The End of Iraq

I just watched Peter Galbraith on C-SPAN's Q&A discussing his new book, The End of Iraq. Galbraith, a former diplomat with tons of personal experience in Iraq, especially among the Kurds, retreads some familiar territory in describing the terrible blunders the Bush administration made in its hell-bent invasion of Iraq and total cluelessness about how to handle the country post-Saddam (though he does offer some mind-blowing anecdotes, like the story of three Iraqis who visited the White House shortly before the invasion and discovered that President Bush was not familiar with the Sunni-Shiite divisions within Islam!).

The C-SPAN interview was weak in that host Brian Lamb did not probe Galbraith for his specific ideas about what do to in Iraq now that the mess has been made. Reviews of the books indicate that the author is an advocate for a divided Iraq, which he calls "three states in one nation." Clearly a Kurdish partisan, Galbraith suggests that the US could maintain its military presence in the region via an independent Kurdistan, and essentially turn over the remainder of the country to the already-politically stable Shiite south, and a Sunni-governed central area. He argues that such a division would quell the sectarian tensions that currently dominated the so-called unified Iraqi nation and actually gain us a military advantage against Iran (how, I'm not sure; guess I'll have to read the book).

free speech, the flag, and property rights

A big stir up in Louisville this week involving education, free speech--and a lesser appreciated liberty these days: property rights.

A week ago today 7th grade social studies teacher Dan Holden decided to burn a couple of small American flags in class to provoke debate and thought about free speech among his students. I was a seventh grade social studies teacher myself once upon a time, and still work in the education business (now as an administrator), and I've got to admire Mr. Holden's courage: I really believe he thought he was responding to what educational research has been telling us for a long time: many students learn visually and emotionally--they have to be engaged to learn and remember. I am quite certain those students will never forget the day Mr. Holden burned a flag in class.

I hope they also understand and remember his point. I'm not sure they will, and Mr. Holden may pay a heavy price for his educational riskiness. There was an (easy to expect) outcry from parents, who were both outraged at his actions but also concerned about safety issues involved when teachers set fire to classroom objects. Mr. Holden has been placed on non-instructional duty while the Jefferson County Public Schools investigates his case.

The real issue Mr. Holden has revealed, however, is not that flag burning is protected speech. It's one more subtle, and one that civil libertarians often miss: that free speech is inextricably linked to property rights.

I do not have an absolute right to free speech. Most people get that slander and liable are not protected speech--but the issue is bigger than that. I ultimately have free speech only on property that belongs to me, or where I have gained the permission of the property owner. I cannot burn flags in the middle of McDonald's, for example, unless for some strange reason the company's ownership is okay with me doing so. But I could burn a flag in my front yard, or perhaps in a public park, for all the world to see. I could not steal my neighbor's flag and burn it (this is theft and destruction of private property), nor could I brandish the burning flag in my neighbor's face (wanton endangerment), nor could I yell and scream in a way that would disturb my neighbors in the quiet and peace of their own homes (disorderly conduct). But if it's my flag in my yard and I'm not infringing on anyone else's rights, then I have freedom of speech and the freedom to burn it.

Mr. Holden was not, of course, in his yard. He was at work and acting in his capacity as an employee. I hope the JCPS understands Mr. Holden's intent, but if they decide that flag burning is not an acceptable activity for their employees, they are completely within their rights to restrict his speech. I hope they give him a second chance, and that he understands the limits of speech in the work place, but more importantly I hope his students have an even richer understanding of liberty than perhaps even Mr. Holden intended.

A peacenik goes to war

My opposition to the war in Iraq has been a focal point of my political thinking since Bush started speeding the nation toward this conflict in 2002. Despite international and widespread domestic pressure to the contrary, Bush proceeded with the invasion and left us with a terrible mess. Frustration over the war, and Americans’ blind acceptance of Bush’s justifications and continued use of misinformation was a major reason Todd and I started this blog just over a year ago: we felt the need to do something to speak out.

