Your ho-hum brand of everyday filth

I am very happy for John Edwards this week. Why? Simply said, he's showing who he is by not taking anyone's crap in the political world.

Let me give you just a few examples:





1. He put potty mouth Ann Coulter in her [very low and deserved] place.

Andrew Sullivan - [Read the whole thing. I thought it was great commentary.]

Coulter's defense of the slur is that it was directed at an obviously straight man and so could not be a real slur. The premise of this argument is that the word faggot is only used to describe gay men and is only effective and derogatory when used against a gay man. But it isn't. In fact, in the schoolyard she cites, the primary targets of the f-word are straight boys or teens or men. The word "faggot" is used for two reasons: to identify and demonize a gay man; and to threaten a straight man with being reduced to the social pariah status of a gay man. Coulter chose the latter use of the slur, its most potent and common form. She knew why Edwards qualified. He's pretty, he has flowing locks, he's young-looking. He is exactly the kind of straight guy who is targeted as a "faggot" by his straight peers. This, Ms Coulter, is real social policing by speech. And that's what she was doing: trying to delegitimize and feminize a man by calling him a faggot. It happens every day. It's how insecure or bigoted straight men police their world to keep the homos out.

2. The Edwards campaign was given media attention because of Coulter's nastiness. Thanks, Coulter. I can't believe I'm saying it, but for once I appreciate your making a complete ass of yourself and all the Republican hypocrites who laugh at your ho-hum brand of everyday filth that only the smallest percentage of humans would find amusing.




Robert Scheer [Huffington Post] -

Thank you, Ann Coulter, for boosting the principled but media-neglected presidential candidacy of John Edwards.

Like many others, upon hearing that she had used an address at a major conservative convention to call Edwards a "faggot," I quickly clicked to his home page to see his campaign's reaction--and was happily diverted to more substantive stuff, such as his firm support of universal healthcare and an end to the war in Iraq.

No wonder Coulter hates him: Edwards is a Democrat who believes in the progressive heritage of his party and is not afraid to tell the world.

3. At Beliefnet.com and the Huffington Post, David Kuo interviewed Senator Edwards about his faith and how it effects his political views and actions. I found Sen. Edwards' replies to be honest and refreshing - not at all divisive or religiously triumphal.

...when I went away to college, I drifted away from my faith. Even after Elizabeth and I got married, I had drifted away. It isn't that we didn't exercise faith. We would go to church, but it was not the sort of dominant day-to-day living faith that it is for me today. And in 1996, on a day I'll never forget, my 16 year old son died. And the days after that, when I was trying to survive and Elizabeth's trying to survive, my faith came roaring back and has stayed with me since that time, and helped me deal with the personal challenges we've had. Not only the death of my son, but some of the politics and the difficulty of that on our family. Elizabeth's breast cancer. All the things that we've seen, which is not that unusual for families. [..]

[..] Does your concern for the poor come mostly from your own background, or does it come from your faith?

Edwards: Both. It comes from both.

My own personal experience has been that I came from a very poor background when I was young. But, by the time I was in middle school/high school, we were solidly in the middle class. And now I've had everything you could ever have financially in this country. And so, I feel some responsibility myself to help and give back, to give that opportunity to lots of people who I don't think have it today. That's part of it. And it also comes from my faith. If you took every reference to taking care of the least of these out of the Bible, there would be a pretty skinny Bible. And I think I as a Christian, and we as a nation, have a moral responsibility to do something about this. [..]

4. John Edwards told us that he wasn't interested in any opportunity to participate in a Democrats debate in Nevada to be chaired and aired on the Fox News network. I couldn't be happier for him and for all of us who know what Fox represents.

Confucius [as channelled through Iddybud] say -

"For refusing to be toy of Fox
John Edwards he totally rocks."

Fox, obviously out for blood, is sporting this headline - What Would Jesus Do With John Edwards' Mansion? - with a story by Brit Hume. It's funny. Hume (and Fox) regularly boast their own support for traditional American capitalist values, yet they feel compelled to mention that Edwards has "drawn fire from some for his new $6 million, 28,000 square-foot mansion in North Carolina." So compelled was Hume and Fox that they made a snarky headline out of it.

Thanks Again, Harry Taylor

"In my lifetime, I have never felt more ashamed of my leadership in Washington. And I would hope from time to time that you have the humility and grace to be ashamed of yourself."

- Harry Taylor, April, 2006



When I saw Harry Taylor at an art gallery in the NoDa district of Charlotte, N.C. last weekend, I recognized him immediately. For those of you who may not remember, Harry is the gentleman who stood up at a town hall meeting with President Bush less than a year ago and asked him a question so honest and forthright that no one could believe he was able to do so - to "get away with it" - at a town hall meeting. "Getting away with it" shouldn't be the way an honest and forthright question successfully asked of a President should be seen, but at the point in time when Harry Taylor stood up, citizens were discriminated against at these so-called "open" Bush town hall meetings (and it's likely they still would be).

At the time he'd done it, I thought that Harry Taylor looked "solid American" - the kind of face you'd see in a Norman Rockwell portrait. In the portrait called Free Speech by Rockwell, the expression on the faces of the citizens who look up to a man willing to stand up and speak says it all. You can imagine they're thinking, "Good for you. I'm glad you did that. Amen, brother." That wasn't the reception Harry got last April. He was booed by fellow citizens, much to the disgust of the millions of us who watched the clip repeated on CNN and the evening news. Oh, how we cheered Harry Taylor for his courage and honesty that day. That sentiment is precisely what I hoped I conveyed when trying to tell Harry how I'd felt when he stood up and questioned President Bush about last April.





"You never stop talking about freedom, and I appreciate that. But while I listen to you talk about freedom, I see you assert your right to tap my telephone, to arrest me and hold me without charges, to try to preclude me from breathing clean air and drinking clean water and eating safe food. If I were a woman, you’d like to restrict my opportunity to make a choice and decision about whether I can abort a pregnancy on my own behalf."

- More of Harry Taylor's comments to President Bush last April




I found Harry to be a humble man. I told him that I held him in the highest esteem for the courage to have stood up and face the "boos" of those fellow citizens who'd been cowed by one another into eerie quiet and acceptance of things too many of us knew were wrong. In a free country, we have taken the right to free speech for granted. Harry showed us, after a long and bitter season of the kind of silence that comes from intimidation and discrimination, that democratic leadership can only come from the hearts of the people and that the health of that democracy depends on the courage of those who are willing to stand up and demand to be heard. A lot of people consider him to be a hero, but Harry would rather be seen as a citizen-leader just doing what should be expected of any person who cares deeply about participating in democratic goverment. He continues writing letters to the editor of his community newspaper and asking tough questions of his government representatives. He remains an Independent voter today.


