Labels: Bill Richardson, George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton
We just finished this video and we wanted you to see it immediately. And we want you to share it with at least ten other Democrats.
It illustrates Bill Richardson's Iraq policy and why he is different than every other Democrat running for president. He is the only candidate to insist on a total and immediate withdrawal -- one that leaves no troops behind.
The other candidates would leave tens of thousands of American troops in Iraq for years to come to pay the ultimate price for George Bush's irresponsible leadership.
For instance, Senator Clinton has said that the differences between the candidates are minor. But she would leave American troops in Iraq until the end of her second term -- in 2017!
Every Democrat needs to know that critical difference before he or she votes in the primaries.
Spend the next four minutes watching this video. Then forward it to at least ten Democrats. Ask them to spend four minutes watching it, too. And tell them, "If you truly support ending the war and bringing home all our troops, Bill Richardson is your only choice."
If every supporter of Bill Richardson does that, we can win New Hampshire. We can win Iowa. And we can win the White House.
But most importantly, America will win. Because we will finally be able to move beyond George Bush's disaster in Iraq in a way that strengthens our nation, stabilizes the region, and restores our moral leadership in the world.
Thank you for your continued support -- and for doing your part to spread Bill Richardson's message of hope far and wide.
Sincerely,
Amanda Cooper
Deputy Campaign Manager
Read more of this post |
0 comments
| links to this post
Labels: Bill Richardson, George W. Bush
I've been completely open about what I believe we need to do to end the war in Iraq.
I've repeatedly called for a complete withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq. There's no confusion or ambiguity or waffling in my position: just bring ALL of the troops home. No excuses. No delays. No troops left behind.
At last week's debate in Iowa I asked the other Democrats on that stage, several of whom return to Congress next week hopefully to begin debating the war again, how many troops would you leave behind?
How have the other major candidates responded to this simple question? Silence. We know they're all on record as being against the war. But we still don't know for sure how many troops they would leave in Iraq and for how long.
I think it is time to get some straight answers. Join me in calling for the Democratic debate to include a direct question of all the candidates: How many troops would you leave behind? How long would you leave them in Iraq?
The inside-the-beltway conventional thinking says a complete withdrawal is "irresponsible."
Of course, this is the same thinking that concluded it was responsible to invade Iraq to hunt WMDs in the fist place, that continuing to fund the war is the way to end it, and that the so-called "surge"
is a success.
I think it is irresponsible to continue with half-measures and incremental steps when what we need is a clean break. No drawn-out, Vietnam-style withdrawal. No stalling. The responsible path now is to get all of our troops out as quickly as possible. After the damage Bush has wrought, we can't be afraid of big changes based on solid logic and grounded experience.
I've met and successfully negotiated with leaders from the region (including Saddam Hussein himself) -- and my concrete experience tells me only a complete withdrawal will break the deadlock and allow us to move forward, toward real change. As long as our troops are there, the Iraqis will delay reconciliation. It is time to get our troops out of harm's way in a civil war, and it is time to get our lingering presence in Iraq out of the way of the diplomatic process.
And I believe we must withdraw our troops as quickly as possible. After the first Gulf War, we redeployed nearly a half a million troops in a few months. In this war, our military leaders have successfully rotated as many as 240,000 troops in and out of Iraq in as few as three months. I believe we can remove approximately 162,000 troops now quickly and safely. Now, it is just a matter of having a real debate, and then having the political will to call for real solutions.
If we elect a President who thinks that troops should stay in Iraq for years, they will stay there for years. Now is the time to get the answers we need. It is time to demand more than sound bites, uncertainty, and non-answers to important questions. It is time to demand real answers based on real experience and a commitment to real, and realistic, change.
You know where I stand -- and what I would do as President.
Senator Clinton? Senator Obama? Senator Edwards? How about you?
Will you bring all the troops home? If not, how many would you leave behind? For how long?
Let's get the question of residual troops on the table at the Democratic candidates' debate next Sunday, September 9th at the University of Miami. Let's get the answers the voters and the public deserve.