Now, four years since the war-talk began in earnest and three and a half years after the invasion, America is at a crossroads. The national consensus is that the war was a mistake and that the government has committed a terrible blunder in its prosecution. Folks are angry and want change, but there is no greater clarity on what to actually do in Iraq than when our tanks first entered Baghdad. Democrats may capitalize on this frustration by winning elections this fall (and I hope they do), but ultimately they need to offer some solutions. And with a heavy heart, I have decided that “Bring the troops home now” is not the right solution.

To make myself clear, I offer a dozen well-documented reasons why Bush has been a disastrous president on this issue: His administration:

1. Decided in advance to invade Iraq before there was intelligence to justify such an invasion.
2. Exaggerated intelligence about WMD’s.
3. Exaggerated the connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.
4. Are either liars or morons: If the intelligence was falsified or exaggerated, that’s inexcusable dishonesty; if the faulty intelligence was believed, that’s inexcusable incompetence.
5. Ruined our international reputation by promoting this faulty intelligence in the world community and then proceeded without genuine multilateral support.
6. Invaded Iraq without an adequate understanding of sectarian tensions within the country and assuming it would be a quick in-and-out operation.
7. Invaded without allocating enough manpower or equipment to properly secure the country, in direct defiance of the requests and advice of generals in charge on the ground.
8. Devoted untold resources to this invasion that should have been used in the struggle against Al Qaeda (and just where is Osama, anyway?).
9. Declared “Mission Accomplished” when the invasion was over, but long before the war was won.

10. Continues to insist on a connection between Iraq and 9/11, even though he admits Iraq had "nothing" to do with the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
11. Uses the war in Iraq and the broader “war on terror” to defy the Constitution and restrict the very civil liberties that make America free.
12. Refuses to acknowledge any of these mistakes, or to articulate a viable strategy for actual victory in Iraq.

Liberals, libertarians, populists and independents may have allowed their anger over all these screw ups and acts of dishonesty to cloud clear thinking about the current reality of the situation. While the invasion may have been misguided and mishandled, I have become convinced that to pull out of Iraq would leave the Iraqi people in the midst of chaos, further destabilize the Middle East, and encourage actual terrorist organizations and activities. At the risk of having my liberal membership card revoked (and getting some serious grief from my friends), here are my arguments for fighting for a stable, free Iraq with a long-term, maybe permanent, US military presence:

1. This has been said so many times it’s a cliché, but it’s true nevertheless: if we leave Iraq the already near-civil war will turn into an all-out bloodbath. After wrecking the country’s infrastructure and wiping out its government, we have a humanitarian duty to help these people avoid total annihilation (liberals, after all, aren’t about taking a “screw ‘em” approach to disadvantaged peoples).
2. While there may have been no actual Iraq-Al Qaeda connection before the war, the Sunni insurgency, embodied in folks like the late terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, is clearly driven by the same ideology as the Islamic extremists who committed the 9/11 atrocities. Though not intentional, the war in Iraq has opened a new front against our actual enemies, and a post-American Iraq dominated by the Sunni insurgency will be a certain haven for real terrorists.
3. A three-state solution, while worthy of consideration, has to guard against Shi’a dominance. A post-American Iraq dominated by Shiites would be a haven for expanding Iranian influence in the Middle East. This, to me, is the sole argument for insisting on a unified Iraq.
4. Iran (especially a nuclear-armed Iran) and Syria pose serious threats to the region and to the international community because of their unabashed support for terrorism. The recent war in Southern Lebanon was a result of an emboldened Hezbollah, well-armed and supported by Syria and Iran. And while I’m pleased the fighting has ended, Hezbollah has reason to claim victory in the conflict because they have survived to fight another day.
5. The greatest threat to freedom in the world is religious extremism, whether it is Islamic extremism in the Middle East or Christian extremism at home. Just as we need to fight for changes in political leadership within the US, we must be prepared to fight against organizations and regimes worldwide that use their extremist ideologies to attack innocents and threaten governments. This is no phantom threat, and it will not be defeated quickly. A semi-permanent military presence in the Middle East might offer us some advantage in influencing the region and provide a degree of deterrence against Iran, Syria and other legitimate threats.