It seems almost unbelievable that the tipping point, created by Harry Taylor himself, occurred only 11 months ago. We have to ask ourselves how the mainstream media could have slept through the "season of silence" for so long. Harry did their job for them when he stood up. A lot of "doubting Thomases" had epressed their fear that Harry was just another Jeff Gannon - an "intentional guest" at that infamous Bush town hall meeting. Meeting Harry, I can tell you that that belief is beyond the realm of possibility. As of last April (and, in large part, still today), Moveon.org was still being talked about by the MSM as if it was some wild-eyed leftist group and it just isn't true. Harry agreed with me that his standing up was a Malcolm Gladwell moment - a tipping point for a still-rapidly flowing waterfall of public honesty about the empty suit that our President has been all long. One short year ago, the media was all too willing to fill that empty suit with the Rovian illusions created by the designed absence of diversity of opinion at the Bush town hall gatherings. MSM seldom mentioned that it was a completely stifled reality.

Since his "15 minutes of international fame," Harry has taken the opportunity to participate in DFA grassroots training and MoveOn.org activities. Calling him liberal would be a stretch. Calling him a "small 'd' democrat" and a caring patriot would be far more accurate.

I really liked him.

Harry spoke for all of us almost a year ago. So much has changed since then. It was hard for me to find the right words to thank him, but I know he understood.

I'm just wild about Harry.

Last April at the John Edwards blog, David K. Beckwith [the blogger known as Anonymoses] wrote about what Harry did and why it was important. He said:

It was a moment to go down in history. A man, a North Carolinian, broke free of the groupthink silence and told the President the truth. On April 6, 2006, at Central Piedmont Community College in Charlotte, North Carolina, Mr. Harry Taylor stood before a crowd of Bush supporters and Mister Bush himself, and said what many have wanted to say, but were either silenced, timid or a human chicken.

It is weird to think that one act of defiance can win someone a place in the history books, but it just reflects the times we are in, and what is wrong with current "leadership".

My hat is off to the new American Hero, Harry Taylor.

Here were some of the many replies from fellow citizens:

Harry Taylor joined the ranks of "one who dared", which reminds me of the lone figure standing in front of the tank in Tianamen Square. That man and that tank are metaphors for the equally deadly machine operating out of the White House and one heroic figure with the courage to face up to that machine and publicly expose it for what it is. Mr. Taylor is a hero, purely and simply.

- Mardee

GWB what needed to be said as to how he felt. I think the man showed much character and he made me proud just to listen. In spite of the boos, he maintained his honor by speaking his thoughts.

- Im4jre

I was in shock when Harry started talking. I could not believe he got in the door AND they allowed him to speak.

- NCDem

Most times the truth hurts. It's about time someone had the courage to stand up and speak a truth that has been missing from so many of the mainstream "media" outlets and polls that are supposed to reflect public opinion. Mr. Taylor spoke the truth and there can be nothing wrong with that. If someone thinks otherwise they might want to check out a little document called the Constitution. They might find it's first amendment very enlightening.

- Cate-Iowa

Reminds me of a Steven Van Zandt song, "I Am a Patriot" -

And the river opens for the righteous, someday

I was walking with my brother
And he wondered what was on my mind
I said what I believe in my soul
It ain't what I see with my eyes
And we can't turn our backs this time

I am a patriot and I love my country
Because my country is all I know
I want to be with my family
With people who understand me
I got nowhere else to go
I am a patriot

- Benny

Abraham Lincoln portrayed ours as a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” This hardly describes what we have today. The only way to change that is to demand that our elected representatives in Washington, including the President, listen to us.

What can each of us do? Have conversations with others. Learn to be great listeners. Read… and not just material that favors your position. Develop healthy skepticism — make the facts prove themselves. Insist that your elected representatives respond, and support those who really do listen to us, the people. See the links to several November Congressional races to be fought against weak GOP incumbents. Please consider making a contribution.

I truly believe Americans are more alike than different; that we can find common ground that works for everyone; that we can have a genuinely representative government with compassionate leaders. We owe it to ourselves, and more especially to our children and grandchildren, to make this effort.

Know that courage is contagious. Together we do have the ability to win back our government and country.


- Harry Taylor, ThankYouHarryTaylor.com

* credit for the Rockwell/Taylor art: Cronus Protagonist, courtesy of the DU.

* credit for the art with the title The man who dared to tell the President what America thinks goes to Anonymoses [David K. Beckwith], who not only alerted me to Harry's presence at the NoDa gallery, but also took the photo of me with him above. Thanks, David.

Thoughts on IWR and NIE

The Democratic message has been winning in 2007, but it was weak in 2002.

Allow me to give you an example of my ongoing argument with some other stubborn Democrats who bash John Edwards for his IWR vote and for not reading the classified NIE that nearly always ends with my having the last word.

There was a complete failure on George Tenet's part to allow even a shadow of doubt about the strength of the CIA's WMD evidence to come through in the infamous and incredibly misleading White Paper (declassified 28-page report for Senators outside the Intel Committee).

Democrats didn't stand a political chance against this kind of public misleading regardless of what the classified NIE had to say. Because the White Paper would not publically confirm any of George Tenet's shaky reservations which he'd expressed in private, a Democrat's political achilles heel during such a time as 2002 would have been fully exposed by this damnation of truth known as the White Paper. I see that White Paper as the final nail in the coffin of truth.

Could or should John Edwards have gone with his gut and voted NO (as one-time advisor Bob Shrum admits Edwards wanted to do?) Obviously, Edwards feels, in retrospect, that he should have gone with "NO". But his journey to YES is clearly understandable and, as we've already witnessed by public response, FORGIVEABLE.

Some may tell you that they forgive Edwards, but they now don't trust him. I tell them that I will vote for Edwards not because he's asked for forgiveness, but because of what I believe he will do from this moment on - with the wisdom that has come from hard lessons learned along the way.. I have no doubt that his instinct was right all along, even if his vote wasn't.

Why do you think John Edwards is so careful and determined to call the War on Terror a political "bumper sticker" tool now? I think it's because he was burned, in a political sense, by those war-marketers who used such tools to publically strong-arm Democrats in 2002.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


About the White Paper:


FROM DANA PRIEST:
Report Says CIA Distorted Iraq Data

The White Paper, released Oct. 4, 2002, and based on a classified assessment given to Congress, was the public's only look at the intelligence that policymakers used to decide whether Iraq posed enough of a threat to warrant immediate military action.
Yet the 28-page public document turned estimates into facts, left out or watered down the dissent within the government about key weapons programs, and exaggerated Iraq's ability to strike the United States, the investigation by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence found.
The heavily redacted White Paper section of the Senate report amounts to a pointed critique of the CIA's willingness to present an unbiased and objective account of the Iraqi threat to the American public.
It also raises questions about the CIA's selective declassification of material, a critique that was made by last year's joint Sept. 11 congressional inquiry and by the subsequent independent Sept. 11 commission.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



I think that the NIE was hastily prepared and just another "cheap tool" used to market a liar's war. John Edwards could have read every word and memorized every little punctuation mark a thousand times and it wouldn't have changed a thing.

