Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Congratulations to DU Admins for Posting This Critique on Front Page

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
radio4progressives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 01:21 PM
Original message
Congratulations to DU Admins for Posting This Critique on Front Page
Edited on Sat Feb-25-06 01:22 PM by radio4progressives
Timidity of major media and top Dems combine to defuse public outrage
February 25, 2006
By Roger Bybee and Carolyn Winter

By now, progressives should stop hoping that the next colossal blunder or abuse of power by the Bush administration' will finally and magically ignite the public into rejecting the Bush Administration and its reign of incompetent crony capitalism.

(snip)

The ever-unfolding, multi-dimensional disaster of the Iraq War alone should be enough to inspire dozens of John Murthas in Congress demanding US withdrawal and unleash hundreds of Seymour Hershes in the media, unveiling torture, special rendition, and wiretapping. Instead, we have the voices of Sens. Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman joining the Republicans and the basic framework and dominating the voices of dissent that appear in the mainstream media. Rather than consistent coverage on the ruinous effects of the US war, we listen to NPR hosting a forum on the absurd question of whether Bush is too ambitious in trying to promote democracy in the Mideast. What' next? "Is Michael Jackson too ambitious in trying to spread happiness to children at Neverland?"

(snip)


From observing the US media's timid tip-toeing around massive scandals and leading Democrats' cowardly capitulation on critical issues, it should be clear that the major media and the top Democratic leadership are unwitting partners in enabling the Bush machine to rumble forward. This is especially true with regard to the ongoing appointment of competence-free cronies, the special deals for Halliburton, and the current port scandal based on the connections of John Snow with the Dubai company.
When long-time hawks like Rep. John Murtha finally speak out against the Iraq War in a concise and forceful fashion, they not only face predictable Republican Swift-boating, but also sabotage by the conservative element of the Democratic leadership -- like Hillary Clinton, Steny Hoyer, and Democratic Leadership Council.


(snip)

cont...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/06/02/25_timidity.html


Snipping was very difficult, so please read full article. The only flaw i would argue regarding this article is the failure to mention the obvious conclusions one must be compelled to draw.. or perhaps that is intended for the reader to discern. However, as I write this, there is an clear and orchestrated attempt to wield the final blow on the last vestigages of Unions and organized labor in this country over the Ports brouhaha.

The Democratic Leaders are not speaking a word about this, and yet they know it as much as you and I. The writing is all over the walls across this nation, and we have been here before. In recent decades, everytime events brings us to these moments, we lose more and more and more.

Yet the Democratic Leadership remain silent.

Surely, a Call for a General Strike across this country is in order, and it is the only thing we the workers (employed and unemployed, union members and non-union members) of America have at our disposal before they put up the final barriers. This article should be considered a clarion call to action - Let us not remain silent any longer.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
NVMojo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 01:22 PM
Response to Original message
1. incredible situation, thanks for posting!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 01:27 PM
Response to Original message
2. it is an excellent article!
eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Burried News Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 01:28 PM
Response to Original message
3. Thank you thank you thank you ...
"attempt to wield the final blow on the last vestigages of Unions and organized labor"

This story has manny dots to connect and this is surely one of them. Port workers will essentially take on the UAE when they strike.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 01:34 PM
Response to Original message
4. The typical Democratic office holder attacks on the Port Deal
will go for emotion, they will go for the easy quote about 911 and the U.A.E. I don't blame them for that part, those connections are real, and they are really worrisome. But they will avoid the bigger picture. They won't touch the increasing convergence between the interests of multi national corporations and the American government, because Democrats have been complicit in that , through inaction if not by intent, though that distinction carries less significance every day. It's no longer what's good for General Motors is good for the USA. It's what's good for the WTO transcends the USA. Capital is global. It's only working (and unemployed) stiffs who have trouble moving around the planet to wherever conditions are most favorable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. The media won't report Kerry's letter to Snow Tues, or Dodd's letter to
Edited on Sat Feb-25-06 01:49 PM by blm
Bush on Wednesday.

They both take the perfect approach - get behind the deals behind the deal. Uncover the crony corporatism.

