing stopped him from shutting them down this week. Except if he either doesn’t consider it important enough to be worth his time and credibility, or if he’s just as happy that the measure might pass.
The man is the de facto leader of the Democratic Party, and he has a lot of political capital to spend — less today than yesterday, of course, but Obama could have circumvented this disaster… unless, of course, “Obama Kinda Likes the FISA Bill (But He Won’t Come Out and Say It).” Which, I believe, he does.
I like Hilary, but she felt it necessary when she was First Lady to end her campaign for universal healthcare thanks to being bribed by the healthcare industry. So I don’t feel I could trust her to work for the wellbeing of the poor if she was bribed again.
Who mentioned Hillary (or healthcare, for that matter)? Hillary has nothing to do with this. This was Obama’s decision and Obama’s decision alone, and no amount of speculation about what Hillary might or might not have done has any bearing on that.
Did you read the post where I mentioned Godwin’s Law? You’ve got to get out of the “Hillary would have been worse” mindset (the Siamese twin of “Hillary did it too!”/”Hillary did it first!”) and focus on Obama now. The Hillary blame game is moribund, defunct, pointless, futile.
The primaries are over. Obama is the nominee now.
McCain? I won’t even get started on that sick bastard.
Neither will I. Nor did I.
So complain all you like, got any better ideas?
As a matter of fact, I do — but none of them will work now that Obama has been crammed down our throats (mine and yours). But since you asked, I’ll tell you how we, together, could have avoided this whole nightmare — although I expect you won’t like the answer:
Take the big money out of politics, and you’ve eliminated the legalized corruption of politics. Leave campaign financing in the hands of private donors, and you end up with truly excellent candidates like Dennis Kucinich, and truly decent candidates like John Edwards, dropping out. That’s the reason Edwards dropped out before Super Tuesday (the day he, and not Clinton, would have gotten my vote): He was outspent. His campaign was starved to death.
Private campaign financing makes for the most un-level playing field possible. That we ended up with the two candidates with the deepest pockets should come as no surprise.
So that’s my answer: Strike at the root, before you find yourself strangled into immobilization by an out-of-control weed. (In Obama’s case, we’re being chocked to death by kudzu.)
But that’s all moot now. The problem can’t be fixed. I’m tempted to fill an entire paragraph with old sayings about putting the toothpaste back in the tube and shutting the barn door after the horse has escaped, because that’s what it comes down to: It’s too late to fix it now. Obama is the nominee, and he shouldn’t have been.
That’s why I ended my post as I did: I don’t have any solution to this travesty. The problem could have been avoided if the Obama believers had just listened to us doubters, and taken our concerns as seriously as we did (and do).
And yes, I will keep complaining all I like. I’m hella angry with Obamaniacs (the ones who spit out “racist!” like an endless loop at every criticism of Obama, no matter how valid), and even angrier at those who refuse to admit their complicity in forcing an unvetted DINO on us.
I feel exactly the way I did in 2000: I was in the minority then — the minority of Americans who saw right through George W. Bush’s snow job — and now I’m in a minority within a minority: those of us who never bought Obama’s snake oil in the first place.
My only consolation — and it is a very small consolation indeed — is that at least I wasn’t responsible for this mess. I tried to stop this, in the only way I knew how, and so did 18 million other voters, and scores of clear-headed bloggers. Nobody listened, and so here we are.
You bet I’m angry. And I expect I’m going to be raging against the machine until the day I die.
It’s just a damned shame that the party I once believed in with all my heart and soul is the machine.
I wanted to update you on my latest plans before news gets out. Today, I am announcing my plan to join the Libertarian Party, because the Democratic Party no longer represents my vision for our great country. I wanted my supporters to get this news first, because you have been the ones who have kept my campaign alive since I first declared my candidacy on April 17, 2006.
Well, now, this changes things. Since I just found out about it — and since he doesn’t even have the Libertarian nomination yet — it’s far too early for me to make any immediate decisions.
I do, however, have a few thoughts:
1. If the Libertarian Party has half an ounce of sense, Mike Gravel will be its nominee, if on no other basis than Q factor + all those juicy crossover votes from Democrats who feel hung out to dry by being forced to choose between Obama and Clinton (and who are still pissed off that their first, or second, or even fifth choice dropped out before their state primary).
Now, hear tell there’s something like 15 other people competing for the Libertarian nod — which sounds like a lot of competition, until you realize you have absolutely no idea who any of these candidates are. (I certainly can’t name any without Googling, can you?)
In the early debates and who-knows-how-many interviews, Mike Gravel has done half the work for the Libs already. He won me over (after Kucinich, Gravel was neck-and-neck with Richardson as my number-two choice until Richardson made that lousy maricon remark).
2. Where the Libs will balk is on Gravel’s polar-opposite positions to some key issues, such as universal healthcare (Gravel supports it, the Libs don’t). In reality, Mike Gravel is the perfect Green Party candidate — but let’s face it, folks: the Greens just aren’t ready for prime time. (Hey, I’m a Greenie at heart, and even I can see that.) Moving into the Lib camp was a wise move for Gravel, financially and in terms of credibility.
3. The Obamacans are going to go insane. Yellow-dog Democrats won’t be too pleased, either, but the Obamacans are going to go absolutely insane when they realize how many votes from former Kucinich supporters, Edwards supporters, and newly-resurrected Gravel supporters will be siphoned off from their Heavenly Messiah Obama. And they will be siphoned off, big-time.
3. Of course Gravel won’t win the general election — and in truth, he will end up being a major spoiler to the “presumptive” nominee, Lord Barry Most High.
Will this result in President McCain? Frankly, I believe Candidate Obama will result in President McCain.
Of Obama and Clinton, I believe only Clinton stands a chance of beating McCain in the GE (and the latest Rasmussen poll agrees).
And I don’t believe Clinton is going to get the nomination.
4. I have problems with Gravel on two issues: the flat tax (in short, it really is unfair to the working poor) and Social Security (his plan for which sounds a little too close to privatization for my comfort — although on the surface I do rather like the idea of leaving surplus SSA funds to heirs, as long as he’s able to compensate for the loss).
Otherwise, I agree with Mike Gravel on every other issue. Everything. All of them.
5. One thing’s for sure: With Mike back in the race, it is not going to be politics as usual.
You really have it in for Obama; I’m not clear on why you think Clinton is a better pick (especially after your early faves in Demo-land were Kucinich and Edwards)
Don’t assume I made the leap from Kucinich to Edwards to Clinton without a lot of “help” from Obama.
Until the Donnie McClurkin fiasco last fall, Obama seemed a perfectly acceptable candidate to me. I was, frankly, ambivalent about him; I had planned on voting for Kucinich in the primary, and, knowing Dennis would never get the nomination, lining up to vote in the general for whichever Democrat did. I assumed that would be Edwards or Clinton or Obama, and I was fine with any of them (as fine as I could be, that is, since I know I’ll never really get the president I want).