Our Democrats on the Senate Intel Committee were WORKING IN THE DARK and politically vulnerable.


Senator Bob Graham had this to say about Tenet and the White Paper:

What I Knew Before the Invasion by Sen Bob Graham

At a meeting of the Senate intelligence committee on Sept. 5, 2002, CIA Director George Tenet was asked what the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) provided as the rationale for a preemptive war in Iraq. An NIE is the product of the entire intelligence community, and its most comprehensive assessment. I was stunned when Tenet said that no NIE had been requested by the White House and none had been prepared. Invoking our rarely used senatorial authority, I directed the completion of an NIE.
Tenet objected, saying that his people were too committed to other assignments to analyze Saddam Hussein's capabilities and will to use chemical, biological and possibly nuclear weapons. We insisted, and three weeks later the community produced a classified NIE.
There were troubling aspects to this 90-page document. While slanted toward the conclusion that Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction stored or produced at 550 sites, it contained vigorous dissents on key parts of the information, especially by the departments of State and Energy. Particular skepticism was raised about aluminum tubes that were offered as evidence Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program. As to Hussein's will to use whatever weapons he might have, the estimate indicated he would not do so unless he was first attacked.
Under questioning, Tenet added that the information in the NIE had not been independently verified by an operative responsible to the United States. In fact, no such person was inside Iraq. Most of the alleged intelligence came from Iraqi exiles or third countries, all of which had an interest in the United States' removing Hussein, by force if necessary.
The American people needed to know these reservations, and I requested that an unclassified, public version of the NIE be prepared. On Oct. 4, Tenet presented a 25-page document titled "Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs." It represented an unqualified case that Hussein possessed them, avoided a discussion of whether he had the will to use them and omitted the dissenting opinions contained in the classified version. Its conclusions, such as "If Baghdad acquired sufficient weapons-grade fissile material from abroad, it could make a nuclear weapon within a year," underscored the White House's claim that exactly such material was being provided from Africa to Iraq.

Unrestrained Globalization Ends Camillus Cutlery

Speaking to a local news channel, Camillus Cutlery historian Tom Williams commented about how unfortunate it is today with the competition that globlization has brought to the small American community's doorstep. He underscored the closing of the 131-year-old company with the fact that all American knife companies are having a very hard time competing today. The costs of doing business in what author Thomas Friedman calls the new "flat earth" have revealed a reality in the way business operates today, independently and together with governmental leadership that has made it incredibly easy for certain businesses to thrive and have made it utterly disastrous for others, especially U.S. manufacturers. Personally, I think it's a shame. I live in the village of Camillus and I have long understood that the Cutlery and its products were once a great a source of American pride and community pride.



Camillus Cutlery labor strike, photo taken August, 2006

For the past year, I would see the pain of the striking workers firsthand, their hopes raised when a labor contract was approved in November, and their sadness and disappointment the very next day when a majority of them were laid off. I saw the writing on the wall, understanding the realities of trying to keep your head above water as a business person in today's dog-eat-workingman atmosphere. I support a more progressive policy that incorporates fairness for all men and women - worker and businessowner alike.

U.S. trade policy should be structured to both promote U.S. competitiveness and to also benefit workers at home in our communties and abroad. Many of you might say , "So the cutlery finally closed. Oh well, that's just the way it is." Many of you are not the workers who took great pride in producing a product that was proudly U.S.-made by a prominent manufacturer in their small community for well over a century. With a realisitically fair U.S. trade policy, Camillus Cutlery wouldn't have had to have come to an end in this manner.

Ironically, U.S. manufacturing unexpectedly rose in February. There is no joy in the village of Camillus today about the news.

The Camwell Doctrine

My Exit Plan:
Congress should limit funding levels to force
redeployment from Iraq
Sent via Democracy For America today.

It's high time for Congress to to attack the funding levels for the Iraq war surge. This week, U.S. intelligence chief Admiral Mike McConnell pointed to the February 2006 bombing of the Golden Mosque as the place in time when everything changed, and was more than likely a point of no return in the Iraq civil war - unless the current surge is successful by miraculous circumstance. And no one other than BushCheneyCo actually believes it will be. We are well past the turning point - the point that revealed utter faiure of the Bush foreign poicy in Iraq.

There is every good and clear reason for our elected representatives to repeal the President's 2002 authority and to cut funding for any request that would make this surge easy for a dangerous executive administration that is virtually promising to ignore the will of Congress on the matter regardless of what foreign policy disaster they try to avert.

An Iraq that is likely to emerge, at long last, through the crusher of the bitter civil war that is now and will be for a long time hence, will owe its final level of stability to a regional need for security and stability. It will never be due to some "gift of liberty" given by God or Bush. Iraq's new democracy, as it is desired by those who live there, will emerge because Bush will have FINALLY left it alone, and not because of his efforts at playing puppetmaster to the entire region.

Kirkuk is about to explode.

The time for Congress to act decisively is now.

Jude Nagurney Camwell
http://iddybud.blogspot.com

* In other words, Congress - get off your meek, mild horses and do what you're responsible for doing. The nation is watching you for moral leadership and acts of good conscience. No more games.

Seen in Charlotte N.C.

......



....

Regional Conference w/Iran: Please Don't Let it Be Bolton

Two points taken from today's guest blogpost at Informed Comment by Gerald B. Helman, who was United States Ambassador to the European Office of the United Nations from 1979 through 1981. The first is included in the content above the fold and is in regard to the upcoming regional conference with Iran and it underscores what many of us - sadly - have already come to realize about the Bush administration.

"The Conference may also offer the US an opportunity over the longer run to establish and institutionalize a more stable security environment in the region, with the US and its forces a continuing and accepted element. The Administration could make preparation of positions for the conference a truely bipartisan effort and even propose some level of Congressional participation. Regretably, this Administration lacks the imagination, courage and time to bring that about."

The second is a rumor from below the fold. A commenter asks if there's any truth to the rumor that former UN Ambassador John Bolton will be appointed the American representative for this regional conference. If it's true, I believe it would be an accurate predictor of the expected (non) results of the regionl conference as made in the first point by Dr. Helman above.

In a recent National Interest article [subsc req] titled UN, Rediscovered, Derek Chollet makes the astute observation:

In many ways personnel is destiny, and the new faces could move the relationship from an era of bitterness, suspicion and isolation to one of sustained, positive engagement and realistic expectations.