So, how do we actually “win” in Iraq, when the situation seems so un-winnable? I think at least three broad responses point the way. First, we need to abandon the idea that we’re getting out anytime soon. If Iraq has any hope for becoming a semi-stable, semi-free nation, it will take a long time. Our desperate, well-intentioned effort to get the country back on its feet and set up a government before the government was secure may have actually encouraged the insurgency. They saw a great opening in the instability.

Secondly, we are going to need a much larger commitment of troops and resources to secure Baghdad and Anbar province. Michael Gordon, interviewed on Fresh Air last week, is co-author of Cobra II, considered “the definitive history” of the Iraqi invasion. Gordon carefully documents how the Bush administration defied the wisdom and advice of military generals in carrying out the war, and expresses his hope that the war can eventually be won by making a long-term effort to provide security, nurture democracy, and eventually support the government in taking care of itself. I might add that this will be more than a military commitment. Major humanitarian efforts need to be enhanced to rebuild the country’s civic and social institutions and especially its economy.

Finally, we need a regime change here at home. Rumsfeld and Rice should be fired for their arrogance and incompetence in deciding to go to war and in prosecuting it, and Bush should be impeached for his failure of leadership. This won’t happen, of course, and so the most realistic thing we can hope for is a change in Congress, which by controlling purse strings and acting as a check on the Executive branch may influence the direction of the war. To do this, though, Democrats will need a unified and coherent strategy on the war, something a little more substantive than “Stay the course” or “Bring them home.” So far, they have not put forth such a strategy. America and Iraq can’t wait much longer.

The argument, of course, is that the extremist ideologies and sectarian violence runs so deeply in Iraq that they will never make peace with themselves, will never tolerate our presence and will never open up to democratic or economic reform. I think liberals should be careful using these kinds of generalizations about whole groups people (I have been guilty of this myself), and also careful about self-fulfilling prophesies. Americans may not have the political will for the long-term fight involved in securing and supporting Iraq (and this is largely because of the failures of the Bush administration in the invasion and occupation), and so I recognize the most likely outcome here is an eventual pull-out of Iraq before the nation is secure. The result will be just as we have predicted: violence, destabilization and more terrorism. We can blame this on Bush, and that may make us feel better, but the truth is that we will make it happen if we get out now.

So, against all odds, I am staking out a new position on the war. It was wrong, it was handled wrongly, and to simply leave now without a post-war plan would be wronger still. Liberals, libertarians, independents, populists, and conservatives need to pick up the pieces the Bush administration has left and try to make something positive, productive and peaceful from the results.

BLUE DEED OF THE WEEK

Support Judge Anna Diggs Taylor

“On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, a federal judge from Detroit, ruled that the Bush administration’s much-vaunted domestic spying program was unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it. Could this be the beginning of the American people waking up from the long national nightmare that has been the Bush administration and its “war on terror?” Let’s hope so.”
—Jackson Sun

call: 313-234-5105 and let Judge Taylor know you stand behind her!

Ron Lewis needs to buy a clue

Mike Weaver, Democratic candidate for Kentucky's 2nd Congressional district, got some headlines this week by offering to pay for part of motorists' gasoline at a Ratcliff station on Wednesday. Weaver paid the difference so that drivers could get gas for $1.20 a gallon, the same price as when Congressman Ron Lewis, Weaver's Republican opponent, was first elected in 1994.

Lewis called it a cheap stunt, which of course it is. But then Lewis asked the U.S. Attorney's office to investigate whether the Weaver event was in fact vote buying.

Give me a break. I really think voters are going to respond to that. Maybe Lewis should have gotten his gas at Weaver's station and used his savings to buy a clue.

"No Kings in America."

A major victory yesterday. A U.S. district judge declared the Bush spying program unconstitutional. Anybody want to go to Cincinnati to protest outside during the appeal?

Dispatch from Indiana's "Bloody 8th"

Today NPR's Morning Edition featured a report from Indiana's Eighth Congressional District, where I used to live. This Southwest district of a Very Red state has been so hotly contested in recent years it earned the name the "Bloody 8th." Linda Wertheimer profiles the race between Republican incumbent John Hostettler and Democratic challenger Brad Ellsworth, mayor of Evansville. It looks like in Indiana, like elsewhere in the country, the Dems are running on a platform of "We're not to blame for the mess; vote for us instead." Still, Hostettler must be running scared from the sounds of the tacky smear ad he's airing against Ellsworth.