But then came McClurkin, and— and, honestly, I’m so tired of writing about Obama and McClurkin (and at the moment, I can’t think of anything I want to say that I haven’t already), I strongly suggest you read all my entries on McClurkin, as well as Kirbyjon Caldwell (here and here).
Mind you, it was not solely the McClurkin issue that turned me off to Obama; it was (and is) a huge issue, yes, but it served more to open my eyes to everything else that is Barack Obama.
I discussed my revulsion at the way Obama mishandled the McClurkin flap with my better half. My question to her was: “Are his supporters right? Am I just piling on the guy because he used us to get the bigot vote in South Carolina, so I’ll never be able to see him in a positive light?”
The answer, we both decided, was no. The McClurkin issue forced me to take a harder look at Obama — his slim record, his flip-flopping (on issues having nothing to do with The Gay Thing), his convenient memory losses, his sucking up to the GOP, his whiney-ass schoolyard games, the vast emptiness of his rhetoric — and I didn’t like what I saw. And, as time went on, I began to see a very clear pattern in Obama: He was (and is) exposing his own feet of clay with each and every new incident.
You also need to understand that my support for Clinton is lukewarm, at best, and I’m not afraid to point out her missteps (although, in sharp contrast to Obama, has improved). Because Kucinich and Edwards dropped out before Super Tuesday, the only choices left on my ballot were Clinton and Obama — and by the time the California primary rolled around, I knew far too much about Obama to even entertain the thought of voting for him.
I gather that Clinton is someone you trust more on gay issues in particular. No one in my family has flagged Obama as weaker on these issues than Clinton; Obama may in fact be, but it hadn’t been brought up as a concern before I read your pieces.
Let’s say I dis-trust Clinton less than I distrust Obama on gay issues. In reality, their positions are very similar; the difference (on the gay angle alone) is that Clinton didn’t exploit raging, religion-based homophobia to win votes at the expense of gay and lesbian Americans, and then pretend she didn’t do it, and didn’t do it deliberately.
I’m thinking no one’s brought it up because during her Senate run she said she opposed same-sex marriage and would have voted for DOMA and apparently she remains opposed to gay marriage.
As DOMA goes (and she didn’t vote for it, as she wasn’t a Senator at the time), Hillary was wrong to support it when it was passed, and she’s wrong not to support its complete repeal now. (There is a “but” in that, which I’ll get to in a second.)
If you wanted a fight out of me on that, you won’t get it; I’m well aware of Hillary’s flaw here (she wants to overturn only one part of DOMA), and Obama’s strength (he wants to repeal the whole thing). I also recognize that Clinton has attempted to compensate for her earlier support of DOMA by striking a middle ground: retaining the part of DOMA that continues to leave marriage equality to the states, while overturning the part that would prohibit federal recognition of same-sex marriage.
While that would leave the possibility of federal recognition open, that’s not good enough for me. But (and here’s the “but” I warned you about a moment ago) — as much as I rail about having to take “baby steps,” especially when it comes to issues of full equality — I’m pragmatic enough to understand that Clinton’s approach is more likely to succeed, thus staving off another attempt by the Hard Right to write a federal marriage ban into the U.S. Constitution.
Yes, I understand very well that a constitutional amendment is a massive undertaking than can span decades, even generations — I cheered and pumped my fist in the air at ERA rallies in the 1970s, you know — but I also know that a wholesale threat to strip individual states of their so-called “right” to deny us equality would result in a backlash that would plunge the fight for equality back into the Dark Ages.
As much as I want federal recognition, and as much as I detest the “states’ rights” argument, I’m not above setting my emotions aside long enough to consider — and admit — that perhaps the “baby steps” strategy really is the most workable plan. I could be wrong either way, but as I often say, if you keep doing something one way, and it’s not working, it’s time to think about doing something else. That “something else” in this case, as it is fomenting in my thoughts these days, is to take the same path as that of anti-miscegenation: Go ahead, leave it up to the states — and then challenge each state, through the court system, to recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages.
That’s a hard road, a longer road, and one that promises to clog our already-overburdened court system. But I think, at least today, that a constant chip-chip-chipping away, state by state, may be the only practical way of getting there. Plainly put, the bigger a headache it becomes — i.e., the more time, money, and resources that are wasted — for each state to defend its archaic anti-marriage laws, the more likely… How does that Confucian (or perhaps Zen) saying go? “Water continually dropping wears hard rocks hollow.”
Now, it’s fine, even commendable, that Obama intends to overturn all of DOMA — and if he can manage to do it, I’ll be the first to thank him, praise him, and re-evaluate everything I’ve ever said about his commitment to equality. (Re-evaluate, mind you, not retract; he’s got a lot to make up for, and I will never accept the rubbish that he is a true ally as long as he remains opposed to full marriage equality — and until he completely repudiates all his “love the sinner, hate the sin” rhetoric, and patently ignorant and offensive remarks about giving us a “set of basic rights,” to “allow” us to live our lives “in a way that doesn’t cause discrimination” — for starters.)
But can he do it? Will he do it? I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume, generously, that he is sincere; after all, Bill Clinton was sincere about allowing gay people to serve openly in the military (he even made it his first priority, just days after taking the oath of office) — but look what that got us: “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Bill, for all his good intentions, was forced into that compromise.
And that is how, in retrospect, I perceive DOMA: It was a rotten compromise. It sucked. It sucks now. I hate it. But it did serve one purpose: as a stop-gap measure to stave off a major backlash, and at least delay the push for a U.S. constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.
Bill handled both DOMA and DADT badly, due to his underestimation of the anti-gay forces against us, and we’re still suffering for his lack of judgment. I don’t want anything like DOMA or DADT (or something worse that I haven’t even imagined yet) to happen again. And yet I am told, repeatedly, by Obama supporters, that as a gay person I’m a fool not to support Obama on his promise to repeal DOMA alone — whereas I see Obama ignoring the outcome of Bill’s promise to us, and the resulting DADT policy. Obama is taking a gamble on our lives in a way that’s already been proven reckless. And that in itself is reckless.
Since that seems that’s largely the raison d’etre of your site…
It depends how you look at it. The raison d’etre is to point out injustices and hypocrisy (legal and otherwise), in the hope it will open a few eyes and effect change, through the “water continually dropping” effect.
Marriage equality, of course, is a huge issue, but if we were granted full federal recognition tomorrow, I wouldn’t go away. (Sorry! LOL) I want to reiterate something I don’t think I say enough: Marriage equality is not a single, narrow lens through which I view life; it is a wide-angle lens which offers a nearly 360-degree view of countless life issues lost on those lacking the same peripheral vision.
I suggest you read what my better half (who is far more direct and succinct than I could ever hope to be) had to say about it recently, from the perspective of LGBTs being thought of as “one-issue voters.” In short, we’re not just fighting for the right to say “I do”; we’re fighting for a plethora of rights and protections that we would have automatically through federally-recognized marriage. As it stands (and by leaving it all “to the states”), we have to fight for each of those rights and protections, one at a time.