If personnel is destiny and Bolton is put in charge, I don't think I'd have to spell out the end of the story for you. After too many years of Bolton's stormy history, you're smart enough to figure it out for yourself.

No Free Pass for the Politics of Religious Sloganeering

In an outstanding post by Lydia Cornell titled No Human Power, she speaks about the travesty and the danger of mixing religion with politics.

"To me the worst thing Bush did was proclaim himself a Christian without having an inkling of what the Great Peacemaker stood for."

This reminds me of something I read from Obery Hendricks. He'd written these words just before the 2006 elections:

The Gospel of Luke tells us that in his inaugural sermon Jesus announced the purpose of his earthly ministry with these words, "The spirit of the Lord is upon me because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor." Throughout the Gospels Jesus makes it clear that care of the poor and vulnerable is one of his deepest concerns, so much so that he gave this as the primary yardstick of faith in him: "As you did not do it to the least of these, you did not do it to me." In other words, the Jesus that George Bush claims as his Lord not only taught that we can meet our neighbors' needs if we have the will; he also taught that we must have the will.

In the coming election season, President Bush and politicians aligned with him who also trumpet their Christian faith will try to trade on that faith to garner votes. They will try to hide their abandonment of America's most vulnerable citizens behind distracting religious sloganeering and hot-button issues like gay marriage. But we must not allow it. We must remind Bush and his congressional cohorts that the Christian faith they profess calls for them to make alleviation of the suffering of the Gulf Coast poor - indeed, of all America's poor - this nation's immediate domestic priority.

In Mark's Gospel Jesus asks, "Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say?" That is the question we must ask President Bush and those politicians who strut their Christian faith while ignoring the care for the needy that their faith demands: "How can you call Jesus ‘Lord,' and not do what he says?"

We must not allow it.

UN Human Rights Chief Blasts U.S.

JTW News:

"I hope that we will see the American judicial system rise to its long-standing reputation as a guardian of fundamental human rights and civil liberties and provide the protection to all that are under the authority, control, and therefore in my view jurisdiction of the United States," Louise Arbour said on Wednesday.

The UN high commissioner for human rights was referring to the Military Commissions Act approved by the US Congress last year and last month's federal appeals court ruling that Guantanamo Bay detainees cannot use the US court system to challenge their detention. The case is likely to go to the Supreme Court.

I can hardly believe that it's my country that Ms. Arbour is talking about when she says:

According to the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, the U.S.-led "war on terror" has undermined the global ban on torture, this weakening American moral authority on human rights, worldwide. "The principle once believed to be unassailable -- the inherent right to physical integrity and dignity of the person -- is becoming a casualty of the so-called War on Terror," Arbour said in a statement on Human Rights Day.

Arbour is also a former Canadian Supreme Court justice and a chief prosecutor for the U.N. war crimes court for the former Yugoslavia. She praised past U.S. leadership on expanding political and civil rights, because it allowed the Americans "to lecture others about their performances." "To the extent that there's a perception that there is a withdrawal from the high-water mark of commitment to civil and political liberties, I think it makes it a lot more difficult for the United States to exercise that kind of moral leadership on all human rights issues," Arbour said.

The UN Commissioner of Human Rights "decried two practices in particular: holding prisoners in secret detention centers, which she said was a form of torture, and rendering suspects to third countries outside normal extradition procedures, that is, without independent oversight." Arbour said "There are a lot of human rights that can be set aside in cases of emergency, lots of them, but not the right to life and not the protection against torture." The United States has denied practicing torture but it has avoided denying or confirming a Washington Post report that the CIA runs secret centres in Eastern Europe to interrogate terrorism suspects."

The United States has also come under heavy criticism for prisoner abuse and torture at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba. The heavy loss of civilian life and the conduct of U.S. troops have been heavily criticized in the on going occupation of Iraq. Even British Prime Minister Tony Blair has admitted, "Iraq is a disaster."

Kirkuk Referendum Postponed 2 Years

According to Stratfor.com:

A referendum on the status of the oil-rich northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk has been postponed for two years, AsiaNews reported Feb. 28. Iraqi Vice President Adel Abdel Mahdi reportedly made the decision, which has not been formally announced, during a visit to Ankara, Turkey, on Feb. 21. The referendum had been scheduled to take place this year and will decide whether Kirkuk will remain a Sunni Arab province or join the Kurdish autonomous region. Kirkuk holds 70 percent of Iraq's natural gas reserves.

Kirkuk is a powderkeg, and postponing this referendum may postpone the long anticipated eruption of hostilities over oil that would put the U.S. smack dab in the middle of an even more vicious civil war in Iraq.

The nation of Turkey doesn't want to see Iraq's Kurdistan region annex Kirkuk, and has signaled to Washington and Baghdad the military consequences of holding the referendum by threatening cross-border military incursions to ostensibly root-out PKK strongholds in Iraq. According to a Stratfor report, the recent approval of the Iraqi oil law legislation agreement is "a done deal -- so long as the stickiest issues that have held up Iraqi development for the past four years get resolved in the following two months. The survival of this oil deal will heavily revolve around what the Kurds get in return for allowing the legislation to move forward." What the Kurds want is this referendum, and the speculation that it's been postponed will complicate matters for the already-exhausted President (Kurdish leader) Jalal Talibani.

There is a rather disturbing report from Turkish Weekly online that claims a former U.S. employee named Scott Sullivan recommends that Turkey should "strike immediately" to take Kirkuk.

If Turkey takes Kirkuk now, Turkey can count on the support of Syria and Saudi Arabia, including participation in a Turkish-led peacekeeping force. If Turkey waits, the U.S. is provided the opportunity to co-opt or coerce both against Turkey.

Interestingly, the discussion of this referendum postponement is out on Google News from many news sources, but as of now, it is not anywhere in the American MSM.

Yesterday, U.S. intelligence chief Admiral Mike McConnell pointed to the February 2006 bombing of the Golden Mosque as the place in time when everything changed, and was more than likely a point of no return in the Iraq civil war - unless the current surge is successful by miraculous circumstance. And no one other than BushCheneyCo actually believes it will be.

"The current security and political trends in Iraq are moving in a negative direction, particularly after the February 2006 bombing of the Mosque at Samara," he said.

He said the latest US intelligence estimate paints a grim picture of the future.

"Unless efforts to reverse these conditions gain real traction during the 12 to 18-month time frame of this estimate, we assess that the security situation will continue to deteriorate at a rate comparable to the latter half of 2006," he said.

There is every good and clear reason for our elected representatives to repeal the President's 2002 authority and to cut funding for any request that would make this surge easy for a dangerous executive administration that is virtually promising to ignore the will of Congress on the matter regardless of what foregn policy disaster they try to avert.