“Screw Diplomacy, I Say We Kicked Some Islamic Fascist Butt!”

Leave it to W to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. No, I’m not talking about Iraq, where we’re trying to stave off civil war over three years after he swaggered aboard the U.S.S. Lincoln under a “Mission Accomplished” banner. I’m talking about Lebanon. Last week he invented a new “Fear Factor” term: “Islamic fascists.” Yesterday he used it for Hezbollah during the first day of a fragile cease-fire in South Lebanon.

Then he continued to beat a dead horse by bragging that Hezbollah had been defeated. I’m going out on a limb here to say that’s probably not the best way to build trust in a fragile peace, ya think?

Mr. Bush: diplomacy sometimes requires that you keep quiet and listen, something it appears you can only do during a national disaster when Americans are stranded on their rooftops.

For a sane insider opinion on the South Lebanon massacre, Read this article by Jewish-Lebanese-American Henry Picciotto.

Cracking down on "decency"

I live in Kentucky's Second Congressional District, where Republican Ron Lewis is facing his first serious challenger in Mike Weaver. We got a slick, one-page, double-sided mailing from Lewis this week proclaiming his accomplishments for our district. His list:

• Combating methamphetamine
• Expanding access to affordable health care through Medical Savings Accounts
• "Cracking down on broadcast decency" (sic; italics mine; I loved the delightfully ironic typo)
• "Protecting the institution of marriage"
• Providing tax relief by trying to make permanent the $1,000 per child tax credit, ending the marriage penalty, and offering tax incentives for parents who adopt.

I have no problem with Lewis' ideas for medical savings accounts and tax relief (though they benefit a restricted portion of his constituency). The rest is relatively useless crap that does not match up with the highest priorities of most Kentuckians.

Mike Weaver has a chance to make a change in Congress, but he's got to be willing to articulate an agenda that has more relevance and meaning than Lewis. I'm waiting....

Nashville: The "New Ellis Island"?

Bob Moser writes a fascinating, in-depth and flat-out disturbing piece for the Nation about Tennessee's current immigration battles. Most interesting is how well-meaning, idealistic populists can, in times of social distress, turn their anger toward the wrong people. Story here.

Reason offers a lengthy look at why there is, in fact, no immigration crisis, and how not to deal with a non-problem.

Big Terrorist Plot Uncovered

I just saw the lead story on NPR: a plot to blow up planes between Britain and the US has been uncovered. More on the story here. I'm sure that the GOP will respond to this in a partisan manner and attack Dems as weak on terrorism...

Gimme That Old-Time Dissent

Check out Joshua Micah Marshall’s articlein Time on how Lieberman lost the nomination the old-fashioned way — by getting too comfortable with Washington insiders and losing touch with his constituents back home. Here’s a quote:

Many pundits claim that Lieberman’s defeat is a replay of the way Democrats tore themselves apart over Vietnam. It’s an appealing thought for Republicans. And it has got nice drama. But those pundits are either being disingenuous or are caught in a time warp. Democrats are actually fairly united on the Iraq War in their opposition to it — which is actually where most Americans are right now. And though many Senators are not as full-throated in their opposition as the base of the party, you don’t see any successful challenges being made against other Senators who aren’t ready to bring the troops home.

The GOP Reacts to Lamont Victory

Click here to hear the GOP strategy in November. Heh, heh!

The Lamont victory in Connecticut is a shot in the arm for real Democrats — the kind who will stand up to the President and his do-nothing party in Washington. But winning back the Congress will be a long uphill battle.

The war will be issue number one in mid-term elections. 62% of Americans disapprove of Bush’s handling of the war, they only give Congress a 36% approval rating, and almost two-thirds think the country is on the wrong track. While high gas prices and healthcare costs are important, Americans are most concerned about the war.