So, yes, marriage equality is a major reason for this blog, but not the only one. Frankly, I wish I never had to write about marriage equality again; I’d rather concentrate on eradicating homophobia on a social (instead of legal) level, through education, interfaith networks, whatever works through peaceful, nonviolent means.
I’d also like to spend more time celebrating gay culture, art, film, literature, and recognizing people (especially young people) and programs making a positive difference in the world.
But until we do get those “I do’s” and everything that goes along with them, I can’t.
…I’m surprised by just how much the Church Lady you can sound on the topic “Obama does not make me happy.”
Wow, that’s the first time I’ve ever sounded churchy to anyone. LOL
Monday’s guilt-by-association-with-Wright-rant was great. You slam Wright for brining up Lewinsky; you talk about how astonishing it is to see a Democrat mention that scandal…. and then you use Fox as one of your primary news sources for analysis of Wright’s statements?
I’m hard-pressed to find where I used Fox as one of my “primary news sources for analysis of Wright’s statements,” unless you mean the quote I cited from Fox recounting Wright’s Christmas and January 13th sermons from this article — in which case I don’t see a conflict; everything in that article appears to be factually correct, with little if any editorializing.
In the end, it was Fox that broke the story the MSM had been ignoring up to now; if you’d rather I’d quoted ABC or MSNBC (or even CNN, which came into the game last), well, I could, but as the other networks piggybacking on Fox have only supported Fox, why bother?
Following on that, your use of the term ‘heterosexual privilege’ in today’s leader was jolting.
One of the things you accuse Wright of is being racially divisive by pointing out the racism inherent in our culture; I have not heard him speak, but that sounds very much like a man pointing out white privilege to me.
I have no problem with pointing out white privilege — I’ve never once pretended I’m not automatically privileged by my white skin — but there’s a big difference between pointing out white privilege and 1) blasting all whites for black oppression in the 21st century, and 2) preaching a theology that seems to have no goal other than the endless perpetuation of anti-white hate.
The difference between Jeremiah Wright and me is this: I don’t blame all heterosexuals for my oppression.
And the difference between Barack Obama and me is this: If my “spiritual advisor” — since I don’t have one, let’s say Harvey Milk — had ever “preached” against straight society, and fired up the gay masses against straight society as a whole, I’d condemn Harvey faster than you could say “Anita Bryant.”
Pointing out white privilege can indeed make white folks very flinchy; we don’t like to admit how much of a pass we get.
Not this white woman. I do recognize my free pass, and I don’t like it one bit.
But I also don’t like being lumped in with every ignorant jackass who happens to share my skin tone. I don’t know how to make it clear to you, or to anyone else, that not all of us deserve to be the target of Wright’s harpoon, since all white people cry, “But I’m not a racist! Some of my best friends are…”
But I do recognize it, and I do fight racism, with the same angry passion as I fight homophobia. Without looking, I can tell you from memory that since I started blogging in 2003 (one of these days, I’ll have to move the old stuff over here, but if you want to find it, go Google the long-dormant “doublethink” blog at Salon.com; that was mine), I’ve blasted fark through George W. Bush for his Pickering nominating because I recognized the racism; I blasted some idiot Florida state rep (whose name escapes me) for making a joke about blacks and basketball because I recognized the racism; I’ve spilled tons of pixels attacking first-class jerks like Trent Lott and Ted Nugent and Toby Keith and that spawn of Satan Michael Savage because I recognized the racism.
I do see it, and I do scream about it. Loudly. Being white, it’s my responsibility to scream about it — precisely because I recognize how much more weight the words of heterosexual allies carry when speaking out about homophobia — and it is a responsibility I welcome.
It just pisses me off when everything I’ve tried to do is tossed aside because I’m white.
I guess some of us have never lived in a big city and seen a driving while black checkpoint in operation nor made a truly boneheaded traffic mistake and gotten off with a warning, nor seen an interracial couple getting harassed by local cops.
Wrong-O. I’ve seen it, and I’ve lived and worked amidst it. In my long entry about Michelle Obama, I mentioned that for a couple of years I worked as a photographer in the Los Angeles Unified School District. Who do you think attended those schools, the Waltons? Years before that, I lived near the corner of Wilshire and Crenshaw in L.A.; from the moment the news started covering the Rodney King riots live, I didn’t have to look at a map to see where Reginald Denny was getting his head bashed in — I could name every fast-food joint around the intersection of Florence and Normandie.
The only new thought that came to my mind was: “Denny is white… I am white… I would be killed without anyone stopping for one second to consider whether I was on their side or not.”
On the flip side, I could say: “I guess some of us have never lived in a big city” — or a small town — “and seen a driving while queer checkpoint in operation nor made a truly boneheaded traffic mistake and gotten off with a warning, nor seen a gay couple getting harrassed by local cops.” Or a straight person bashed because he was mistaken for being gay. Or a transgendered woman sentenced to a cruel death because of the paramedic who was supposed to be treating her after an auto wreck but wouldn’t touch the “chick with the dick,” the doctor who denied her treatment, and the host of other “care” givers who finally performed only the most perfunctory (read: half-assed) procedures after she lay unattended for half an hour, in a state of what was probably “sheer terror.”
As I wrote at Democratic Underground (ironically, regarding the way people gloss over homophobia yet go insane when it comes to racism, anti-semitism, etc.) nearly two years ago:
Now, listen: I am not playing the “my persecution is worse than yours” victim game. As far as I’m concerned, all persecution is equal; when you’re the one getting lynched, or burned at the stake, or herded into a gas chamber, your victimhood is 100%. And it doesn’t matter if you’re gay, or Jewish, or black, or even an Australian in the wrong place at the wrong time when a bomb goes off in an Indonesian pub. You’re just as dead as everyone else, and your family is just as destroyed as any other.
You could argue that Jewish persecution has occurred on a larger scale, and you’d be right; e.g., the Nazis gassed some 6 million Jews, and “only” about a million male homosexuals. But persecution is persecution, and dead is dead is dead.
Matt Shepard is just as dead as Anne Frank.
Anne Frank is just as dead as Emmett Till.
Emmett Till is just as dead as Brandon Teena.
And only by the grace of God (or providence) is that 17-year-old Texas boy not as dead as any of them.
Dead is dead is dead.
And hate is hate is hate. And while I can fathom the many reasons for it, I don’t think I’ll ever be able to accept the fact that the general public just doesn’t care much (or at all) when it’s the queers who are being bashed, murdered, or verbally assaulted.
Don’t you see? I don’t see any difference between homophobia and racism. They both destroy lives — whether we’re talking about the life of the gay man or the black man, or about the pervasive hate and fear that drive homophobes and racists to oppress, and beat, and kill.
But okay, so that’s racially divisive, a rhetoric that aggregates all members of a group into a group eligible for privilege.
And then today, you’re using heterosexual privilge, which is an idea that derives directly from white privilege? And in the following sentence, you lump all of your opponents into kinky Jesoids who want piss on you?
If by “all my opponents,” you mean people who use their religion as an excuse to maintain both my second-class citizenship and their privilege, then yes, I do.
