The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Obama Calls on Bush To Admit Iraq Errors

'Limited' Troop Reduction Urged

By Peter Slevin

Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 23, 2005; Page A03

CHICAGO, Nov. 22 -- Sen. Barack Obama said President Bush should admit mistakes in waging the Iraq war and reduce the number of troops stationed there in the next year. But the Illinois Democrat, a longtime opponent of the war, said U.S. forces remain part of a solution in the bitterly divided country and should not be withdrawn immediately.

Without citing specific numbers, Obama called for a limited drawdown of U.S. troops that would push the fragile Iraqi government to take more responsibility while deploying enough American soldiers to prevent the country from exploding into civil war or ethnic cleansing or a haven for terrorism.

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) greets well-wishers at the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations after he said the administration has not given straight answers to critical questions on Iraq. (By Jeff Roberson -- Associated Press)

Obama also faulted the administration for tarring its critics as unpatriotic naysayers and said it launched the war to topple Saddam Hussein in March 2003 without giving either Congress or the American people the full story.

Straight answers to critical questions. That's what we don't have right now, the high-profile freshman senator told the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations. Members of both parties and the American people have now made clear that it is simply not enough for the president to simply say 'We know best' and 'Stay the course.'

As other Democrats are finding their voice against Iraq policy, Obama took an approach closer to one taken by Senate Foreign Relations Committee colleague Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) than to that of Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.). Murtha, a former Marine, called last week for an immediate pullout of nearly 160,000 U.S. troops.

Four prospective Democratic presidential candidates -- Biden, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.) and former North Carolina senator John Edwards -- have advocated a more gradual approach, with no sudden steps. Biden called Monday for the withdrawal of 50,000 troops by the end of next year and all but 20,000 to 40,000 out by January 2008.

Obama told the audience of about 500 people that the war has siphoned assets from homeland security and the global anti-terrorism fight. He said the administration's attempt to equate the defeat of the Iraqi insurgency with the defeat of international terrorism is overly narrow and dangerously short-sighted.

In a 35-minute speech scheduled just days ago, Obama argued that public opinion has raced ahead of politicians in seeking a clearly etched policy that helps produce stability in Iraq and the Middle East without exposing the United States to a war without end -- a war where our goals and our strategies drift aimlessly, regardless of the cost in lives or dollars spent.

Those of us in Washington have fallen behind the debate that is taking place across America on Iraq. We are failing to provide leadership on this issue, Obama said.

He maintained that Bush could take politics out of the Iraq discussion once and for all if he would simply go on television and say to the American people: 'Yes, we made mistakes. Yes, there are things I would have done differently. But now that I'm here, I'm willing to work with both Republicans and Democrats to find the most responsible way out.'

yet he worked through his adolescent problems and worked his way to first black president of the Harvard Law Review. What an extraordinary man.

It's one thing when former high-ranking members of your own Administration come out against your war. It's another thing when two-thirds of the country calls the invasion and occupation a mistake. It's really something when your own church issues a statement urging you to pull out the troops now.

Last week, the United Methodist Church Board of Church and Society--the social action committee of the church that both President Bush and Vice President Cheney belong to--resoundingly passed a resolution calling for withdrawal with only two 'no' votes and one abstention.

As people of faith, we raise our voice in protest against the tragedy of the unjust war in Iraq, the statement read. Thousands of lives have been lost and hundreds of billions of dollars wasted in a war the United States initiated and should never have fought.... We grieve for all those whose lives have been lost or destroyed in this needless and avoidable tragedy. Military families have suffered undue hardship from prolonged troop rotations in Iraq and loss of loved ones. It is time to bring them home.

The board also issued a strong statement against torture, urging Congress to create an independent, bipartisan commission to investigate detention and interrogation practices at Guantanamo, Iraq and Afghanistan.

It is my hope and prayer that our statement against the war in Iraq will be heard loud and clear by our fellow United Methodists, President Bush and Vice President Cheney, said Jim Winkler, General Secretary of the UMC's Board of Church and Society. Conservative and liberal board members worked together to craft a strong statement calling for the troops to come home and for those responsible for leading us into this disastrous war to be held accountable.

With its bold stands against the Administration, the UMC is fulfilling the words of Martin Luther King Jr., who called for the church to be not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion but a thermostat that transformed the mores of society.

Bush has asserted that he entered Iraq on a direct order from God. Now, he has a direct order from his own church to leave. Is he listening?

is making GROSS $250,000 from his business, he is definitely not wealthy in my book. On the other hand if his taxable income is $250,000 I see nothing wrong with him paying more taxes than someone with a taxable income of say $40,000.