I posted this the other day and think these letters are why all of a sudden you started hearing that none of them knew anything about the deal - even Snow.


Kerry's letter:

The Honorable John Snow
Chair
Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States
Office of International Investment
Department of Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Room 4201 NY
Washington, DC 20220

Dear Mr. Secretary:

I write to you in your capacity as Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) regarding the review and approval of the sale of Peninsular and Oriental Steamship Navigation Company to Dubai Ports World (DP). As you know, this sale would give DP, a company owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates, significant operational control over six major US ports.

Specifically, given the national security implications of this sale, I am concerned about the process by which this transaction was approved by CFIUS. First, it appears that CFIUS approved the sale as expeditiously as possible, without even using the additional 45 day investigation process that was clearly warranted under the circumstances.

Further, several media reports have cited ties between Administration officials and DP that raise questions about the basis for the approval of this sale by CFIUS. As you know, the CSX rail corporation, where you previously served as Chief Executive Officer, sold its port operations to DP in 2004. Moreover, the President's nominee for Administrator of the Maritime Administration, David Sanborn, was DP's Head of Operations for Latin America while this transaction was being reviewed by CFIUS. In light of these connections, Congress needs to learn more about the relationship between CFIUS members and DP, and whether Administration officials could have unduly influenced CFIUS's approval process.

Therefore, in the interest of full disclosure and the transparency appropriate under these circumstances, I request that you provide to the relevant committees in Congress all documentation and information relating to contacts between Administration officials, CFIUS members and staff, and DP, including any lobbyists or registered foreign agents working on behalf of DP.

Given the national security implications surrounding this transaction, it is essential that lawmakers have access to this information so that Congress can conduct meaningful oversight.
Sincerely,
John F. Kerry


Dodd letter:

The President
The White House

Washington, DC 20500

Dear President Bush:

I write to express my concerns regarding Treasury Secretary John Snow's involvement in the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States' (CFIUS) approval of the acquisition of Peninsular and Oriental Steamship Navigation Co.'s (P&O) U.S. port operations by DP World. As you know, DP World is owned and controlled by the Government of Dubai in the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

Prior to joining the Treasury Department in February 2003, Secretary Snow spent approximately twenty years working at the CSX Corporation, including as Chairman and CEO. According to press reports, Secretary Snow received $72.2 million in compensation from CSX in 2003 (including $33.2 million from a special retirement pension), and he has a stake in a CSX deferred compensation plan worth between $5 million and $25 million. In December 2004, after Secretary Snow's departure from CSX, that company's port business was purchased by DP World in a deal worth more than $1 billion. It is unclear whether Secretary Snow was involved in any discussions related to that sale before his resignation from CSX in 2003.

There may have been no actual conflict in Secretary Snow's involvement in the CFIUS process related to the review of DP World's proposed acquisition of P&O's U.S. port operations. However, given the highly sensitive nature of this matter it would have been better had Secretary Snow not been the Chair, or served in any capacity, of the CFIUS review in this case.

The security of some of our Nation's most important ports is at stake. I know you agree that an effective and unbiased CFIUS process is a vital component of protecting the national security of these ports. In order for the process to be effective, however, it must be transparent and free from not only any conflict, but also the appearance of any conflict. Secretary Snow's involvement in the CFIUS review has clouded the recently concluded review process.

I believe that the additional information that has come to light with respect to Secretary Snow and the DP World acquisition of certain CSX port business makes it all the more compelling that an additional, more extensive review of the P&O-DP World deal be conducted to ensure that all of the potential national security implications of this transaction have been fully analyzed. Furthermore, I believe that Secretary Snow should not serve in any capacity as part of CFIUS during its review of this matter. Given that our nation's security is at risk, I believe that this is the prudent way to proceed. I hope you do as well.