Yes, I do lump my “opponents” together — but only not only into one big “Jesoid,” because there are plenty of non-Christian religionists who oppose my equality, too. However, it is only those who base their anti-gay crusades on their “deeply held religious beliefs” who oppose me at all. I have never once heard a secular argument against same-sex equality. If you’ve ever heard one, please clue me in; I’d be fascinated to hear a compelling argument that has nothing to do with religious beliefs.
Randall Terry — founder of Operation Rescue and absolutely maniacal anti-gay crusader — unknowingly made this point crystal clear (in part 2 of an essay he wrote bemoaning his son Jamiel’s homosexuality); bold emphasis mine:
But more simply put: Homosexual behavior is wrong because it violates the way our Creator made the world, and the Laws He gave us. This brings me to the most important part of this article: The Name, the Person, and the Standards of God.
If you have followed the fight over homosexual marriage, there has been a steady drumbeat to keep the Name and the Standards of The Almighty out of the debate. This, of course, is not new. Whether it is the debate around abortion, or over prayer in schools, or the Pledge of Allegiance, or the posting of the Ten Commandments in government buildings, there is a blatant, unashamed effort to drive the Name and the Laws of our Maker from the public square.
Tragically, many well meaning people in our camp have decided to go along with these rules. I tell you plainly: If we surrender on this point, we will lose the war. We will not win. We cannot win.
Why? Because absent the Created order and standards of the Almighty, there is no reason to oppose same-sex-marriage. Why should we deny two consenting people who love each other the right to be married?
The arguments against homosexual marriage involving children (having or raising them) won’t hold up. Older couples who marry cannot have children. And children are raised in homes without two natural parents every day. Sometimes a grandparent raises a child. These scenarios might not be optimum, but it is done by millions every day.
Arguments over “traditional marriage” are also of little value. We’ve had a lot of traditions that needed changing. This could be another one. Traditions are important, unless they stand in the way of liberty. Moreover, who is to say which tradition is the best? America’s, or ancient Greece’s or ancient Rome’s, where they openly practiced homosexuality?
The reason we oppose homosexual marriage is because it violates the way God made the world — it attacks the institution He created; it betrays and defies the Laws He gave us.
If there is no God; if we are the chance arrangement of molecules that happened to evolve from some primal swamp; if we are merely animals and there is no such thing as moral absolutes, good and evil, right and wrong — defined by the Ultimate Lawgiver — then anything goes. Let the homosexuals do what they want. Who are we to impose our morality on them?
But if there is a God who makes the rules, then He has imposed His morals on all of us, and we are obliged to obey and defend those ethics in the public square.
Here, for comparison, is a short discussion of the same subject by two atheists; the argument is essentially the same as Randall Terry’s!
Bottom line: There is no compelling secular argument against same-sex equality. It is always based on religion. Always.
That’s not to say I lump all religious people in with the bigots. I have only one complaint about the religious left: They won’t take the religious right to task. But then, that is an integral part of being a Christian: not judging others, but simply emulating Christ, turning the other cheek, being meek, that sort of thing.
Still, even Jesus got angry enough to turn over the moneychangers’ tables in the temple. I wish the meek-and-mild religious left would turn over a few more tables.
Ah well. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of a small mind, right?
Talk about damning with faint praise.
But you know what? I’ll take the faint praise; it’s one of the small benefits of refusing to march in lockstep with any group to which I belong, be it by default (women, gay people, Caucasians, Italian-Americans) or by choice (Democrats — and that’s subject to change at any moment).
The reason John Edwards dropped out seems clear to anyone who’s been following the 2008 presidential race closely. The NYT summarizes the official reason so:
It was a decision rooted simply in the political reality of the challenges he faced in the 22 states holding contests on Feb. 5, according to people familiar with the decision, and had nothing to do with the health of his wife, Elizabeth Edwards, who has been battling cancer.
More telling is this short paragraph:
Throughout the campaign season, Mr. Edwards had not been able to break through the dueling high-profile candidacies of Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama, and he had not been able to raise the kind of money that his two chief rivals had early on.
True. And the reason for that is the mainstream media itself: Just as the MSM is responsible for creating a great part of the myth that is Obama the Risen Messiah, there’s been a practical news blackout on Edwards.
Why that is… Well, nothing happens by accident in politics, and timing is never coincidental. You don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to guess that the big guys working the Democratic Machine decided it was time for Edwards to pull out — before Super-Duper-Whoop-De-Doo Tuesday. So he did.
It’s a shame, really; had Edwards any sort of chance to win the Democratic nomination, no doubt a significant number of us Kucinich supporters (and Richardson supporters, and Gravel supporters, and even Biden supporters) would have thrown our support behind him.
But that’s that, and now we’re presented with just two candidates, just as it was planned from the beginning. You were told more than a year ago that you would be choosing between Clinton and Obama, and now you are.
There is some good news on the “So long, and thanks for all the fish” front: Yet another Republican congresscritter has announced his decision to retire at the end of his term this year: Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia. Why? He’s “just very tired,” he says.
Davis’ exit brings the total number of Republicans leaving the House (either through retirement or by running for higher office) this year up to 28.
Last week, Repubs Jim Walsh of New York and Dave Weldon of Florida announced their plans to retire this year; their departures leave two vacancies on the House Appropriations Committee.
With the continuing exodus of Republicans from the U.S. House, and the generally-accepted calculations of “vulnerable” Republican seats come November (Raising Kane offers an excellent breakdown), it’s as close to a sure thing as a sure thing can be that come swearing-in day, 2009, we will have a heavily Democratic — and filibuster-proof — House. And with a Democratic president (after eight years of the BFEE, a houseplant could take the White House as long as it had a D after its name)…
I’d like to say “the country will be ours again,” but the truth is, the new president and Congress are going to be spending the bulk of their time cleaning up Bush’s messes both overseas and domestically. Maybe, just maybe, sometime during the 112th or 113th session of Congress might we see some actual progress on other issues.
That’s assuming the president we get doesn’t screw up so badly (*coughObamacough*) as to lose re-election and sour voters on the Democrats.
But for now, we can be content in the almost-sure knowledge that the White House and the House of Representatives will be delivered back into the hands of the grown-ups come November.
I couldn’t agree more (probably because I can’t think of any more ways to say it than I already have) with Margaret Cho’s assessment of this CNN article:
Gender or race: Black women voters face tough choices in S.C.
. . .
Recent polls show black women are expected to make up more than a third of all Democratic voters in South Carolina’s primary in five days.
For these women, a unique, and most unexpected dilemma, presents itself: Should they vote their race, or should they vote their gender?
No other voting bloc in the country faces this choice. …
CNN received dozens of e-mails shortly after posting the story, which focuses largely on conversations about Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama that a CNN reporter observed at a hair salon in South Carolina whose customers are predominantly African-American.
. . .
An e-mailer named Tiffany responded sarcastically: “Duh, I’m a black woman and here I am at the voting booth. Duh, since I’m illiterate I’ll pull down the lever for someone. Hm… Well, he black so I may vote for him… oh wait she a woman I may vote for her… What Ise gon’ do? Oh lordy!”