Sign my petition to Univision, the debate sponsors, asking them to clearly ask the question, and to demand clear answers.
This is not a theoretical question -- it's a concrete one, and it deserves a concrete answer. Our men and women in uniform are not an abstraction. They are our family, our friends, our neighbors. It is time for answers we can count on.
Sincerely,
Governor Bill Richardson
Read more of this post |
0 comments
| links to this post
Labels: George W. Bush, John Edwards
John Edwards is launching the Road to One America Tour next week to shine a light on the 37 million Americans who live in poverty. If we don't stand up for them, who will? George Bush and his corporate buddies won't. The lobbyists in Washington won't. And since the media can't stop talking about Paris Hilton, you can bet they won't help shine a light on it.
Will you help end poverty by giving $8?
www.johnedwards.com/action/contribute/1-in-8
That's why we need you. You can stand with us by making a small but meaningful contribution of just $8 to support the only campaign dedicated to ending poverty in America in 30 years.
Stand with us and take on poverty in America by giving just $8 today.
www.johnedwards.com/action/contribute/1-in-8
Some people say it's hypocritical for someone who has money to talk about poverty. They think we should ignore the issue, instead of standing up for Americans who are struggling to make ends meet.
But ignoring it, calling John a hypocrite and talking about haircuts while 37 million Americans continue to struggle for their next meal are all just distractions to get us off what really matters in this election: getting this country back on track. And that's why we're launching the Road to One America Tour next week—shining a light on the parts of our country that are being ignored by President Bush. Help our campaign to end poverty in America by signing our petition, giving just $8 and passing this on to your friends and family.
Poverty affects all of us. George W. Bush has chosen to ignore it. This campaign has chosen to do something about it — but we need you. Stand with us, and help us end poverty in America.
www.johnedwards.com/action/contribute/1-in-8
Thank you for all you do,
Joe Trippi
The problem is, neither does John Edwards. All politicians system-wide use propaganda to push their agenda of the moment to get elected, and just as the Iraq war wouldve been launched by a President John Kerry, so would negligence of Katrina victims continue under Edwards, and even Obama (look at Ray Nagin's tatters).
My question at present would be where are all the working class people of color disabled in the inclusion movement? We seem to be drifting towards cross-class collaboration in a 'we're all disabled together'
fashion, which while good for culture and learning ignores stark realities of class and the fact that the rich are the ones behind inclusion being necessary in the first place. They, not workers, were behind the bad designs and cultural exclusion that makes today's drives necessary.
Nico Phillips
Read more of this post |
0 comments
| links to this post
Labels: Barack Obama, George W. Bush
Think about that.
Almost six years after 9/11, Osama bin Laden is still alive. His organization is still training terrorists. And he and his associates still have a safe haven in the mountains on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.
Meanwhile, George W. Bush released his administration's report on the "progress" in Iraq. It's another example of how deep in denial he is about what's really happening. The past three months have been some of the deadliest since the war began, and things are getting worse -- not better.
The war in Iraq should never have been authorized, never have been waged, and it must end now.
Al Qaeda's resurgence proves that the Iraq war has been a deadly distraction from the real threats we face -- which is why I opposed the war from the beginning.
George Bush just finished a press conference where he tried to tell people that progress is being made in Iraq and against al Qaeda. The press will report his spin and obfuscation -- but you can have an impact on their coverage.
Write a letter to the editor of your local paper right now -- if you act quickly, your letter could be printed alongside tomorrow's coverage.
Our online letters-to-editors tool makes it simple:
http://www.BarackObama.com/BushInDenial
Over 250,000 of us have invested in this campaign because we're willing to do everything we can to change this country.
Now is the time to act.
Millions of Americans are hungry for a president who will end the war in Iraq and confront the threats we face with honesty and sound judgment.
They're waiting to hear from you.
Thank you,
Barack Obama
Read more of this post |
0 comments
| links to this post
Labels: Bill Richardson, George W. Bush
When I first heard the news on Monday, I just couldn't believe it. Every time I think George W. Bush and his administration have gone as far as they could, they sink to a new low.