Sincerely,

Christopher J. Dodd

United States Senator
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. I'll agree to that to a large extent
But ever since Republicans managed to get milage our of pinning Gore as pursuing "Class warfare" back in 2000, for objecting to deals that benefited the few at the expence of the many, there has been a touch of timidity in Democrats. I know the media is at the heart of the dilema. I know they bury real attacks on the status quo or spin them againt those who make them. I understand that, but even now many Democrats still hesitiate to lead with that type of line, and I wish more power to those who still will.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
radio4progressives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 09:21 PM
Response to Reply #9
36. Kerry needs to sue the media for not carrying his message, that will wake
these fuckers up. take their asses to court, sue them for malfeasance and abdigation of due diligence in disiminating information the public has a lawful right to be informed of.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #36
38. I wish there was a law saying they had to do this
Newspapers always have had the freedom to choose their content. The broadcast band stations, in exchange for using the public airways, were regulated and had to carry public service information and during elections abide by the Fairness doctrine - but since Reagan all that regulation was eliminated. The argument was with the huge number of channels, all voices would be heard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bperci108 Donating Member (969 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #4
16. The Wobblies were right 100 years ago.
"Capitalism can't be reformed."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. I love the Wobblies. They still exist, but as a mere shadow n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bperci108 Donating Member (969 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. Perhaps, yes. (For now, anyway...)
But as the sun sets, that shadow is growing. :evilgrin:


"What better place than here; What better time than now?"

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 01:37 PM
Response to Original message
5. The problem always comes down to the media - Few in the media explained
Murtha's withdrawal plan as he laid it out, instead they went with the WH soundbite "cut and run" to describe it.

Fewer media even allowed Kerry's 1yr withdrawal plan to be heard - the WH didn't even have to give it an answer, the media buried it for them. When the corporate media gave Kerry scant airtime they continued to stay focused on just two storylines: A)no Dem plans for Iraq. B)Murtha plan to cut and run.

The media LIES. They LIE. They LIE AGAIN ... and then .... They LIE SOME MORE.

Do the Dems like Hillary form their positions KNOWING that if they put together progressive plans that make Bush look weak, the media will automatically distort them the way they did to Murtha or ignore them totally like Kerry?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
radio4progressives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. The Media is the enemy of the Working Class, that's why we need Leaders
to push back on that war, and we don't have leadership in the Party. The Dems that are "for" the working class, are marginalized/ghettoized too. They should be using everyting at their disposal to push back on the media and the corporatists in our party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mom cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #7
18. The dems Should be for the working class, but enough of them
have sold out. I do not think that the article goes nearly far enough in its analysis. The problem with the media and some politicians is that most have been bought off and the voices of truth are being systematically silenced.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. ?If they are smart they design the press release to max the media positive
response.

Anything too progressive will get strawman treatment and be dumped on by our media.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. And releasing a statement doesn't mean the media will use it.
A lot of times those statements get reduced to a single, sometimes paraphrased, comment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 12:50 AM
Response to Reply #8
23. If it says Democrat on it
and shows a sensible way on anything, it'll get dumped by our media. There isn't any way to get a message out for the majority of Democrats. Unless it serves the purpose of embarrassing the party, or the aspirations of one particular Democrat. It's been that way for 14 years.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 01:41 PM
Response to Original message
6. Excellent!
:applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 01:48 PM
Response to Original message
10. Some Democratic leaders have spoken up and continue to speak up
A few Democratic leaders do it all the time. Just one of many speeches, statements, interviews that can be cited:

U.S. SENATOR BARBARA BOXER DELIVERS REMARKS ON THE WAR IN IRAQ

December 20, 2005

In 1968, Martin Luther King told us: “If we do not act, we shall surely be dragged down the long, dark, and shameful corridors of time reserved for those who possess … strength without sight.”

Dr. King was talking about ending the Vietnam War. But 40 years later, his warning is increasingly relevant to the Iraq war.

Strength without sight has now led us into a war based on mistaken intelligence, and down a thorny path of pain for too long.

And none of us can afford to be silent, because as Martin Luther King also said: “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.”

So we must have the courage to speak out about things that matter.

It matters that 2,158 servicemen and women have given their lives in Iraq, leaving their families grieving.

It matters that 16,155 have been wounded, many with scars that will last a lifetime.

It matters that the majority of the American people are demanding a new strategy so that we don’t have a war without end.