At the DocStrangelove.com blog, Mash has long argued that a post-withdrawal Iraq will not lead to chaos, but is more likely to lead to stability:

The only remaining outcome for Iraq is then a negotiated settlement. The negotiated settlement may however come after an attempt at all out military victory is fought to a stalemate. The negotiated settlement will happen not because it is the preferred outcome, but because it is the only viable outcome. A negotiated settlement will certainly have to include the major regional players such as Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey. The negotiated settlement will come after realization by the Arab states, and acceptance by Iran, that Iraq is, and historically has been, the Arab bulwark against Persian influence. Iran will find once again that the Iraqi Shia are not Iran’s fifth column in Iraq. An American departure from Iraq will eventually lead to a restoration of the balance of power in the region between the Arabs and the Iranians.

The Kurds of Iraq will once again be denied an independent homeland. But that denial will likely come at a price for Turkey. Turkey may be forced to give autonomy to its Kurds as a condition for Kurdish guarantee of Iraq’s territorial integrity.

The Iraq that is likely to emerge through the meat grinder of civil war will owe its stability to a regional need for stability, not to some gift of freedom given by George W Bush. Ironically, Mr. Bush is likely to see this precarious yet stable Iraq emerge from the ashes of his failed policy. Yet, it will emerge because Mr. Bush will finally have left it alone, and not because of his efforts at playing puppet master to the Arabs.

New Day

Healthcare and Politics in America

A 12 year old boy's death in Maryland underscores the dire need for healthcare reform in this nation.

Unless things significantly change under new federal leadership in 2008, "a rise in out-of-pocket expenses, such as the copays for medicine, from about $850 this year to about $1,400 in 2016, a 5.3 percent annual increase. The cost of health insurance is projected to rise even more quickly during that same time -- 6.4 percent annually. Over the coming decade, spending on healthcare will continue to outpace the overall economy." [source: Boston Globe]

Mark Green makes the important point that, in order for our government to represent the large majorities in favor of universal healthcare, it's essential that "progressive patriots erect stronger levees to withstand the oceans of money, lobbyists and lawless officials threatening to drown America's constitutional traditions." Theocrats and plutocrats posing as populists will continue to undermine our now-sick (and getting sicker) democracy and will undermine any honest effort for the healthcare reform the majority of Americans desire as long as we allow them to maintain their not-so-clever disguises. Mr. Green says:

At a December colloquium on this subject in New York City, Bill Moyers (in a speech published in the January 22 Nation) observed that what America needs is not just a "must do" list from liberals but "a different story," one with the power to inspire us and challenge the prevailing conservative narrative of private = good, public = bad.

Etheridge and Gore Soar at Oscars!

Congratulations to Melissa Etheridge for receiving the Oscar award for her song from "An Iconvenient Truth" titled "I Need To Wake Up." A video of the song can be seen here.







Congratulations to Al Gore for "An Inconvenient Truth's" Oscar for Best Documentary. You can see the video of his "formal announcement" here






I was very happy to see Alan Arkin, one of my all-time favorites, get the Best Supporting Actor award and to have heard his gracious award acceptance speech.

"Acting for me has always been and always will be a team sport. I cannot work at all unless I feel a spirit of unity around me." - Alan Arkin, who won best supporting actor for "Little Miss Sunshine."

One of the funniest lines I heard all night was during the pre-Oscar show on ABC when Access Hollywood's annoying Chris Connelly asked Steve Carell about what it was like filming "Little Miss Sunshine" and Carell went on in his imitable way about Kinnear's smelly sweat problem and how it made the hot van a tad uncomfortable at times.

Headlines - Libby Trial Juror Dismissed, Mistrial Averted

Libby Trial- Juror Dismissed

Aldon Hynes is covering the Scooter Libby trial in D.C. this week. You can read the blow by blow at his Orient Lodge.

People are already talking about mistrial. How many jurors were tainted? Is it enough to make a fair verdict unlikely?

Another comment, I don’t know why they didn’t sequester these guys.

Current court room chatter is that someone heard a joke on late night TV and repeated it to the other jurors.

Meanwhile, a reporter asks me about my blog and wishes for the freedom that we bloggers have.

Update/Daily Kos: Potential Mistrial In Libby Trial Averted


Iraq

Kevin Hayden - Why Al Sadr? - The NY Times provided a multi-author overview of Moqtada Al-Sadr today that describes his efforts at the current juncture in this long war that I consider a must-read. [..] While friendly to Iran, he’s known to be a nationalist that doesn’t want Iraq’s government to be Iran’s puppet. Nor does he want it to be America’s puppet. [..] considering that Al-Sadr had no past of anti-American animosity and the circumstances he’s had to contend with since, defending a population where unemployment rates have ranged from 33% to 60%, I have to admit he’s impressed me greatly. He’s navigated amid sharks, he’s had SCIRI, the Sunnis, Al Qaeda, the US military and Bush aiming at him. And he’s survived. As one of the two most popular figures in the country. [..] I still think, if he’s negotiated with without betrayal, he may hold some keys that can unlock progress towards a functional country...



John Edwards, 2008 Candidates

Quote of the Day:

Whoever blogged for Edwards was signing up for a lot of bad hair days, and it wasn't going to be me.

Lindsay Beyerstein of Majikthise, from a Salon.com article titled Why I Refused to Blog for John Edwards

At Daily Kos, David Mizner is saying that John Edwards is doing something important. "It’s so important that it’s eluded the attention of the political press. While pundits handicap the horserace and assess hairstyles, Edwards is quietly yet thoroughly rejecting the economic philosophy that’s dominated the Democratic Party for the last fifteen years."

My comment:

We cannot forget that this is a time when the percentage of poor Americans who are living in severe poverty has reached a 32-year high, with millions of working Americans falling closer to the poverty line. This is a time when the gulf between the nation's "haves" and "have-nots" continues to widen. The plight of the severely poor in this country is a truth that cannot be discounted, especially given the most recent economic expansion.

Ask yourself what's wrong with the picture. Sound economic theory would lead you to believe that governments should run a surplus in good times and a deficit in bad times. Game-playing with politics has warped sound economic theory. An overwhelming deficit has been run up in recent years, disproportionate to the "comeback" rate of economic expansion. Overall, in the past 15 years of continuous economic growth in this country, we've had too few years of government surpluses to show for it. It's time for new thinking and some moral leadership on the issue of how we should deal with the economy. Rubin and the entire Clinton administration worked hard to balance the budget and should be commended for what they did in their time. We can't depend on the shaky economic structures that once brought us stock market bubbles and Enrons to solve the problem of millions of Americans who've sunk into deep poverty. If that is what we are leaning upon because we have a fetish about balancing our budget, we're missing an opportunity for finding a lasting solution that keeps us on solid ground while we raise others up - n a way that raises all of us up.