I too am insulted at the idea that just because I am a person of color and a woman that I should be expected to automatically vote for Obama or Hillary. Why are white men allowed to look at the issues and judge for themselves and the rest of us are expected to take sides grade school style? That is racist and sexist and dumb.
Amen to that. Detractors can believe it or not as they like, but I wouldn’t vote for a gay candidate just because s/he was gay, either. As I’ve said repeatedly, I don’t want a woman President, or a black President, or even a gay President; I want the best President — and if that President happens to be female, or black, or gay (or all three), then happy day in the morning! But assuming my vote has anything to do with race, gender, or any other incidental is indeed racist and sexist, and insults my intelligence.
Certainly, I will vote for a pro-gay candidate over an anti-gay candidate, but that’s not the same as voting for the woman, or the African-American, or the queer just because s/he’s a woman, or an African-American, or queer. (For the record, again, my ideal candidate this time around was Dennis Kucinich, the most pro-gay candidate of the bunch, who is a white, heterosexual male. Oh, yes, I’m still angry as hell with him, but he is still my ideal candidate.)
So, good on Notorious C.H.O., for reiterating what needs to be hammered into many skulls.
However: What in the world is Cho thinking (or, more accurately, not thinking) when she allows herself to be seduced by the utterly meaningless “hope” mantra of the Obama camp?
Still, I believe Obama and Hillary are the best candidates. …
Why Obama?
You’re right, Margaret: Neither gender nor race should enter into your decision — but I would think that as a bisexual woman yourself, you would take Obama’s repeated and continuous betrayals of the LGBT community into account.
I hate that people are saying that Oprah is some kind of gender traitor because she is backing Obama. Don’t even talk about Oprah unless you want to fight. I got a brick in my purse so watch it (remember, ladies — something heavy inside something light = weapon). I think it is wonderful that Oprah is getting involved in politics. It is brave and exciting and gives me lots of hope for the future.
Oprah? I think it’s a wonderful thing when anyone gets involved in politics — but Oprah’s track record isn’t exactly consistent. Let’s not forget that Bush’s 2000 campaign was languishing, badly, until his milestone appearance on Oprah’s show; the Oprah Effect on Bush was summed up quite accurately by both Kate O’Beirne and Bill Press:
O’Beirne: “[The race between Bush and Gore is] terribly tight. But we might mark George Bush’s boffo performance on ‘Oprah’ this week as the beginning of his comeback. And he certainly had no trouble explaining to that audience of women his tax-cut plan, how a single woman would get a tax cut under his plan, not under Al Gore’s, and it was very well received by those women.”
Press: “If I were the Bush campaign, I’d put George Bush on ‘Oprah’ everyday, I thought he did great today. Al Gore is on ‘Leno’ tonight. So it’s going to be the campaign of the talk shows, and we’ll see what happens. But clearly, Bernie, as we said the last time I was here, it’s a close race now, it’s going to be close, I believe, all the way down to the end.”
(Sure, Oprah had Gore on her show the week before — but talk shows aren’t bound by any “equal time” rules; heck, there isn’t even a Fairness Doctrine anymore — and the Republicans like it that way just fine.)
On the same edition of CNN’s “Inside Politics,” Candy Crowley said: “If you’ve got a gender-gap problem, and George Bush does, ‘The Oprah Winfrey Show,’ with its large and overwhelmingly female audience, is the place to be. … And whatever your dreams, if your quest to be president requires female, suburban, swing voters, then upscale, family-friendly Oprah is the one to, as she puts it, get a sense of politicians as human beings.”
Sure, Oprah smacked down Bush, hard… later, after the damage had been done. But Oprah was just one of a lot of people who woke up only after BushCo had been given free rein to bring this country to its knees. That doesn’t give me a lot of confidence in Oprah’s ability to judge a candidate on his merits, or predict what he’s going to do once he gets in office.
And while Oprah has been tossing a few nickels (to Oprah, $10,000 is just a few nickels) at Democrats since backing Carol Moseley Braun’s Illinois State Senate run in 1992, let’s not forget that she previously backed the Republican leader of the Wisconsin State Senate, Susan S. Engeleiter — who lost her ‘88 race, but who was chosen by George H.W. Bush as the next Administrator of the Small Business Administration.
And let’s not forget that it was Oprah who singlehandedly gave Donnie McClurkin the break he needed to become a gospel superstar: “[The song ‘Stand’] received a critical endorsement from daytime television superstar Oprah Winfrey. McClurkin told Jet, ‘She stood on television, held the CD up and said, “This is my favorite CD in the world. After you’ve done all you can, stand. You all need to buy it.”‘ The popular reception for ‘Stand’ and ‘Speak to my Heart,’ the album’s other standout single, earned McClurkin a certified gold record and a Grammy nomination, positioning him among contemporary gospel’s elite.” [Musician Guide]
I won’t argue that Oprah doesn’t do some good with her show — but she’s best at tasks such as, say, raising awareness about anorexia. Some might says she’s at her worst when letting Tom Cruise bounce around on her couch like a hyperkinetic jumping bean, but in reality, she’s at her worst when she uses her enormous influence indiscriminately. In endorsing Barack Obama — a candidate running on some fluffy cloud of good vibes, with virtually no plan behind his ethereal promises of “hope and change” (hope for what? change what?) — it is impossible to believe that Oprah has made any serious effort to pin down what Obama intends to do. The Big O has, like every other groupie, been seduced by a nice voice and good looks, happily oblivious to the lack of substance under the pretty surface.
Which brings us back to Margaret Cho:
I think that is what I love about Obama — he represents hope.
What kind of change? No matter who gets into the White House, Democrat or (God forbid) Republican, there will be change.
The question — for every Obama supporter, not just Cho and Winfrey — is: Exactly what kind of change are you expecting? That’s a difficult question to answer, because Obama himself has never offered a clue as to what kind of “change” he intends to deliver; at this late date, it’s obvious he doesn’t know the answer to that himself.
So, let’s try an easier question: What kind of change are you even hoping for?
And another hard question: What has Obama said or done that indicates he will deliver the kind of “change” you want? I want specifics. “He’s so inspirational!” just doesn’t cut it. L. Ron Hubbard was inspirational, too. So is the Dalai Lama. So is Suze Orman.
The difference is that I can tell you, specifically, what each of the three aforementioned leaders is all about, in ten words or less. I can’t explain Barack Obama after two full years of listening to him talk. Can you?
His youthful optimism appeals to me and his hope for the future enthralls me and these issues transcend race completely.
Arrrrrgh! Attraction to his “youthful optimism” and being enthralled by “his hope for the future” are not “issues” — they are emotions. An issue is healthcare. An issue is the war in Iraq. An issue is marriage equality.
I don’t care why you like him — I want to know why you support him. Hell, I like Cameron Diaz, but I wouldn’t support her if she ran for President on nothing but her good looks and charm.