We saw seventy-nine Senators recently back an amendment saying that the Iraqis should take the lead in providing their own security next year. That matters too.

We heard Congressman Jack Murtha’s brave statement against the war, calling it a “flawed policy wrapped in illusion.” He is a decorated Marine, a war hero who bled on the battlefield, the military’s best friend.

And he now advocates redeploying U.S. forces at the earliest possible date, while maintaining a quick-reaction U.S. force in the region to be called upon if necessary.

So how did the Administration and its supporters respond to his thoughtful proposal? Congressman Murtha, with his two Purple Hearts and Bronze Star, was insulted by the White House Press Secretary and branded a coward by the newest Republican in the House. People who never bled on the battlefield tried to demean a war hero.

And that is what we see again and again. Instead of thoughtful dialogue about the life and death issues in Iraq, the Administration lashes out at those who dare to disagree with them.

Recently, the Republican National Committee issued a video news release attacking Democrats, including me. I’m used to being attacked, and I normally just ignore them. But this one was so incendiary that I have to respond.

The ad said Democrats were waving a white flag of surrender. And their evidence? My statement that we should start reducing our troop strength in Iraq after the Iraqi election.

Well, guess who else said that last weekend? The U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalizad, appointed by President Bush. His words were, “we can begin to draw down our forces in the aftermath of the elections.” Are they going to run an ad against him now?

Democrats aren’t waving any white flags. We are doing the jobs we were elected to do. We have a right—and a responsibility—to tell the truth, whether the topic is Iraq or any other policy. We have a right—and a responsibility—to wave a warning flag about a war that is making our nation less secure.

And so, regardless of how many times they attack me, I will continue to speak out, just as I am doing today. I have four points.

First: We must restore our credibility.

If we want the American people to be optimistic and if we want the nations of the world to consider us a leader to be trusted, our motives must be clear, our justifications must be sound, and our policies must reflect our ideals.

During the Cuban missile crisis, Secretary of State Dean Acheson offered to show Charles de Gaulle satellite images of Soviet missiles in Cuba as proof of their existence.

President de Gaulle responded by saying, “the word of the President of the United States is good enough for me.”

Today, the word of this President and his administration has been called into question. Frankly, it is hard to believe those words any longer on Iraq.

Remember all of the false expectations that the Bush Administration peddled?

Remember when Secretary Rumsfeld said that the war “could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months?”…Or that we knew exactly where to find the Weapons of Mass Destruction?

Remember when Vice President Cheney predicted, “…my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators?”

Remember when White House Budget Director, Mitch Daniels said that Iraq will be “an affordable endeavor” and reported that it “will not require sustained aid?”

Remember when the case for Weapons of Mass Destruction was called a slam dunk?

Remember Vice President Cheney’s now-famous assessment that the insurgency was in its “last throes”?

Remember when the President told us about the yellow cake from Niger?

Remember when we were told “mission accomplished” and that Iraqi oil would pay for the war?

Remember when Secretary Rice said she didn’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud?

Remember Secretary Colin Powell’s forceful presentation before the United Nations Security Council…that he now calls a blot on his record?

That is 0 for 10.

Yet, even in light of all this history, the Bush Administration refuses to do more than a perfunctory mea culpa.

In his last speech, the President took responsibility for going to war on false intelligence. The President is only two years behind the American people, who figured this one out long ago, but I’ll take it. But he keeps repeating the false statement that Congress saw the same intelligence that he did even though a congressional report recently found that the Administration had access to more than they shared with us.

And he still doesn’t answer the central question: Was the intelligence cherry picked or manipulated to make the case for war?

Democrats are insisting that we complete the Senate investigation into this matter. And it’s not about politics. It’s because if the intelligence was cherry picked or manipulated, the American people deserve to know and the Congress will need to act.

And it’s because the next time we need to convince the world of an imminent threat, it will be far more difficult unless we clear the air and restore our credibility.

You know, America is more than an economic and military power. Our ideals have made us a shining light for those around the world seeking freedom, democracy and human rights.

Now that moral standing is at risk.