American health care spending is nearly twice what other developed countries spend as a percentage of GDP. Edwards is laying it on the line for us. We can keep playing political games that provide a temporary and pretty frame for budget-balancing "success" or we can make meaningful change in the way we approach justice, equality, and opportunity when we consider our approach to the budgets. This is a new day.

Books

In The Shadows: Unknown Craftsmen of Bengal - For her new book, In The Shadows: Unknown Craftsmen of Bengal, Payal Mohanka chose six villages which made products like wigs, lights, polo-balls, boats, shuttlecocks and jeans. Each of the villages featured in the book were involved in making one of the products. The craftsmen, she says, have been passing on their skills to the next generation, trying to keep alive a family tradition despite their abject poverty. It is these products that give these villages an identity. [..]“Most people associate poverty with lack of skill, yet the villagers are so skillful. There is such a contrast between what they make and resemble," said Nobel Laureate, Professor Muhammad Yunus, who recently helped to launch the book. [link]


Former Child Soldier Haunted by Past - Sierra Leone emerged from the 11-year war in 2002. Beah visited the country last year, and was dispirited to see how little had changed. There's still a great deal to rebuild and tremendous poverty. Beah says the political corruption worries him most, because it's often a prelude to more conflict.


Other

AP: Scholars Criticize New Jesus Documentary -
Archaeologists and clergymen in the Holy Land derided claims in a new documentary produced by James Cameron that contradict major Christian tenets, but the Oscar-winning director said the evidence was based on sound statistics.[..] "The Lost Tomb of Christ," which the Discovery Channel will run on March 4, argues that 10 ancient ossuaries -- small caskets used to store bones -- discovered in a suburb of Jerusalem in 1980 may have contained the bones of Jesus and his family, according to a press release issued by the Discovery Channel.[..] One of the caskets even bears the title, ''Judah, son of Jesus,'' hinting that Jesus may have had a son. And the very fact that Jesus had an ossuary would contradict the Christian belief that he was resurrected and ascended to heaven.

to be cont'd

Chomsky - Iran, Iraq Surge, and Oil

I wanted to share with you something that I found to be quite interesting. It's an excerpt from a Counterpunch interview that Michael Shank conducted with Noam Chomsky. They're talking about the White House's Iraq escalation plans in relation to unspoken US foreign policy intentions regarding Iran.

Noam Chomsky: By accident of geography, the world's major oil resources are in Shi'ite-dominated areas. Iran's oil is concentrated right near the gulf, which happens to be an Arab area, not Persian. Khuzestan is Arab, has been loyal to Iran, fought with Iran not Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. This is a potential source of dissension. I would be amazed if there isn't an attempt going on to stir up secessionist elements in Khuzestan. U.S. forces right across the border in Iraq, including the surge, are available potentially to "defend" an independent Khuzestan against Iran, which is the way it would be put, if they can carry it off.

Shank: Do you think that's what the surge was for?

Chomsky: That's one possibility. There was a release of a Pentagon war-gaming report, in December 2004, with Gardiner leading it. It was released and published in the Atlantic Monthly. They couldn't come up with a proposal that didn't lead to disaster, but one of the things they considered was maintaining troop presence in Iraq beyond what's to be used in Iraq for troop replacement and so on, and use them for a potential land move in Iran -- presumably Khuzestan where the oil is. If you could carry that off, you could just bomb the rest of the country to dust.

Again, I would be amazed if there aren't efforts to sponsor secessionist movements elsewhere, among the Azeri population for example. It's a very complex ethnic mix in Iran; much of the population isn't Persian. There are secessionist tendencies anyway and almost certainly, without knowing any of the facts, the United States is trying to stir them up, to break the country internally if possible. The strategy appears to be: try to break the country up internally, try to impel the leadership to be as harsh and brutal as possible.

That's the immediate consequence of constant threats. Everyone knows that. That's one of the reasons the reformists, Shirin Ebadi and Akbar Ganji and others, are bitterly complaining about the U.S. threats, that it's undermining their efforts to reform and democratize Iran. But that's presumably its purpose. Since it's an obvious consequence you have to assume it's the purpose. Just like in law, anticipated consequences are taken as the evidence for intention. And here's it so obvious you can't seriously doubt it.

So it could be that one strain of the policy is to stir up secessionist movements, particularly in the oil rich regions, the Arab regions near the Gulf, also the Azeri regions and others. Second is to try to get the leadership to be as brutal and harsh and repressive as possible, to stir up internal disorder and maybe resistance. And a third is to try to pressure other countries, and Europe is the most amenable, to join efforts to strangle Iran economically. Europe is kind of dragging its feet but they usually go along with the United States.

Headlines

Facts of War, editorial, Albany Times Union - Leading Senate Democrats, then the minority but now the majority, are ready to repeal that resolution of unrestricted support for the war. They would declare instead that the mission of the U.S. troops in Iraq does not include interceding in a civil war, which is precisely what now engulfs Iraq.

Juan Cole on Tony Blair, Basra - Blair is not leaving Basra because the British mission has been accomplished. He is leaving because he has concluded that it cannot be, and that if he tries any further it will completely sink the Labor Party, perhaps for decades to come.


Newsweek - The Petraeus plan will have U.S. forces deployed in Iraq for years to come. Does anybody running for president realize that? - The British are leaving, the Iraqis are failing and the Americans are staying—and we’re going to be there a lot longer than anyone in Washington is acknowledging right now. As Democrats and Republicans back home try to outdo each other with quick-fix plans for the withdrawal of U.S. troops and funds, what few people seem to have noticed is that Gen. David Petraeus’s new “surge” plan is committing U.S. troops, day by day, to a much deeper and longer-term role in policing Iraq than since the earliest days of the U.S. occupation.



James Fallows: The Prospect of War on Iran - "...there is a deeper strangeness that I worry about at 2 a.m. Am I guilty of projecting my own assumptions about rationality onto the Administration? [..] Am I the irrational one here, in assuming others’ rationality? I hope not — and I still think not. But just in case I’m wrong, the Congress should get moving and pass that “no funds for war with Iran” measure without delay."


Carter Says Majority in U.S. Support Views in Book / Reuters - Asked what he had learned from reaction to the book, [former President Jimmy Carter] said he was surprised at the ``intensity of feeling and genuine concern that some American Jewish citizens have when anyone questions the current policies of the ... Israeli government. [..] "I can understand the reasons ... that any shaking of almost unanimous support in America for Israel might weaken Israel's position ... as they struggle for their own safety and their own existence,'' he said. [..] The book's main points were that Israel should stop persecuting and abusing Palestinians, withdraw to internationally-recognized borders and conduct intense negotiations with its neighbors to bring peace, Carter said. [..] "Those premises, which are the major premises in my book, have a strong support of American citizens," including many Jews, he said. He added that he guessed the majority of Jews in Israel also agreed with the book's proposals.