On the flip side, I don’t like Hillary Clinton — I don’t find her particularly warm or endearing — but damn it, I know what she stands for. I don’t agree with her on everything (in fact, there’s a whole lot I don’t agree with), but I know what I’m getting, and I know I can live with it.
So my choice really for the next president is going to be very well thought out; I am between Barack and a familiar face.
Margaret, if your choice really “is going to be very well thought out,” then you’ll be voting for Hillary, not Obama.
Put the Kool-Aid down now, and start paying attention to what Obama is really saying — and not saying.
A post on a mydd.com blog was re-posted on another message board (which, because I genuinely like the board admin and don’t want to embarrass him any more than he’s already been by the mere presence of said post, shall remain nameless), under the subject line:
“This is what the Obama ‘movement’ is all about…”
Here’s the original post:
THE BAM”… PASS IT ON AT THE NEXT OBAMA RALLY!
Having caught “Obama fever” like so many others rallying in support of Barack, I experienced something at a Barack Obama Rally on Thursday, January 10 at the College of Charleston here in Charleston, South Carolina, which I felt was both inspirational and spontaneous!
As Barack worked the line following the close of his speech, there was a surge of people moving forward hoping to get close enough to shake Barack’s hand. Since I was standing about 20 feet back from center stage in the crowd, I felt the crowd down front tighten as many of us stood on our toes, stretched our bodies forward while reaching out to Barack. I noticed that a six foot tall guy who was standing in front of me had stretched far enough above the crowd and shook hands with Barack. As the guy drew back his hand I asked him, “You shook his hand didn’t you?” Happily the guy said “Yes.” I then said, “give me some of that” and the guy shook my hand with the same hand he had just clasped with Barack’s. A woman friend of mine who was standing next to me saw me shake hands with the guy. I turned to her and said “He [the guy] just shook hands with Barack,” to which she responded…”Hey, give it up.” We then shook hands. She then turned to the person next to her and shook hands. This chain of hand shakes went on for about five or six more persons.
I did not know the tall guy in front of me; he is white, I am black. But at the moment we shook hands, I felt some solidarity with this stranger, consummated by a handshake and signifying some unspoken agreement presumably about Barack Obama and his core message of UNITY!
I call this hand-shake scenario the “BAM” because, descriptively, it takes a bit of Obama’s name and it’s the sound of a collision, of People Coming Together!
My reaction:
If that’s “what the Obama ‘movement’ is all about” — the blind frenzy of a mob clamoring to touch the hem of his garment — then the Obama camp is scaring the absolute crap out of me.
What next? Obama raises the dead? Where does the line start to worship a fragment of The One’s sandal?
“Give me some of that”? Jesus Christ, people, GET A GRIP! Obama is NOT GOD!
“You don’t get it! Why do you hate hope? Why do you hate change? Let Obama change your life…!
Holy crap. Ho. Lee. Crap.
Oh, yes, I “get it” — which is precisely why it scares me. The writer sounds like every “est” convert I ever knew in the 1970s. And I remember People’s Temple, and Heaven’s Gate, and Waco, much too well not to be shaken to the bone by this blind madness over Obama.
This is beyond 1960s-era teenyboppers spending a precious five dollars on a one-inch square of bedsheet that one of the Beatles supposedly slept on. This is the guy in Priscilla, Queen of the Desert wearing a vial containing the holy relic of an ABBA turd. Neither Anni-Frid nor Agnetha — nor Obama — is the Second Coming of Christ!
To the writer, and especially to the rest of the adoring throngs blinded into a froth:
How do you expect the rest of us “non-believers” to take you — or your candidate — even half-seriously when all you can offer is this kind of cult worship I thought died out with the 1970s?
And people think Kucinich is nuts for admitting to seeing a UFO? This craziness dwarfs any UFO talk — by light years.
And: Do you have any clue whatsoever as to the fodder you’re providing far-right sites that exist solely for the opportunity to point out how wacko Democrats are? Do you even care how embarrassing posts like that are? I don’t know if such lunacy makes me more ashamed to be associated with the message board to which the message was cross-posted, or with the entire party.
Thank God I’m as dissociated from Obama and his apostles as I ever can be!
Gay City News reports on the overtly hostile Republican reaction to gay and lesbian voters in New Hampshire, the “quieter” Democratic outreach to LGBTs — and the Obama camp’s conspicuous silence on the entire matter:
The appearance of ACT UP members and other universal health care advocates at a John McCain rally in Salem, New Hampshire this past weekend — which by its conclusion had some Republican attendees ripping the signs from the hands of protesters and forcing them from the hall — was the exception rather than the norm at candidate gatherings across the state.
There was, in fact, little LGBT visibility at town hall meetings across New Hampshire, despite the fact that the advent of civil unions in the state on January 1 was among the biggest of recent local political stories.
Outreach to lesbian and gay voters and political efforts by them seemed to be taking place in quieter, more intimate settings. …
Members of the local LGBT community turned out, as did two New England gay political stars — Barney Frank, the Massachusetts congressman, and David Pierce, a state representative from Etna in northern New Hampshire, near Hanover.
Frank, as is his custom, emphasized that the fortunes of the LGBT community and of the Democratic Party are inextricably linked, dismissing Republican Mitt Romney as “synthetic” but warning that John McCain poses the greatest threat.
“We have an important role to play in this election,” he told the crowd. “We in the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender community need to work on changing the atmosphere of hate and fear that is sweeping this country. We need to improve the lives of all GLBT people and by working to elect Hillary Clinton for president, we can do it.”
He acknowledged, as well, the role that his sister, Ann Lewis, plays as a chief honcho in the Clinton political operation.
The leading Democratic candidates had small groups of staffers handling LGBT requests about their campaigns and calling on local gay businesses, such as bars and restaurants, and other organizations to drum up support. Candidate flyers, bumper stickers, buttons, and brochures were piled high in several such establishments.
Curiously, though, calls and visits to the official Obama for President headquarters in Manchester to get an official statement or to interview staff or volunteers proved unsuccessful. No one associated with the campaign wanted to go on the record, or even comment on background, about the Illinois senator’s posture on LGBT issues.
Despite a giddy mood that swept that campaign as it anticipated a second-straight win, which in the end did not materialize, it is not clear that LGBT enthusiasm for Obama’s candidacy grew measurably in New Hampshire after his dramatic win last week in Iowa. Voters who spoke to this reporter welcomed his voice in the race, but seemed uncertain how supportive of the community he would prove to be.
Clinton appeared all around to be a better-known quantity. …
“No one associated with the campaign wanted to go on the record, or even comment on background, about the Illinois senator’s posture on LGBT issues.” Well, we’ll be more than happy to comment on the Illinois senator’s posture on LGBT issues. Oops, wait — we’ve already commented on the Illinois senator’s posture on LGBT issues, repeatedly. His posture, in a single word, is: duplicitous.
Is it any wonder that LGBT Americans — particularly those previously lukewarm or even downright antagonistic toward the senator from New York — appear to be rallying around Hillary Clinton in increasing numbers? It’s no wonder to us; Kucinich, the most egalitarian of the bunch, doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell, while the other three relatively gay-friendly candidates (Richardson, Gravel, and Dodd) have dropped out of the race.