We all saw the horrific photos of Abu Ghraib, which were at odds with everything this country stands for. We all know that torture does not produce accurate intelligence or make us safer. Instead, as Senator McCain says, “It’s killing us.”

But, amazingly, banning torture was extremely controversial for this Administration. Dick Cheney even worked non-stop to exempt the CIA from the torture ban passed by the Congress.

Fortunately we won this one, but we still don’t know everything about the secret prisons or secret spying on Americans, all of which chips away at our reputation as a great beacon of freedom and gives an eerie sense of a secret government. And now we face the issue of our government spying on Americans without a warrant. This is serious and must be investigated to restore our credibility.

Second and third, we must reverse the strain on our military and get our budget priorities straight.

This Administration says dissent hurts our military. But what really hurts our military is sending men and women to war without a plan and without the necessary armor and equipment. What really hurts our military is stretching it to the breaking point and deploying our soldiers for third and fourth tours of duty. What really hurts our military is a lack of candor.

Our men and women in the military serve bravely and skillfully in Iraq. They have sacrificed so much since the war began. We need to honor their sacrifices not just with words, but also with actions. That means treating their caskets and families with the respect they deserve. And that means opening our eyes to their injuries, and getting them the help they need.

Medical studies reveal that 17 percent of soldiers returning from Iraq are suffering from mental health problems including depression, anxiety and PTSD.

The VA says that 17,000 Iraq and Afghanistan vets have been diagnosed with mental disorders through February.

Despite this huge problem, the American Legion says that mental health programs are being under funded by $500 million a year. I offered an amendment to provide these critical resources by canceling future tax cuts for millionaires. Sounds reasonable, right? Well, it failed. The President says he loves our military, but he loves tax cuts for millionaires as much or more.

Let’s be clear: To finance a war that has already cost $251 billion, this Administration did not ask the wealthiest in our own country to sacrifice.

Under the Bush tax cuts, millionaires got $242 billion dollars back over the past five years. In the first two years of the Iraq war, the average millionaire received $112,000 in tax cuts.

And the President did not secure enough real financial commitments from other countries.

Instead, our needs are being sacrificed and our children and senior citizens are paying the price.

Talk about waving a white flag of surrender? The Republican Congress and this administration are waving a white flag over our children, cutting their after school programs by 1.3 billion from what this President and Congress authorized. No Child Left Behind was funded at 13.1 billion less than what their own legislation asked for.

They are waving a white flag of surrender over our seniors, causing them anxiety and threatening their Social Security and Medicare by using those trust funds to finance the war and the tax cuts.

They are waving a white flag over fiscal responsibility by creating a debt which is more than $8 trillion. Of the total debt held by the public, 45% is in foreign hands. That means that approximately $92 billion is leaving this country every year to pay off the interest to foreign entities.

And, they are waving a white flag over our homeland security, instead of making it a top priority. The Administration says all the right things in public, and then shortchanges homeland security at every turn.

It’s been four years since 9/11. Why are we still dangerously unprepared for another terrorist attack?

Why haven’t we provided the additional $555 million needed this year to better secure our ports?

And, why in the world, haven’t we provided the $14.3 billion still needed to make sure that our firefighters, police officers, and health care providers can communicate with each other in a time of crisis, whether it is a terrorist attack, a hurricane, or an earthquake?

On December 5, the 9/11 Commission released a report card on the status of the recommendations it made a year and a half ago. It was full of Ds and Fs, and showed us that we are falling short, far short. This is unacceptable.

So we must help our military and get our priorities right.

Fourth and finally, it is time to change course in Iraq

The President continues to present a false choice between leaving immediately and staying indefinitely.

He continues to just say “stay the course,” despite evidence that the war is making us less, not more, safe from terrorism.

And he continues to begin almost every speech about Iraq with a reference to 9/11 even though the 9/11 Commission and his own Administration’s documents have been clear: There was no link between Iraq and 9/11 and no collaboration between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.

In fact, the war in Iraq was a diversion from the war against al Qaeda.

Like the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980s, the war in Iraq is helping al Qaeda recruit, radicalize, and train a new generation of terrorists.

According to National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism, worldwide terror attacks increased by more than 1,200 in the last year alone.