The Reason For Reason
by Expatriated Texan -

"Freedom is worth nothing if such limitations are placed upon it as to render it soul-less."

As far as I can tell, there is one, and only one, far reaching difference between basing your belief upon an Enlightened faith and basing it upon the secular writings of an Enlightened academic - faith reaches, or puports to reach, beyond this world. David Hume, for example, or JS Mill, will tell us what is good for this world. But they go no further than what they can see. [..] Liberals in America have hobbled themselves because they have half-understood and half-embraced the meaning of the Enlightenment. [..] Go to link to read the entire piece.



True forgiveness can bring about inner peace, author says - “The only anger I feel is toward my country — lies we have been told, the incidents that are hidden until years later … only to find that we were manipulated.” She said she felt anger toward herself because she let things take place without objecting. She said she felt betrayed and bitter as a speech teacher who has helped many students deliver idealistic speeches about an American democracy. Yet her own deep reading revealed a nation of power through manipulation. “I got to the point that I thought, ‘Don’t tell me about this free country, don’t tell me it is the greatest land in the world,’ ” adding that the same patterns can be found in other countries and throughout history. Eileen Borris-Dunchunstang [author of “Finding Forgiveness” - McGraw Hill, $21.95] said such distrust and bitterness leads to a separation of people, yet sharing such stories of anger leads to common ground and understanding.


Lincoln's Antiwar Record - Political Theory Daily Review asks: Looking for a model lawmaker who called a President to account for launching a war on fabricated grounds? Consider The Nation, Eric Foner on Lincoln's antiwar record.

Learning from Past Mistakes

When we look back at our past, knowing what we know now, we often find that it's nearly impossible to understand how we made the mistakes we've made. Once we learn new information, it's nearly impossible to reenter the 'place' we were in before we learned new information.

I think of the situation where 2008 presidential candidate John Edwards said, after examining his conscience, that he was wrong for having voted for the Iraq War Resolution. It was important for him to acknowledge his mistake so that we might fully understand that he'd learned a powerful lesson. He's offered an example of good character by saying - in essence - that once he admitted he knew better, our nation would stand a chance, through his leadership, to do better - and act more righteously - in the future.

Think about mistakes you've made. I think it's safe to say that our personal pasts are full of mistakes that we often can't believe we'd ever made. We likely did things then that we would never do now, and this is precisely because we have information now that we didn't have - or weren't able to access - back then.

How many of us can look back and honestly say that our personal past sometimes reads like a picture-perfect life-guidebook on what not to do? We learn from living. We come to understand how to live differently now in order that we do not repeat mistakes of the past.

Here we are in 2007. We can look back on 2002 and see that we've learned that a President should not be deferred to as if he or she was a King or a Queen. If there's one lesson that has been taught to us well by President George W. Bush, it is that Senators acting out of ingratiating regard toward a leader for the sake of civiity can be harmful to our freedoms at home and our nation's good standing in the world. Great harm came to the People because of this kind of deference.

In order to live more peacefully with the past, it helps to remember that once we know better, we tend to do better. The Bush administartion's Iraq War will leave a scar on the United States that an apology for a vote on a Resolution will not erase. We shouldn't expect an "I was wrong" to erase the things that have come to pass as a result of the Bush administration's incompetent decisions. An "I was wrong" won't bring back lives lost unjustly, but it may make us stronger by the lessons we trust have been learned. Trust is the key word here. We will only believe we can move on if we have trust that our leaders have learned something. Voters need to be convinced that hard lessons have actually been burned into the minds of those who admit that they were wrong. When John Edwards humbly said that he believed that he was wrong, most Americans were willing to offer their understanding and forgiveness. I can't help but to believe we, as a nation, will heal more quickly and take a more righteous path once we can believe that the leaders we choose have been refined by consciously-realized and publicly-admitted mistakes.

We've all made mistakes before we "knew better." We can forgive ourselves once we see that we did our best, and we can come out stronger for having had the experience. While it's true that from the perspective of the present, our best doesn't always seem good enough, we can at least give our past selves the benefit of the doubt. And we can forgive others who offer a part of their good conscience to us. People do the best with what knowledge they've had.

In the end, it's best not to become bogged down in the negativity created by error, whether it's about a personal mistake or the mistake of a nation. We all serve the greater good most effectively by not dwelling on the past. Sometimes it's hard not to dwell on grievous errors. This is why an apology is so very powerful. It can lead us to more effectively reigning our energy and knowledge into our present actions.

It is here, in this moment, that we create our reality and ourselves anew. I hope that we can soon be on the path to ending our too-long occupation in Iraq and bringing our troops home. It's the only way that Iraq can find its own path to peace with the support of many nations.

On Remaining Centered

When we connect to our center, we access the fullness of who we are as an individual spirit. We also connect to the energy source of the universe, from which nothing can be lacking. It could be that we have been energetically starving ourselves but trying to feed the need physically, outwardly. Once we make the decision to reconnect, we have the ability to examine the behavior from a higher place within ourselves. We can look, without judgment, at the thoughts and feelings that occur before and after our indulgences to find a pattern. We may want to keep track of these observations in a journal so that we can go back if we lose our way. [Daily Om]



"All that I have mentioned is outward, but the outward acts upon the inward, and a man’s clothes and his home are the nearest of all things to his soul, and their influence on it is perpetual and therefore incalculably powerful." [Dr. Martin Lings]




As Krishnamurti often emphasized, only a still mind can be attentive. There is a quality of attention and seeing which can bring about an action in oneself so that a radical change can take place naturally, from the inside. I once asked Krishnamurti about the nature of this attention, what he himself called total attention. I said to him, "What I find in myself is the fluctuation of attention." He said with emphasis, "What fluctuates is not attention. Only inattention fluctuates." For him, there was never a compromise with half-measures; it was a matter of total commitment to truth, or nothing at all.