There are 29 open house seats. The Dems need 15 to win back control of the house after 12 years in the minority. Can ballance be restored in Washington? Here are some races to watch. Email me with other suggestions.

• Democrat Nick Lampson is planning to take back Tom Delay’s House seat in Texas’s District 2. He’s now running against Wallace, who’ll be a write-in candidate. Could be a feather in the Democrats’ cap.
  
• New Jersey Republican Tom Kean Jr. is in a dead heat with incumbent Democratic Senator Robert Menendez.
  
• Virginia’s anti-war Democrat Jim Webb is trailing 11 points in his bid to beat pro-war GOP incumbent George Allen for the Senate.
  
• Wisonsin’s 8th district Republican House speaker John Gard is running against Democratic challenger Steve Kagen, who was leading by ten points in last month’s poll I read.
  
• GOP Rep. Bob Nay of Ohio has just dropped out due to the Abramov scandal. GOP choice Joy Padgett may be ineligible. Democrat Zack Space is the nominee who hopes to retake the seat in November.

Meanwhile Back in New Orleans

This just in…

NEW YORK A photographer for the Times-Picayune of New Orleans who has undergone severe personal trauma since Hurricana Katrina hit was arrested Tuesday after trying to get police to shoot him to death. Full Story.

We shouldn’t forget that a major American city is still functioning in the third world, and that thousands of our citizens are barely coping as they wrestle with insurance companies, roll the dice with a levee system no better than it was pre-Katrina, and try to get back to normal life in a city where things will likely never be normal again.

I’ve written quite a bit about NOLA in my blog called Tennessee Crowbar Krewe.

A "certain kind of Democrat"

Lots of passionate banter among my co-workers today about the Connecticut primary (among my colleagues are an Iraq war veteran, a libertarian-leaning Republican, and a centrist Democrat Connecticut native). The general consensus of everybody but me: the Dems just committed political suicide by nominating somebody too liberal to win, and the Republicans will steal the seat in November.

Maybe they're right, but I think Leiberman has to be held accountable for his support of the war and his feeble opposition to the rest of the Bush administration's tyrrany. What have the Democrats stood for lately that clearly makes them different from the Republicans (I'll give you the minimum wage as an exception)? To make my point, I opened up the pages of this week's Time magazine and read the following words:

The Congressman who is running to replace retiring Bill Frist as Senator from Tennessee has voted to outlaw gay marriage and to repeal the estate tax, and wants to amend the Constitution to ban flag burning. He supports getting rid of the andgun ban in the nation's capital and says the Ten Commandments should be posted in courtrooms around his state. He favors school prayer, argues that more troops should have been sent to Iraq and wants to seal the border with Mexico.

The Congressman in question is, of course, Harold Ford, Jr., and the article goes on to proclaim that a "certain kind of Democrat" like Ford has a real chance of winning in the Volunteer State this year. But I have to wonder, what exactly do Tennesseans "win" by a Ford election? Maybe, perhaps, they hold the line somewhat against the forces of rabid, reactionary, theocratic conservatism. But that's it. And if that's what we've become, then we've lost so much ground against the forces of the right that we need far more creative thinking than this.

Don't get me wrong: I live in Kentucky, land o' McConnell, and I wish I had a Democrat like Ford to vote for up here (up here where the name "Ford" also once meant a "certain kind of Democrat"--but that guy was a genuine centrist who makes Harold Jr. look like a member of the John Birch Society). What's a Dem to do? I know exactly what I would have done in Connecticut last night....

We the Peephole…

Newsday political cartoonist Walt Handelsman has a great animated send-up of the Patriot Act called “Pirates of the Constitution,” complete with a George W. Bush parot. I hope Gary gets a kick out of this one while he’s polishing his Lamont for Congress button.

Strip Lieberman of Committee Assignments

Check out Daily Koz for his response to Lieberman’s independent bid for the Senate. I’m with him. Clinton said vote for Lieberman because he’s a “good Democrat.” Now he’s proven that he’s not. Email Harry Reid now and ask that he protect the party and strip Lieberman of all committee assignments. The voters of Connecticut have spoken and now Lieberman is saying “screw you” to the voters and the party. He’ll now get GOP money and support.

Here’s my email:

Senator Reid:

As a loyal registered Democrat who wants to see my party retake the Senate, I urge you to strip Joe Lieberman of his Committee Assignments and give them to a real Democrat. It is now completely clear that Lieberman has no intention off respecting the voters or the party.

Thank you for your voice of dissent on the War in Iraq. The Lamont victory is proof that the people are behind you. Keep fighting the good fight to bring our soldiers home.

The Democrats have a chance to really make a change now. Lamont has proven the party can win only when it stop being afraid to lose. No more Republican-Lite. Let’s stand up for Democratric values and win back the Senate.

A Whole New Ballgame

With 86% of precints reporting in Connecticut, it looks like the impossible has happened. Lamont did it. He beat Lieberman and set an example for how to win in '06 and '08. Here it is folks, plain and simple: Be a real Democrat and stop apologizing for Bush's war in Iraq.

It's a whole new ballgame now. Look for Jack Murtha and Harry Reid to start getting more respect. Look for Hillary, who's already called the war a huge mistake, to continue her 11th-hour conversion. Look for the press to start paying more attention to antiwar Presidential hopefuls like Kucinich and Feingold. And look for Democrats to start planning photo ops Crawford Texas where antiwar mom Cindy Sheehan has bought land nearby W's ranch with money from her son's death.

I'm thrilled. I'm ecstatic. And I'm hoping Harold Ford, Jr, the next Senator from Tennessee, will have a change of heart on the war.

Iraqis Are Quietly Fleeing

Baghdad Burning, the most-read blog from Baghdad, says Iraqis are being forced out of the city by Sadr's followers. It appears that middle class Iraqis of all ethnic and political stripes are being targeted.

Since the beginning of July, the men in our area have been patrolling the streets. Some of them patrol the rooftops and others sit quietly by the homemade road blocks we have on the major roads leading into the area. You cannot in any way rely on Americans or the government. You can only hope your family and friends will remain alive- not safe, not secure- just alive. That’s good enough.

Bareheaded women are insulted and attacked on the streets b y Islamic Extremists who were release under the occupation. Riverbens says hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have left her country this summer, and that she is thinking of giving up on her beloved country to keep herself alive.

A New Pentagon Papers?

Vietnam antiwar hero Daniel Ellsberg just published a thoughtful article calling for military personnel to publish any evidence they have of lies and deceit in the Iraq War.

Democrats More Trusted on National Security

A Question from Tony Snow’s Press Gaggle today in Crawford:

Q Tony, there’s a new Washington Post poll out today as to which political party people would trust to do a better job handling the U.S. campaign against terrorism? And Democrats got 46 percent, Republicans got 38 percent. Are you concerned that in this particular category, in which Republicans have always done better than Democrats, here, as well as in other categories, Republicans are falling behind?

Still haven’t seen any exit polls for Lamont today, but I can already hear the Dems beating their swords into plowshares. Hillary is running to the front of the antiwar pack to act like she’s leading it.

Help Iraq by Leaving

This interview explains why invading and occupying Iraq was a bad idea and why the best thing we can do is give the Iraqis space to find there own way, forcing Sunnis and Shiites to make some compromises and set up a shared government that works.

The longer we stay to help, the longer it will take to work things out. Not because we do things badly, but because we “do things” at all. Things like taking three years to restore water service because we are upgrading the entire system. Things like cozy up to "local leaders" who are just back from exile in Iran and have no street cred anyway. Former British Diplomat Rory Stewart talks to Dave Davies on Fresh Air.

ID cards and "secret laws"

I've had several friends question the standard civil libertarian criticism of national identification card efforts, and I'll admit that it's a complicated issue. But John Gilmore's case points out the dangers. Gilmore has been fighting since 2002 to get an explanation for why Americans can't fly on airplanes without identification, when there is no such law on the books dictating such. Turns out the FTA issues "secret" guidelines to the airlines, which normal citizens may not view but neverthless must obey. This is just plain scary. Details on Gilmore's website.

Waving at the Ford Bandwagon

I just got this email from Chris Jackson, a blogger for Harold Ford Jr.:

Hey Todd, how have you been?  Hope you are well.
 
The reason I am emailing you is in regard to helping me in the blogosphere in support of Congressman Ford this fall.  As you know, he will be facing Bob Corker in the general election this November, so he is going to need all the help he can get. 
 
Already, conservatives, moderate and hardcore alike, are falling in line on the blogosphere for Corker.  I am hoping we can do the same thing for Congressman Ford.  This race is crucial as you know.  Not only can we elect a Democrat here in Tennessee, but this race would give us control of the Senate if we were to win.
 
Now I know that you do not agree with the Congressman on every issue.  I respect that.  However, I hope we can all put aside our differences and work for what is best for this state and nation.
 
We can’t allow Bob Corker to be our next U.S. Senator.  We have already saw what a Republican millionaire Senator can do for us. 

So will you be willing to part of the Ford Grassroots Blogsquad?  We need good people like yourself to stand behind the Congressman in this campaign.  The Republicans are standing behind Corker now.  Lets show them that we are ready to take this country back.

I hope you will stand with me in the coming months as we try to defeat the extremism of Bob Corker and the Republican Party.
 
Please email me back to let me know.
 
Thanks, Chris

It’s tempting to jump on the Ford bandwagon. Our state needs a Democrat to restore balance in the Senate and bring back representation for moderate and liberal Tennesseans that has been sorely lacking for so long. But as I wrote here and here, I’m not beating the drum for Ford until he changes his position on the war. He is out of step with Tennesseans. Here’s my reply to Chris:

Chris:

I appreciate your interest, but I’m not a “solid” supporter of Ford. I met him recently in Nashville, of course I will vote for him. But as my blog shows, I don’t agree with Ford’s position on the war, gay marriage, and immigration reform. I hope that Jack Murtha will have some affect on Ford, especially concerning the War in Iraq.

If Lieberman loses in Connecticutt tomorrow because of his unquestioning support for Bush’s war in Iraq, it will be a whole new ball game for the Democrats, and we may start to see some real change. That is what we progressives in the party are hoping for. I believe that Democrats including Ford could make some strong gains if they would have the courage to agree with a majority of Americans that this war is harming American soldiers, our economy, our domestic and foreign policy.

I wish you well in the Ford campaign — clearly we need to break the GOP’s stranglehold on our Congress, and to replace Frist with a Democrat. I hope we get a REAL Democrat and not Republican-Lite. I believe the party of my parents and grandparents cannot start winning again in Tennessee until we stop being afraid to lose. We need to stand-up to right-wing fearmongering, stand up to big oil, stand up to the healthcare industry, and stand up for our brave soldiers who have become the world’s biggest target in Iraq.

I do hope you’ll drop by Bluenecks and leave comments.

Best,

Todd

 

The Friggin’ Obvious Award

General Abizaid finally managed to find his ass with both hands yesterday and admitted that Iraq might be on the brink of a civil war. I mentioned this to my wife across the kitchen table. Her reply: “No shit, Sherlock!”

With the daily body count spiraling upwards and only 35% of Americans believing it has been worth the cost in dollars and lives, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki appeared before Congress last week asking for more money and to keep our soldiers in Baghdad. News flash people: we’ve spent over $301 billion to date in a war that could easily last another decade. Just ask Rumsfeld, who predicted a 12-year run back when Bush was gleefully calling himself a “war President.”

To say we’ve overextended ourselves in Iraq doesn’t begin to describe the orgy of spending, bombing, spending, rebuilding, and — oh yeah — more spending. And what the hawkish GOP knows is that it’s the Americans in diapers who will get stuck with the bill.

Up in Connecticut, Joe Lieberman may be the first Senator to wake up and smell the coffee. Lieberman is being challenged by an anti-war Democrat. Why? Because Lieberman can’t admit that this war is dragging America to the poorhouse and creating more terrorists than we can kill. Democrats have senior leaders who are preaching the truth: Senator Harry Reid and Congressman Jack Murtha, who both publicly oppose the war and have the ears of Washington. Can someone please change the batteries in the Democrats’ hearing aids?

Meanwhile back in Baghdad, Three years after Bush declared the war won, the average daily death toll from all sides has risen from 20 per day in 2003, to 36. Sectarian violence including hideously creative bombings, kidnappings, and executions continue to increase. Even worse, our soldiers face mounting accusations of murders, rapes, and executions. The fact of the matter is this: America wants to see this end soon, like today. Meanwhile the Republican leaders of this military spending spree are running lose with our credit card.

Support Tennessee Families: Vote No on 1

My daughter Chloe’s best friend is Katie. They met at the same school, they sit together at church, and they’ve been to each other’s birthday parties. So this summer when my daughter got two tickets to “Barbie in Fairytopia,” Chloe wanted to invite Katie. The girls had the time of their lives. They clapped for Barbie, they booed the bad dragons, and they feasted on popcorn and cotton candy.

The thing is, Katie has two mommies. This may seem odd to some people, but it’s becoming more common in Tennessee. These two women met, fell in love, had a ceremony in front of family and friends, and managed through artificial insemination — like many infertile couples — to have a child. And here’s the shocker: Katie is great. She is a perfectly normal 4-year-old girl.

This discriminatory amendment also threatens a spouse’s right to make medical decisions, the right to medical information, inheritance without a will, child custody after one parent’s death, and Social Security Survivor’s benefits. Do Tennesseans really want to say to Katie that she can’t be on either of her parent’s health insurance? Do we really want to make it unconstitutional for her parents to share all the legal rights that Chloe’s parents do? I don’t think so. We Tennesseans are better than that.

A vote either way will not affect church beliefs or policies one whit. Just as the State recognizes marriages between divorced people and the Catholic church does not, gay civil marriage would not affect any church anywhere, nor require it to perform ceremonies. I am proud though, that Katie’s family joined our church and has been welcomed in the Christ-like fashion more churches are coming to support.

A recent survey shows that there’s no nationwide majority to support a gay marriage ban. Let’s stop the far-right minority from stirring up descrimination. Our Constitution promises liberty and justice to all Americans. Doesn’t that include Katie and her two mommies? Do the right thing for Tennessee families on November 7 and vote “No” on 1.

Take this pledge to vote “No” and tell your friends.

Freedom for Crazy Talk

Kevin Barrett is one of those nutjobs whose hobby is to run around proclaiming that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were in fact planned and orchestrated by the Bush administration (as much as I detest the Bush administration, this is just silly).

Kevin Barrett also happens to be a part-time lecturer at the University of Wisconsin. This seems perfectly normal. Many nutjobs also happen to be college professors (no offense to my many friends and family in higher education). However, there is no evidence that Mr. Barrett has ever discussed his oddball views in class or that his ideas influence his teaching at all--and this has been confirmed by a investigation on the part of UW's chancellor. Nevertheless, a number of Wisconsin legislators are trying to get Mr. Barrett fired from his job.

In a country where freedom of speech is no longer valued, why should academic freedom be any different? But what is freedom if not the liberty to engage in crazy talk? When college professors can be fired for crazy talk (especially crazy talk outside the classroom), then there is no hope for freedom at all.

Taking Down My Yard Sign

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: The Democrats won’t start winning until they stop being afraid to lose. Fielding candidates that are “Republican Lite” is not the way to re-take the House.

I like Harold Ford’s scrappy attitude, but he’s on the wrong side of the war and voted to criminalize churches that aid illegal aliens even in normal food pantry and family aid programs. As a Christian I believe in the Bible’s teaching against oppressing the poor and foreigners.

“You shall not oppress a hired servant who is poor and needy, whether he is one of your countrymen or one of your aliens who is in your land in your towns” — Deuteronomy 24:14

So far Ford’s only TV spot attacks big oil — an easy and deserving target — but I fear Ford would bring more of the same for Tennesseans who are not as far-right as President Bush. I want to see the GOP headlock on Congress broken, so I’ll hold my nose and vote Ford. I’ve had progressive friends at my home who have questioned Ford’s positions. Maybe He’ll change his position on at least one of these issues, but until then I like can’t wave the Ford flag anymore.