Even the President’s own Director of Central Intelligence, Porter Goss, says: “Those jihadists who survive will leave Iraq experienced in and focused on acts of urban terrorism.”

I agree with the President about the importance of spreading democracy across the globe. But as Robert Pape of the University of Chicago has written, “…spreading democracy at the barrel of a gun in the Persian Gulf is not likely to lead to a lasting solution against suicide terrorism.”

Last week’s election in Iraq was an important step forward. I view each election as a landmark and I hope and pray that this one will result in a government that is able to unite the Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish people.

Early next year, Iraqis will have a choice to amend the Constitution to protect the interests of the Sunni minority and this will be another defining moment.

I also view each election in Iraq as a chance to turn Iraq over to its own people, who must ultimately chart their own destiny. Reducing our presence would be a sign of success, not failure.

The fact is, as long as our presence is perceived as open-ended, there is little incentive for the Iraqis to make the necessary political compromises.

Indeed, if we want the Iraqis to move toward a political solution we must lessen their dependence on a U.S. military solution which almost everyone agrees is not the answer.

Too many Iraqis believe that the United States has no intention of leaving Iraq. And with good reason. The Bush Administration continues to answer all reasonable requests for timeframes or benchmarks with the same “as long as it takes” mantra.

This, despite the fact that General Casey made it clear to me earlier this year that our long term presence would be counter-productive. And this despite the fact that two-thirds of Iraqis oppose the presence of U.S. troops in their country.

We must dispel the common and dangerous perception that we are occupiers and instead articulate a clear mission for this Iraq war, with an exit strategy based on real political, military, economic benchmarks.

How?

We need to accelerate efforts to train Iraqi troops and reduce our military footprint.

Second, the President must immediately declare that the United States has no desire to maintain permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq.

Third, the President must work more with Iraq’s neighbors and reduce our visibility in rebuilding Iraq’s institutions. In fact, we should have been doing this from the beginning.

Last week, the Egyptian Ambassador lamented the fact that so few troops had been trained in his country, saying: “We have the capacity to train about 3,000 Iraqi troops in Egypt each month.” How in the world can we fail to take advantage of offers like this?

It doesn’t matter if you were for the war, against the war, or undecided. None of us can remain silent or on the sidelines now.

As a Senator, I feel obligated to tell the people of my state how I feel. It’s time for a new policy. It’s time for a new strategy that makes us more safe and secure. It’s time to put to rest the notion that to speak out for a new strategy in Iraq is unpatriotic.

It’s time to realize that turning Iraq over to the Iraqis is what they expect and what we should do.

It’s time for a real strategy to stop the spread of terrorism and prevent the proliferation of WMDs—not preemptive wars that isolate America from the rest of the world.

It’s time to remember that a strong America begins at home, and that we cannot have real security if we abandon our children and families, our fiscal responsibility or if we cannot prepare for a terrorist strike or an emergency like Katrina.

It’s time for America to once again be a shining example for the rest of the world.

We can do it.

Again, let’s be honest about the past and restore our credibility. Let the Administration support Congressional inquiries and not fight them – on the past use of intelligence; on the secret prisons in Europe; on the secret surveillance of Americans.

Two, let’s truly honor our military by articulating a real plan for success in Iraq and taking care of our soldiers.

Three, let’s get our priorities straight and get back on a solid fiscal footing.

Fourth, let’s get Iraq right by working in a bipartisan way – not running ugly 30-second commercials while our soldiers die and get wounded.

We can do it. We can do better and with the wisdom of the American people, we will.

http://boxer.senate.gov




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftstreet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 01:53 PM
Response to Original message
12. Yes, good job!
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Delphinus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 01:59 PM
Response to Original message
14. That was one of the
best, most erudite articles I have read in a very long time.

Kudos to the authors and, yes, to DU administrators.