As long as one does not have a centered self, one is fragmented and agitated. Then one is inevitably self-centered because vastness, freedom and compassion cannot be available to a fragmented and disordered self. When one is centered, one naturally sees the limitation of the personal or selfish perspective. Then one naturally wishes to be free of the prison of selfishness. Until then, the notion or effort to be free of the self is merely an idea and a fantasy. When one has awakened senses, a clear heart and an alert mind, one can go beyond thought to an intelligence which is not so personal or self-bound. [Ravi Ravindra]

Bill O'Reilly Lies in Rush to Trash Edwards

I could hardly believe my eyes when I saw Bill O'Reilly's op-ed in the Boston Herald. Why? Because, in his rush - his last opportunity to get in his faux-scream to trash Senator Edwards for the recent blogger non-scandal, he employed lies when talking about what actualy happened. To offer him the benefit of the doubt, perhaps he didn't realize they were lies, but there they are - in black and white. Lies. Amanda Marcotte left the campaign because of frightening and vicious threats from some people I personally believe sound insane with and drunk on their own hatred. Ms. Marcotte would've been with the campaign still today had these threats upon her well-being and disruptions by lunatics not have occurred. If the Edwards campaign fails to correct these lies - magnify these lies - in public, the lies will stand in the mind of the public-at-large as conventional wisdom. This is the way that the strength of a perfectly good campaign is diminished, as we saw in 2004. When Bill O'Reilly has to resort to lying to make any political point, his loudmouthed pontifications about so-called-bigotry fall flat as Tom Friedman's earth.

Tough Love for Hillary Clinton on IWR

"An humble knowledge of thyself is a surer way to God than a deep search after learning."


- Thomas à Kempis, German monk, mystic



So Many Advisers -
I read the Patrick Healy article about Senator Hillary Clinton and her advisers on the front page of last Sunday’s New York Times and I’ll admit that I was a bit surprised that this article made the front page while a story about Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice’s visit to Baghdad, where she ludicrously compared the Iraq war to the American Revolution, was buried on page 14.

After reading the Healy article, I decided that it must be overwhelming for presidential candidates at times, realizing how many decisions faced by the candidates are made tougher by myriad campaign advisers, each with their own personal ideas about the position they believe the candidates should take on the respective issues. I believe that Senator Clinton may be getting into some trouble with her latest decisions, and I regret to see that these decisions are resulting in an appearance of her shunning the netroots, with her advisers wrongly dismissing their concerns as nothing more than anger.
That rhetoric sounds too “Joe Lieberman-ish” to me. I would not suspect that this is something she’d intend to do, as I know from my own personal experience that she and President Clinton have shown clear respect for and interest in the blogging community.




"We judge ourselves by what we feel capable of doing, while others judge us by what we have already done".


— Henry Wadsworth Longfellow (1807 - 1882)

The IWR Vote Issue - When Will It Go Away?
Some of Senator Clinton’s advisers, including former UN ambassador Richard Holbrooke, believe that what she says now, in 2007, about her Iraq War vote in 2002 will be remembered as a ‘turning point’ in the 2008 presidential race. They obviously don’t think this issue is going away anytime soon. Mr. Holbrooke says that Senator Clinton believes that it should be a no-brainer for Americans – the IWR was based on false intelligence. It never should have come up for a vote at all. Mr. Holbrooke seems to think that it should logically follow that an‘I was wrong’ would not be anything the American people would expect or deserve. I have to say that, from a standpoint of moral leadership, I find that logic to be hard to follow or swallow, and I’d wager most any American you’d meet on the street in your own community would feel the way that I do.

The Niche -
It's Deliberate, Highly-emphasized and Strongly-publicized..But Is It Necessary? Helpful?
Other logic applied in the article defending Senator Clinton’s reason for denying concerned Americans an offering of a simple “I was wrong” has failed to convince me that this is any more than a deliberate, necessary, highly emphasized and strongly publicized route to create a political niche for Senator Clinton. The way I see it, her reasons for voting for the IWR were not drastically different than that of the only other top-tier candidate who also voted for authorization in 2002, Senator John Edwards. He said, in a November 2005 Washington Post op-ed, that he believed he was wrong about his vote. Her refusal to apologize seems to be divisive and alienating for Democratic primary voters and as far as the general election is concerned, I don’t see how it will win Independent voters who are extremely concerned about this war or Republicans who say they’ll never vote for her under any circumstances.

Not Sorry? My God, Why Not?
I believe that these are times when some earthy and plainspoken deference to the concerns of the people is twice as important for a candidate to offer than stressing the importance of deference to President Bush in 2002. If anything will count in 2008, it will surely be character. After six years of incompetence and misleading from the Bush administration leadership, voters will discriminate and will parse the field of candidates cautiously to find what they believe is a leader who does not need to appear strong by never admitting where they’ve been wrong, regardless of their gender. Gender should never be a reason to avoid moral honesty, and because I want to see the best for her, I wish Senator Clinton would listen to voices like mine. I would urge her to find a way to communicate to Americans that she is, indeed, sorry that her deference to President Bush in 2002 – which she felt was due at the time - contributed in any way, shape, or form, to a war that defied the will of millions of people in America and around the world, defied the moral leadership of many religious leaders, including the head of the Catholic church, and unjustly created a humanitarian crisis for the people of a nation we have now occupied longer than the duration of WWII.

Not sorry? My God, why not?

Self-Revelation as Great Power vs. Weakness
President Bush has shown us his stubborn ‘strong and wrong’ attitude for too long. If the people want ‘I was wrong,’ it seems it would show respect for a candidate to look them in the eye and level with them. The harder a candidate tries to avoid an apology, the more tangled a web can become. We all look toward a better future rather than clinging to mistakes long past. However, there is great power concealed in a leader’s self-revelation regarding regret - the kind of regret that any human being would understand and forgive. When that admission of human error in judgment is willfully denied to the people who need to hear it most, there will always be an important missing connection with the people who need – now more than ever – to trust their commander in chief.

For the Last Time, We're Not Angry. We Voted for Change. We Respect Strength When We Believe It Comes From the Heart
The advisers quoted in the article keep referring to American “anger” over the IWR vote, while the names to put on the feelings about the Democratic candidates who voted for the IWR in 2002 are much closer to worry, distrust, and skepticism. Senator Edwards offered an ‘I was wrong’ long ago when he said that his conscience directed him to do so. American voters have been impressed by what they’ve seen as his honesty, which one of the Clinton advisers have softly suggested was a gimmick. In the same article - a short few paragraphs away - Patrick Healy reports on a ‘new response’ from Senator Clinton [her advisers won’t call it a gimmick]. She’s willing to ‘lose support from voters rather than apologizing for something she did not believe in.’ That will only result in a loss of votes for her, and I have to be honest and tell you that I believe she’s making a grave error in judgment. It can’t work because it’s a combination of the RNC-style framing of Edwards as flip-flopper, the lame 2004 Kerry campaign unapologetic rhetoric, and a Joe Lieberman 2006 style of depending upon overwhelming Republican support in the general election. It won’t work if they don't believe it’s from the heart. Senator Clinton needs to show that she's not afraid to wear a bit more of that heart on her sleeve. As a woman, I can say that I wouldn't see Hillary Clinton as one bit weaker, but instead a thousand times stronger by opening up to millions of concerned and watchful Americans on this particular issue.