I do not believe that Obama is going to tax the rich to give to the poor. I have not heard that a single time from his MOUTH. IF and I say IF, he is successful, your father-in-law would most likely get a reduction in taxes. This thing of Obama the modern day Robin Hood is so far out in left field it doesn't even deserve serious consideration. People seem to believe McCain whatever he says.

Culture: The Battleground for the American Soul

I don't know if anyone cares how I feel after Election Day. In case you do, here's the scoop; I'm happy, with some reservation.

I'm happy to live in a democracy where my vote counts, and no more than the next guy's. I'm happy to be able to trust government workers to tally the ballots. I'm happy there are winners and losers, and happy to hear concession speeches peppered with �I'll be back� and �Don't lose hope.� Yes, today I'm happy � I'm very happy to be an American.

My reservation is deeply seeded. My concern has little to do with partisan politics, with house or Senate control. I could care less about red or blue or right or left. And for goodness sake, I'm rather indifferent to the emotional pull of a clunky elephant or a rickety donkey.

Having followed the major issues and the hottest campaigns of this midterm election, I'm concerned that Americans � on both sides of the aisle � are losing the ability to know what they are fighting for, and why it matters. I'm concerned we are losing the battle for the American soul.

�A Battle for the American Soul?� To some, the phrase itself may sound like simplistic punditry � mouth-candy, clich�, and pass�, altogether juvenile.

If I didn't live in Europe, I might agree. But a few years on this side of the Atlantic, combined with regular glances back at the history books, I am convinced America has possessed and still possesses a unique, positive and powerful soul, carried in the hearts of her citizens. In this century alone, it has saved the world more than once.

I am also convinced that now, as never before, the American soul is the target of heavy and deadly fire. The sharpshooters, this time, come primarily from within.

Sordid politics can't take the full blame for our predicament. The real battleground for the American soul is CULTURE.

The word is not easy to define. I think it is a nation's portfolio of values � her priorities, ethics, conceptions, and traditions. It is the common philosophy of life, a mindset, and mentality, a way of judging, acting, and reacting. Culture, we can say, creates in us a collective understanding of who we are and what we are about.

While culture is bigger than politics, in a representative democracy like ours, the quality of politics is a cultural bellwether, a group bill of health. From the sight of all things political these days, I would say our culture is sick.

Some have said the outcome of this election was all about Iraq. I don't think it is so simple. Large numbers of Republicans have proven themselves untrustworthy in character and policy. In their tenure as majority leaders in Congress, they have done some good things, but they have vacillated in their stated priorities. They have failed to push forward the confirmation of important judgeships, truncated integral immigration reform, and most recently, were weak on social ballot initiatives like the Missouri stem cell research amendment and mandatory parental consent for minors seeking abortions.

The deeper problem is not policy. It is the superficial nature of political discourse. Republicans have set themselves up as the pro-life, pro-family party, and its platform promises to protect both. But much like the Democrats, its members have been unconvincing in explaining why they believe what they do. When is the last time you have heard a politician explain why life is precious, and why it is sacred? When is the last time you heard a politician give a discourse on the origin and foundation of human rights? When have you heard a Congressman or Senator lay out a reasoned explanation of a just war, given the new type of unconventional enemies?

This dumbing-down of politics is both a consequence and cause of cultural decline.

Democrats are now in the spotlight and we are watching. On Wednesday, new House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi pointed to a painting behind her, hanging on the wall of the Library of Congress. She signaled a figure burning a scroll of learning and trampling on the Bible. The title of the painting was �Corrupt Government.� She explained:

�It is a harsh image to see a Bible underfoot, but it makes a powerful point: corrupt government undermines our values. We come here today to support those values, and to lay out an agenda for a new era of honest, open, and transparent government.�

It would seem Nancy Pelosi is saying the values of America can be found in the Bible. I am impressed. Maybe she knows America was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs and plans on entering the battle to save the American soul. To do this, she will have to hold Democratic policy up to that very high standard. I'm not holding my breath.

If there is one thing to remember, it is this: culture, not politics alone, determines our national identity, and building culture is the responsibility of us all. We can do it in our homes, schools, and places of work, even as politicians fumble around on Capitol Hill. If you need a guidebook, ask Nancy Pelosi. She just might point to the Bible.

I love Father Jonanthan, but I don't believe Nancy Pelosi is going to be pointing anyone toward the Bible, because she would have to throw the Democratic party platform right out the window wtith the other hand. But, I believe the Bible is the guidebook. And, in God's own words, (paraphrasing), Let ye who are called by my name turn from your sin and pray, I will hear from Heaven, forgive you and heal your land. Ye who are called by my name, I believe that to be Christians. Let it start with me, then, because I love my country and the principles she was founded on, and I would love to see her restored. God bless!

Tammy Bruce, guest host for Laura Ingram's radio show, had some harsh words for First Lady Michelle Obama.

Discussing the first lady's visit to a Washington D.C. classroom last week, Bruce incredulously recalled Obama's story about wanting to get A's in school and called out her use of a "weird, fake accent."

"That's what he's married to," Bruce said. "...You know what we've got? We've got trash in the White House. Trash is a thing that is colorblind, it can cross all eco-socionomic...categories. You can work on Wall Street, or you can work at the Wal-Mart. Trash, are people who use other people to get things, who patronize others, who consider you bitter and clingy..."

Tammy Bruce, guest host for Laura Ingram's radio show, had some harsh words for First Lady Michelle Obama.

to speak about her. Why won't she be interviewed? What are the repubs hiding by keeping her in a cocoon?

Here is a link to "A Letter to My Republican Father" that I came across yesterday. I think it makes some awfully good points about John McCain. It may be helpful for anyone who is undecided about him:

see a depression in our lifetime that would be 10 times worse than the great depression. This was back in the ླྀs. My husband always hung on to that statement and believes this is it. It's coming and there is nothing that will stop it. That's why we have been buying extra canned and dried goods when possible. We always made sausage and smoked a lot of pork but of course, we can't have animals here because of zoning, so we buy from a local farmer.

I know how to make bread and butter and have plenty of flour stored, but butter is going to be another issue since we don't have a cow and the last dairy farmer went out of business 10 years ago.

for 30 years at GM. He was a salvage worker so he wasn't one of those guys who sat on his butt all day long making a ridiculous amount of money. My dad retired in his 60s because his health didn't allow him to continue working or he would have. I know how unions work and how they "protect" the employees. I've also seen the proven statistics about how non-union states are more production and have higher job growth and as far as protecting your job.....no ones job is protected especially nowadays. People are getting fired left and right so where is the protection. What good was that auto bailout when all that money pretty much went to pay off the unions. Unions are nothing but democratic pushed BS.

The truth is that unions are essentially parasitic organizations that thrive only by draining and ultimately destroying the companies and industries they control. The essential goal of the unions is to compel the payment of higher wages for the performance of less work and less productive work. Unions are notorious for their hostility to labor saving machinery and to any form of competition among workers, for featherbedding practices, indeed, for �making work� by deliberately and arbitrarily increasing the number of workers required to accomplish a given task and sometimes even by compelling the disassembly or destruction of products already produced.

It should be no wonder that the percentage of the labor force controlled by unions tends progressively to decline. Where the unions hold sway, companies cannot compete. Their market share falls and they ultimately go bankrupt. The only way that unions can maintain any given share of the labor force is by finding new victims to replace the ones they have sucked dry. The finding of new victims, by means of new government intervention is the unstated agenda of Mr. Stern, Ms. Milkman, and The New York Times.

The actual effects of labor unions are arbitrary inequalities in wage rates, mass unemployment, and substantially lower real wages for the average worker. Labor unions are aptly described as a leading vehicle of what von Mises called �destructionism.�

Whenever a union succeeds in obtaining above market wage rates for its members, it also reduces the number of workers who can be employed in its field. This is because of the operation of one of the best established principles of economics: Namely, the higher the price of anything, including the wage of any kind of labor, the smaller is the quantity demanded of that good or labor service.

Thus, workers who could have been employed in the lines controlled by labor unions are instead displaced and forced to seek work elsewhere. The added competition of these workers in other lines then serves either to depress wage rates in those other lines, thereby resulting in an arbitrary, union-imposed inequality in wage rates, or, if those other lines are also unionized or are forced to pay union wages in order to avoid becoming unionized (which is often the case), to cause still other workers to be displaced. It should be clear that to the extent that the effect of union activity is to depress wage rates in other fields, the union slogan �Live Better, Work Union� turns out to mean �Live Better by Forcing Other Workers to Live Worse.�

If wage rates in all lines of work are forced above the free-market level either because labor unions are able to impose their wage scales everywhere, or because upward union pressure on wage rates is joined by minimum-wage legislation, the effect is mass unemployment. In this case, there is simply no branch of the economic system that is allowed to pay wage rates low enough to make possible the absorption of workers displaced from elsewhere by the imposition of union wages. The result is the kind of situation presently existing in France and Germany, where unemployment is in excess of ten percent. And, of course, the cost of supporting the masses of unemployed falls mainly on the workers who manage to keep their jobs. Here higher taxes are their reward for �working union.�

And Obama calls this man his political father, his

Obama Calls on Bush To Admit Iraq Errors

'Limited' Troop Reduction Urged

Culture: The Battleground for the American Soul