The truth will set us free!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PuraVidaDreamin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 02:08 PM
Response to Original message
15. Congrats and Thanks
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bread_and_roses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 07:56 PM
Response to Original message
20. Yes, excellent article
I second your thanks to the Admins and encourage everyone to read this article. I was particularly struck by the authors noting that issue reporting is framed by the media as if it had no relevance to ordinary people - as if it only affected the balance between Ds and Rs.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 08:06 PM
Response to Original message
21. I thought it was incredibly apt. K&R.
Good description of what Dems and the media ALWAYS do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 12:47 AM
Response to Original message
22. The leadership IS NOT silent
That shit just makes me sick. There are way too many people here whose only objective is ripping apart the Democratic Party. It's pathetic.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 01:47 AM
Response to Reply #22
25. Please provide some info to back that up. Would help. Thank you.
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
radio4progressives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #22
30. I'm sorry.. but our country is in such a level of crises - mealy mouth
utterings are completely useless.

Leadership are in on the deal, because they are invested in these schemes too. That's why it's been going on all this time, that's why the elite were caught off guard about something they've been getting away with for decades, having light shine on it. Sorry.. Not ALL Dems are the Elite - MOST ARE NOT.

We always talking about the upper eschelons of the party, those who make up the inner sanctim, THE ELITE, those whose every decision is made based on the Corporation's interest, because the corporations interest is their personal interest too.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 01:43 AM
Response to Original message
24. No it's not
"Surely, a Call for a General Strike across this country is in order, and it is the only thing we the workers (employed and unemployed, union members and non-union members) of America have at our disposal before they put up the final barriers."

Why don't we ever consider our purchasing power as the single most effective way to send a message to the corporate overlords? Those lording it over the "major media and the top Democratic leadership (that) are unwitting partners in enabling the Bush machine to rumble forward." What about boycotts?

"This is especially true with regard to the ongoing appointment of competence-free cronies, the special deals for Halliburton, and the current port scandal based on the connections of John Snow with the Dubai company."

:sarcasm:
John who?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 12:32 AM
Response to Reply #24
40. Many of us have considered our purchasing power:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=255

it's just very, very difficult even to get a majority of DU on board with this idea. Why? I don't know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 09:15 AM
Response to Original message
26. thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wordie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 02:17 PM
Response to Original message
27. radio4progressives, that was a great article. Thanks...but I would also
Edited on Sun Feb-26-06 02:50 PM by Wordie
like to ask for some additional links regarding your info regarding the effect the ports deal would have on unions.

When the ports deal first hit the media, I started reading lots of things that have now turned out not to be true. For instance, the deal doesn't mean that Dubai World Ports would "own" the ports in question; according to what I've read, it's more like a lease, and in most cases there are other companies managing other terminals in the same ports. Yet I think that many still haven't realized this; inflammatory spin has drowned out the facts.

So, I'm taking a lot of the information circulating right now with a very big grain of salt. I've heard that there is misinformation about jobs too. Although many are saying, "Keep American jobs..." it seems from other things that I've read that the company has said that they will keep both the union itself, and the American workers that the British company had. So, I have to ask myself if the union people are being spun.

Here's something from Time.com:
In the talk-show furor over the transfer of P&O to Dubai Ports World, there has been little reference to the mechanics of port management in the U.S. Over 80 percent of the terminals in the Port of Los Angeles, for example — the biggest in the U.S. — are run by foreign-owned companies. U.S. ports are owned by state authorities, and the workers who actually offload the ships that dock there are the same unionized Americans who belong to the International Longshoremen's Association, regardless of which company hires them. Dubai Ports will not "own" the U.S. facilities, but will inherit the P&O's contracts to run them, with no changes in the dockside personnel or the U.S. government security operations that currently apply to them.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1161466,00.html

I also read somewhere on a blog, but was unable to confirm it, that there really are very few US companies who have the capacity to run ports. (There was only one other company that bid on the contract in question, and it wasn't American either.) The blog said that the only US company was Halliburton! This appears not to be true, as there was another US port company, based in Miami, that recently sued to stop the port deal on the basis of national security concerns. My worry is that the unions might be facing more or less the same situation, no matter what company was in charge, but I can't claim to know much at all at this point about this aspect of the deal. I need to learn more.