Funny thing, this growing gay support for Hillary: The Obama supporters have continually accused those of us burned and genuinely disheartened by the Donnie McClurkin affair as exhibiting “faux outrage” to mask the “fact” that we’re all Hillary supporters anyway. And now, thanks to Obama’s continued insistence on not making amends with the LGBT voting bloc — and the continued insistence of many of Obama’s supporters to dismiss our very real concerns as “faux” anything — has pushed untold numbers of LGBT voters squarely into the Clinton camp.
This, I know. A diehard Kucinich supporter — up to the day he threw his support behind Obama — I once said I’d rather jam sharp sticks through my skull than cast a vote for Hillary. As things stand today, I plan on voting for Hillary in the California primary. As my (much) better half often says, it’s not a vote for Hillary — it’s a vote against Obama.
For my radical change of mind, Obama and his supporters have no one to blame but themselves.
I sent this message when unsubscribing to the Kucinich campaign mailing list — and now I’m sending it to you (whoever fields these messages) in the faint hope that an actual human being might read it:
“HOW COULD YOU endorse Mister ‘Throw the Gays Under the Bus for the Southern Homophobes Vote’ Obama? Dennis, I have supported you unconditionally, and you were getting my primary vote in California. Now, tonight, after the Iowa caucuses, I may not vote at all — in the primary, or in the general election. What’s the point? I haven’t been so disappointed in a candidate (YOU) since Kerry so willingly conceded to Bush in 2004. I have NOTHING to look forward to now… except 1) a gay-hating Republican theocrat, or 2) a gay-hating Democratic neophyte. Thanks a lot, Dennis. Thanks a whole hell of a lot for throwing Iowa Obama’s way. Thanks for NOTHING.”
Addendum: I have been a yellow-dog Democrat since I could first vote, in the late 1970s. After this horrible fiasco in Iowa — for which I lay much of the blame directly at Dennis’s feet — I am finding it extremely difficult to come up with a good reason to ever vote again. The corporate suits are going to do what they want, the American people are going to continue to be blinded by the hype — and the one candidate I truly believed in appears to have succumbed to that same, starstruck blindness.
What’s the use in trying anymore? (Rhetorical question — there is none.)
The House of Representatives on Wednesday passed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act but with without protections for trans-workers after more than five hours of debate, wrangling, maneuvering and lobbying. …
. . .
After a brief debate on the [trans-inclusive] amendment in the House on Wednesday [Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis.] pulled it before a vote. It allowed Baldwin to speak in favor of trans rights on the record, but without a recorded vote Republicans will not be able to use transgender rights as an election issue in 2008. …
. . .
Democrat Jerrold Nadler (NY) disputed [its sponsor, Rep. Barney Frank]’s assertion that ENDA without trans protections was the best that could be done and said he could not vote for ENDA as long as it failed to include gender identity. …
. . .
Democratic presidential contender Dennis Kucinich also voiced his concern that the Baldwin amendment had been withdrawn without a vote. …
. . .
On Wednesday, following the vote, HRC president Joe Solmonese was all smiles. …
“‘If we do not have the votes to go forward (with the bill including trans-people) do we do away with the bill altogether?’” Frank asked the House.”
Yes, that’s exactly what you should have done, this session!
Notice who (besides Kucinich, of course) gets it right: Jerry Nadler, as usual. The straight congressman from New York’s Upper West Side has been a greater friend to the LGBT community than the spineless gay rep from Massachusetts. (It was Nadler, remember, who introduced the Uniting American Families Act, originally the Permanent Partners Immigration Act, in 2000, and who has re-introduced it every year since.)
And: “Even if a final version is approved by both houses it is likely to be met with a presidential veto.” We KNOW THAT — so if you’re going to push it through this term, why not go for the whole enchilada? It’s GOING to get vetoed, assuming it even passes the Senate.
And: To get ENDA passed in the House, they had to reassure the bigots it wouldn’t touch their precious DoMA:
Two other amendments to specifically address White House concerns were passed.
One would tie religious exemptions to the same wording as currently in the civil rights act. The other would specify that ENDA does not negate any section of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
P.S. Solmonese, we just don’t have the words for you. How can you sleep at night?
On Thursday night, AARP will host a debate in Iowa on the issue of health care.
Republicans and Democrats running for President will attend.
Of all of the Democrats and Republicans in the race, guess who is the only one who would put [AARP President Bill Novelli]’s buddies in the health insurance industry out of business?
Guess who is the only candidate among the Democrats and Republicans who would create a Canadian-style single payer, everybody in, nobody out, no deductibles, no co-pays, no in-network, no out-of-network, streamlined system that would save billions of dollars in administrative costs, deliver a higher quality health care system, and cover everyone? …
. . .
And guess who was not invited to confront Novelli’s corporate brotherhood of profit and death?
I find myself liking Dennis Kucinich more than ever these days — the Dem with the bad toupee is sticking to his guns on exposing Georgie Boy’s truth-bending shenanigans, by “introducing a Resolution of Inquiry in the House of Representatives to force the Administration to turn over the intelligence to back its yet unproven claims that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.” I also like the headline of this press release from Denny’s office: Kucinich: Show Us The Evidence, Mr. President.
Groovy, Denny! As you know by now, I’ve been pretty iffy about you since your flip-flop on the pro-choice issue, but you’ve redeemed yourself in my eyes in a number of different ways. I still don’t think you’re going to win the Dem nomination (although you could, if this nation of sheep would only pay less attention to image, and more attention to issues), but I do think you’d make a nifty running mate for my main man, Dr. Dean.
Incidentally, Denny also rates a mention in a piece today that focuses on our old pal, Rev. Al Sharpton. Now, I would never think of doing anything so bloody stupid as to actually vote for Rev. Al, in either the primaries or (on the weird chance he were to make it past the primaries) for president — come on, folks, you know he hasn’t got a chance in hell (two words: Tawana Brawley), and the Republicans are dying for Sharpton to win in order to screw the rest of the Dem candidates — but I do find him immensely entertaining these days; to wit: his dead-on remarks at Friday’s “Take Back America” conference:
“We have come out of war with weapons we can’t find, guided by a president who told us a year and a half ago we’re getting bin Laden — he can’t find him.
“Everything President Bush is after he can’t find.
“If you can find the weapons before the war, how come you can’t reveal the weapons now?”
You knew you wouldn’t get through a week of doublethink without another cliffhanger from the “Perils of Pauline” “Saving Private Lynch” story — didn’t you?
Oh, come on — this stuff is not only excruciatingly embarrassing to the warhawks, but it’s so absurd, it’s downright funny (well, to everybody except that poor, exploited, 19-year-old kid).
Bravo, Kucinich!
Kucinich Seeks Videotape of Lynch Rescue
Rep. Dennis Kucinich called on the Defense Department on Tuesday to release the unedited footage of the rescue of Pfc. Jessica Lynch from an Iraqi hospital and to answer questions about her injuries.
“Nothing the administration has said about Private Lynch has been verified by private news reports,” Kucinich, D-Ohio, said Tuesday. “It’s time to find out the truth.”
Attention has been drawn to the April 1 rescue since a British Broadcasting Corp. report indicated the dramatics surrounding Lynch’s rescue were unnecessary.
Reports of the rescue say the U.S. commandos broke down doors and went in with guns drawn, carrying Lynch out with helicopter and armored vehicle backup, even though there was no Iraqi military presence and the hospital staff didn’t resist.
The hospital’s staff has said they tried earlier to return Lynch to American troops but the ambulance carrying Lynch was fired on, so the driver sped back to the hospital.
Kucinich, ranking Democrat on the House Government Reform subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs and International Relations, asked Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in a letter to release unedited footage of the rescue and answer the following questions…
But, wait! There’s more! And it just figures that the ever-right-wing-drifting NBC would ignore the facts and stick with the “official” story:
NBC Still “Saving Private Lynch”
Never let it be said that TV executives let truth get in the way of good ratings. Today’s case in point: the Jessica Lynch story.
Despite new information coming to light effectively contradicting the Pentagon’s official version of events, NBC says it’s proceeding with plans to shoot Saving Private Lynch, a TV movie based on the former POW’s “dramatic” April 1 rescue from the Iraqi army.
Instead of scuttling the project, an NBC spokeswoman says network brass would “make the appropriate decisions” regarding the content of the telefilm as new details emerge. …
NBC, not wanting to miss out on the action and get a jump on its rivals, immediately went to work developing a telefilm about the liberation, even though details of Lynch’s capture and rescue were still murky…
Problem is, the gripping story was more Hollywood than Hollywood bargained for.
Investigative reports by the likes of the BBC, CBS’ 60 Minutes and other news outlets have shown that the military version of events played up a drama that wasn’t that dramatic.
Among the biggest revelations: Iraqi soldiers had abandoned their post at the hospital days before U.S. special forces moved in; American GIs were offered the use of a master key, but opted to kick the doors down Rambo-style instead; Lynch did not return fire at her Iraqi captors nor was she wounded or mistreated, as initially reported; and, perhaps the biggest surprise of all, days before her “rescue,” Lynch’s doctors attempted to take her via ambulance to American forces but were forced to turn back after being shot at. …
Meanwhile, Lynch’s family has remained mum on the conflicting reports.
“We’re really not supposed to talk about that subject,” Lynch’s father, Greg, told the Associated Press. “It’s still an ongoing investigation and we can’t talk about nothing like that.”
Lynch herself is reportedly suffering from memory loss and doesn’t recollect anything about her ordeal. The West Virginia native is recovering at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C.; while she wasn’t shot or stabbed, she did sustain multiple broken bones, including a serious injury to her back, which will require months of therapy for her to walk again.
If you missed last night’s televised debate among the nine (!) Democratic presidential hopefuls, you missed a scene that was curiously heartwarming to those of us desperate to spend time with some intelligent Washington denizens for a change. They could have done nothing but sit around a table and play poker without diminishing my enjoyment of seeing this wide variety of personalities and hairstyles (including that of mop-topped mediator George Stephanopoulos) in the same room.
First thought: I never realized how much Dennis Kucinich looks like a young Ross Perot. (Sorry, Dennis; I love you dearly for your courageous anti-war stance — even if your abortion flip-flop makes me nervous.) Now, I could give Kucinich my final vote, but that’s because I don’t need a candidate to look like a Kennedy; unfortunately, most of the American public is far too hung up on image to give a guy like Kucinich a chance; he’ll never make it past the primaries.
Steph played devil’s advocate, practically begging the lady and gentlemen to go on the attack against one another. But (despite some relatively mild snippiness between Kerry and Dean, giving Bob Graham the opportunity to play peacemaker) everybody kept it pretty civilized, saving their choice zingers for that guy who lives in the White House (Kerry: “The one person in America who does deserve to be laid off is George W. Bush”).
Predictably, it was Al Sharpton who elicited an audible collective gasp from the audience with his parting shot, in which he said the Bush tax cut is “like Jim Jones and Kool-Aid: It tastes great, but it’ll kill you.” Pure Reverend Al.
On the rest of the issues (as best as I can summarize without a transcript), it went something like this:
Nobody likes the PATRIOT Act. Nobody thinks sodomy should be outlawed. Al Sharpton is the only one of the bunch who favors federal licensing of handguns. Kerry wants to take back the flag; Dean wants to take back the country.
Graham called himself “electable,” while Dean took the party to task for being indistinguishable from the Repubs (a good poke at Leiberman), while Holy Joe says he’s with Bush on defense and “morality” (referring to his Clinton- and Hollywood-bashing) and against him on the economy — and still, apparently, buys into the whole “Saddam was an imminent threat” hogwash. That prompted Reverend Al to say we could have disarmed Saddam by continuing to work with the U.N. — and, best of all, that the fact no weapons of mass destruction have been found is proof that the “war” was illegitimate.
That gave Carol Moseley Braun the chance to get into the issue of the bazillions we’re spending to keep the troops in Iraq, and build up their country (while ours goes to hell).
Somewhere in there (mostly in his closing bit), Kerry worked in his Vietnam vet’s status (a smart thing to do), and capped it with another shot at Lieberman: “I’m the only one running for this job who’s actually fought in a war, Joe. I’m not ambivalent about it.”
And to Steph’s obnoxiously blunt “You can’t win,” Moseley Braun shot back, “That’s what they said when I ran for Senate.”
Kucinich, incidentally, got lots of extra brownie points from me when he said he wanted to kill both NAFTA and the WTO.
Oh, and Dick Gephardt was there. I pay so little attention to him under any circumstances, I almost forgot to mention his presence. From under his hair-helmet, The Dick yammered on about his firsthand experience with Homeland Security or some damned thing (at which Dean chuckled and reminded him that state governors have plenty of experience in that arena). Maybe if The Dick would find a bloody spine, I’d pay more attention. Can you believe he actually had the audacity to remind his fellow Dems that they can’t afford to be “Bush-lite” — when he himself is second only to Lieberman in that department? (Okay, third, behind that continually shameless sell-out Tom Daschle, but Tommy’s not in the race — thank God). Well, at least Dickie wants to repeal Bush’s tax-cut plan, so he’s got something right.
As for John Edwards… Don’t like him, never will; he’s a warmonger, anti-choice, and has no problem with the Patriot Act other than the way it’s being enforced — which means there’s not much he could say (short of backing gay marriage, which ain’t gonna happen) to convince me to listen to him. So I went to the bathroom while he tried to sell himself, which was a much more productive use of my time. But I did hear him scold Lieberman for supporting Bush’s flawed economic policy of cutting taxes and relying on big corporations to bring America out of her slump: “That sounds like Reaganomics to me.” (Umm, maybe ’cause it isReaganomics, Johnny?)
Should anyone run across a transcript of the debate, I’d love to see it; this is all from memory, and I’d like to grab a few of the choicest quotes of the evening.
Tweet This Post! 