Forget the politics for a moment. Scooter Libby is a convicted felon who was implicated in a national security case and convicted of obstructing justice. Yet, he will not spend even one hour in jail and not because he was innocent or because he received an unfair trial. Rather, today Scooter Libby is a free man because the President believes he and his buddies are above the law.
George Bush allowing Libby to go free for his role in covering up the outing of a CIA operative shows contempt for the rule of law and a disregard for the security of the United States.
But it could get worse. We know that George W. Bush is considering a pardon. Join me and we can stop him.
Read it, add your own comments, and join me in telling George Bush this goes too far.
July 2007
Dear President Bush,
Lewis "Scooter"
Libby was convicted on federal charges of perjury, obstruction of justice, and lying to investigators. It was a fair trial and a fair sentence.
You are simply wrong to commute his sentence and I am disturbed about the message you are sending to the American people and to the people of the world -- namely, that the rule of law is not absolute and that loopholes do exist for people with the right friends, or the right secrets to keep. That is not the American way and it once again demonstrates the breathtaking arrogance that unfortunately has come to characterize your Administration.
Will you also commute the sentences of others who obstructed justice and lied to grand juries? Will you commute the sentences of others convicted in cases that compromised our national security? Or will you only protect those who you know and who have acted to hide the actions of your administration from the American people?
I am beyond disappointed. I am incensed. And today I ask that you immediately declare you will not, under any circumstances, make this situation worse by pardoning Scooter Libby.
You may have arranged that he not serve a day (or even an hour) of his sentence, but if you want to preserve any of your credibility, you must not erase his crime completely.
I implore you -- the American people implore you -- do not pardon Scooter Libby.
Sincerely,
Governor Bill Richardson
Join me and co-sign my letter now.
Read more of this post |
0 comments
| links to this post
You can comment on this entry by posting a response at: Labels: federal election commission, George W. Bush
New York Times Editorial
Another Sorry Ascension
It apparently wasn't enough for the Bush administration to pack the Department of Justice with political operatives. The White House has now nominated one of the most meddlesome of those partisans, Hans von Spakovsky, to a powerful post on the Federal Election Commission.
This is the agency charged with making sure elections are fair - an especially ludicrous perch for Mr. Spakovsky. As a voting-rights appointee in the Justice Department, he promoted Republican initiatives to crimp the ballot power of minorities and the poor who typically favor Democrats.
In one of his party missions, Mr. Spakovsky overrode the recommendations of the department's staff professionals and approved a regressive law in Georgia that required voters to provide photo identification. The law, a voter suppression tool worthy of the Jim Crow era, was later blocked by the courts. A former G.O.P. county chairman in Georgia, Mr. Spakovsky failed to recuse himself from such an obvious conflict of interest. He also pushed for department approval of Tom DeLay's Texas gerrymandering plan - the plan that the Supreme Court ruled violated the Voting Rights Act.
Feverish for the Republican edge, Mr. Spakovsky drove career lawyers from the Justice department and constantly parroted the (Karl) Rovian line that voter fraud is rampant, though studies have found otherwise.
Uncertain that even a Republican-controlled Senate would approve Mr. Spakovsky's nomination to the F.E.C., President Bush gave him a recess appointment to the commission last year. The new Democratic-controlled Senate now has the opportunity to strike a blow against electoral skullduggery with a blunt rejection of Mr. Spakovsky's nomination for a full six-year term.
The realpolitik problem with that is that the two-party machines traditionally stack the F.E.C. with loyal mediocrities and avoid confronting each other's bad apples. Making it worse, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has nominated a hometown buddy and party ally to the commission and isn't eager to jeopardize his own choice. But that's no reason to look the other way when it comes to Mr. Spakovsky's obvious unfitness for the job.
Democrats should make clear to the White House - and to Mr. Reid - that the F.E.C. is too important to be left in the hands of political hacks or to be sacrificed for the sake of a political deal.
EM Prentiss
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/504Dems/message/5940
Read more of this post |
0 comments
| links to this post