I don't mean this reply in any way as a criticism. I'm just urging a real caution about sources and so forth, as we all are knee deep in spin-s*** right now. So, could you please post some primary sources about how this might affect American workers? If this deal was really likely to lose American jobs, that would be something I would be firmly against. I'd really like to read more, so that I can judge for myself. Thanks!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
radio4progressives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. Here's a teamsters link.. (and a quote)
President Bush has told us to trust him on giving management control of six major U.S. ports to Dubai Ports World, but given Dubai’s anti-union laws it might be impossible for union workers to speak up about security concerns.

All Americans, including U.S. port workers, have strong reasons to raise concerns about the deal:

At the port of Dubai and throughout the United Arab Emirates (UAE), unions are outlawed;

In 1997, Dubai agreed to train Australian mercenaries to be strikebreakers;

(snip)

We cannot allow a company, based in such an oppressive, anti-union nation to operate our vulnerable ports.


At a time when President Bush is calling on all Americans to be more vigilant about terrorism, this plan completely contradicts that.


Full text at:

http://www.teamster.org/06news/hn_060224_7.asp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wordie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. OK...I can see where the concern comes from.
But I have yet another question: wouldn't the company be required to operate under US laws, if it was operating on US soil? And if that's true, it raises another question: since port managment is now being done throughout the world by very large corporations, wouldn't there be just as much a risk with almost any of them? I guess I'm wondering if there is a problem if the solution might be found in the strengthening of laws requiring foreign companies to abide by US labor laws when operating here.

I don't really know much about these sorts of issues; stevedoring is something I know very little about, so if my questions sound dumb, please forgive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
radio4progressives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 09:11 PM
Response to Reply #31
34. When Unions Raise these Concerns, Just Remember NAFTA
Edited on Sun Feb-26-06 09:14 PM by radio4progressives
You raise important questions we need to have answered...

Here's the thing, this issue was raised on this particular transaction, but what it does is reveal an entire scheme that's been going on for decades that Americans have not even been aware of. Now the Teamsters are raising questions, and have issue with this particular transaction, and i have read and heard several people who know what the deal is about say that is OPENING THE DOOR for Union busting at the ports, specifically vis a vis this transaction.

You and I don't have all the answers, but we KNOW in our gut what all this means - just like we all knew in our gut that the so called "evidence" of WMD's was total fiction - though you and i couldn't prove it - we none the less KNEW INSTINCTIVELY based on a well established pattern - that's ALL YOU and I NEED to KNOW. We don't have to be insiders, and we certainly should not now or ever trust the pundits in the media for the essential facts underpinning the issues of concern that have really have nothing at all to do with "national security" at all - but has EVERYTHING to do with the JOB SECURITY for workers at the ports and beyond, which the elite involved would keep concealed.

For me, that's the most important element in all of this. We should not be sellling, leasing or placing controls to any foreign governments, in fact i would argue that the ports need to be NATIONALIZED.

Keep your eyes on the prize, focus on the principles of the issue, because the so called details of the transactions is really nothing more than just a shell game of business agreements and arrangement designed to conceal the truth anyway and nothing to with the interests of workers, or national security concerns.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 08:26 PM
Response to Reply #29
33. that's worth a thread of it's own!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 10:56 PM
Response to Reply #29
39. Nice find - another reason they could be bad
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 05:22 PM
Response to Original message
28. Kick (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 08:08 PM
Response to Original message
32. kick--general strike would have effect media couldn't ignore
They can ignore a demonstration, but people couldn't ignore an empty desk next to them--or half the desks empty in their office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
radio4progressives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 09:15 PM
Response to Reply #32
35. exactly.. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #35
41. I did a thread on this a while back, but we should pick one day a month
for a general strike, and keep doing it until it gains momentum and gets noticed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PassingFair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 10:22 PM
Response to Original message
37. I liked their OpEd so much, I wrote to them!
I won't disclose the contents of my email, because someone might
accuse me of being a "GOP Operative", and "Doing the GOP's work
for them".

I have basically been told, time after time,
"If you don't like the "back room", there's the
back door".

Only usually with swear words and admonitions to
not let anything hit my posterior on the way out.

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 07:46 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC