Sunday, January 14, 2007

++This was initially supposed to be posted on Friday, but I wasn't at work, so here it is++

Oh there's just so much to talk about.

ESCALATION IN IRAQ (my comments in RED)

Good evening. Tonight in Iraq, the armed forces of the United States are engaged in a struggle that will determine the direction of the global war on terror - and our safety here at home. The new strategy I outline tonight will change America's course in Iraq, and help us succeed in the fight against terror.

When I addressed you just over a year ago, nearly 12 million Iraqis had cast their ballots for a unified and democratic nation. The elections of 2005 were a stunning achievement. We thought that these elections would bring the Iraqis together - and that as we trained Iraqi security forces, we could accomplish our mission with fewer American troops.

But in 2006, the opposite happened. The violence in Iraq - particularly in Baghdad - overwhelmed the political gains the Iraqis had made. Al Qaeda terrorists and Sunni insurgents recognized the mortal danger that Iraq's elections posed for their cause. And they responded with outrageous thanks, Carissa acts of murder aimed at innocent Iraqis.

They blew up one of the holiest shrines in Shia Islam - the Golden Mosque of Samarra - in a calculated effort to provoke Iraq's Shia population to retaliate. Their strategy worked. Radical Shia elements, some supported by Iran, formed death squads. And the result was a vicious cycle of sectarian violence that continues today. otherwise known as a Civil War

The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people - and it is unacceptable to me. Our troops in Iraq have fought bravely. They have done everything we have asked them to do. Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me. yeah, and it is certainly an impeachable offense

It is clear that we need to change our strategy in Iraq.Doh! So my national security team, military commanders, and diplomats conducted a comprehensive review. We consulted members of Congress from both parties who? - because Lieberfuck does not count, our allies abroad who?, and distinguished outside experts. We benefited from the thoughtful recommendations of the Iraq Study Group - a bipartisan panel led by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton. and then promptly disregarded their recommendations, kind of like the 9/11 commission recs, that a Democratic Congress just passed. In our discussions, we all agreed that there is no magic formula for success in Iraq. And one message came through loud and clear: Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States.

The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. Because this is not already what they are doing. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Sounds like you're projecting, dear President. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. I think the train already left the station on this one. Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people. On September the 11th, 2001, we saw what a refuge for extremists on the other side of the world could bring to the streets of our own cities. There you go, when in doubt, cry 9/11! Remember 9/11! For the safety of our people, America must succeed in Iraq. Repeat after me, "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11."


The most urgent priority for success in Iraq is security, especially in Baghdad. Eighty percent of Iraq's sectarian violence occurs within 30 miles of the capital. oh, except for Anbar Province... This violence is splitting Baghdad into sectarian enclaves repeat after me, "Civil War", and shaking the confidence of all Iraqis. Only the Iraqis can end the sectarian violence and secure their people. we know. And their government has put forward an aggressive plan to do it. yeah, I think it involves us leaving.

Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents, and there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have. Our military commanders reviewed the new Iraqi plan to ensure that it addressed these mistakes. They report that it does. They also report that this plan can work. of course they do, I fired the ones that didn't agree.

Now, let me explain the main elements of this effort. The Iraqi government will appoint a military commander and two deputy commanders for their capital. The Iraqi government will deploy Iraqi army and national police brigades across Baghdad's nine districts. When these forces are fully deployed, there will be 18 Iraqi army and national police brigades committed to this effort, along with local police. These Iraqi forces will operate from local police stations; conducting patrols and setting up checkpoints and going door-to-door to gain the trust of Baghdad residents. this sounds like a great idea, since most experts agree that Iraqi militia and police are completely infiltrated by the sunni and shia death squads.

This is a strong commitment. But for it to succeed, our commanders say the Iraqis will need our help. So America will change our strategy to help the Iraqis carry out their campaign to put down sectarian violence and bring security to the people of Baghdad. This will require increasing American force levels. So I've committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq. Didn't the original plan call for almost twice as many? Oh yeah, the Joint Chiefs told you we didn't have that many soldiers, so instead you're proceeding half assed. Right.

The vast majority of them -- five brigades -- will be deployed to Baghdad. These troops will work alongside Iraqi units and be embedded in their formations. Our troops will have a well-defined mission: to help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods, to help them protect the local population, and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security that Baghdad needs.

Many listening tonight will ask why this effort will succeed when previous operations to secure Baghdad did not. Well, here are the differences: In earlier operations, Iraqi and American forces cleared many neighborhoods of terrorists and insurgents - but when our forces moved on to other targets, the killers returned. This time, we will have the force levels we need to hold the areas that have been cleared. In earlier operations, political and sectarian interference prevented Iraqi and American forces from going into neighborhoods that are home to those fueling the sectarian violence. This time, Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to enter these neighborhoods - and Prime Minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated.

I have made it clear to the prime minister and Iraq's other leaders that America's commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people already happened...just sayin' - and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people. Now is the time to act. The prime minister understands this. Here is what he told his people just last week: "The Baghdad security plan will not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, regardless of [their] sectarian or political affiliation."

This new strategy will not yield an immediate end to suicide bombings, assassinations, or IED attacks. Our enemies in Iraq will make every effort to ensure that our television screens are filled with images of death and suffering. Yet, over time, we can expect to see Iraqi troops chasing down murderers, fewer brazen acts of terror, and growing trust and cooperation from Baghdad's residents. When this happens, daily life will improve, Iraqis will gain confidence in their leaders, and the government will have the breathing space it needs to make progress in other critical areas. Most of Iraq's Sunni and Shia want to live together in peace. And reducing the violence in Baghdad will help make reconciliation possible. also jobs, and electricity, water and education - all things that we broke.

Iraqi aid

A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations. Ordinary Iraqi citizens must see that military operations are accompanied by visible improvements in their neighborhoods and communities. So America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced. benchmarks? benchmarks? Didn't Dems suggest this a while ago? no! surely not.

To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November. To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country's economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis. except for that part where the oil is about to opened up to foreign oil companies. To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs. To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year. And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation's political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws i believe we encouraged these laws, that and disbanding the army... oops! and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq's constitution.

America will change our approach to help the Iraqi government as it works to meet these benchmarks. In keeping with the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, we will increase the embedding of American advisers in Iraqi army units, and partner a coalition brigade with every Iraqi army division. how about engaging Iran and Syria, are we going to keep with those recommendations, how about NOT sending more troops?

We will help the Iraqis build a larger and better-equipped army we can't even build and equip our own army, and we will accelerate the training of Iraqi forces, which remains the essential U.S. security mission in Iraq. We will give our commanders and civilians greater flexibility to spend funds for economic assistance. We will double the number of Provincial Reconstruction Teams. These teams bring together military and civilian experts to help local Iraqi communities pursue reconciliation, strengthen the moderates and speed the transition to Iraqi self-reliance. And Secretary Rice will soon appoint a reconstruction coordinator in Baghdad to ensure better results for economic assistance being spent in Iraq.

As we make these changes, we will continue to pursue al Qaeda and foreign fighters. Al Qaeda is still active in Iraq. Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq until we let them in. Its home base is Anbar Province. Al Qaeda has helped make Anbar the most violent area of Iraq outside the capital. A captured al Qaeda document describes the terrorists' plan to infiltrate and seize control of the province. This would bring al Qaeda closer to its goals of taking down Iraq's democracy, building a radical Islamic empire, and launching new attacks on the United States at home and abroad.

Our military forces in Anbar are killing and capturing al Qaeda leaders - and they are protecting the local population. Recently, local tribal leaders have begun to show their willingness to take on al Qaeda. And, as a result, our commanders believe we have an opportunity to deal a serious blow to the terrorists. So I have given orders to increase American forces in Anbar Province by 4,000 troops. These troops will work with Iraqi and tribal forces to keep up the pressure on the terrorists. America's men and women in uniform took away al Qaeda's safe haven in Afghanistan except they're getting it back, in case you didn't notice, the war in Afghanistan is going BADLY - and we will not allow them to re- establish it in Iraq. like you did in Afghanistan.

Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity - and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq. <- what exactly does this mean? are you going to go to war with Iran and Syria too, because if you "seek out and destroy" that really REALLY sounds like an act of war.


We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American OIL interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region. We will expand intelligence sharing and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies. How does this reassure our friends and allies (which friends and allies, who do we have left) - how do you use Patriot missiles against individual rebels? We will work with the governments of Turkey and Iraq to help them resolve problems along their border. And we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region.

We will use America's full diplomatic resources to rally support for Iraq from nations throughout the Middle East. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and the Gulf states need to understand that an American defeat in Iraq would create a new sanctuary for extremists - and a strategic threat to their survival. These nations have a stake in a successful Iraq that is at peace with its neighbors - and they must step up their support for Iraq's unity government. We endorse the Iraqi government's call to finalize an international compact that will bring new economic assistance in exchange for greater economic reform. And on Friday, Secretary Rice will leave for the region - to build support for Iraq, and continue the urgent diplomacy required to help bring peace to the Middle East.

The challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time. Oh really? And how are we rising to meet this challenge? Oh right, not sending enough troops and not sending them with the equipment they need. Not engaging regional actors, not calling for real sacrifice. Not leading a war effort - but yes, printing more and more "Support the Troops" stickers. On one side are those who believe in freedom and moderation. On the other side are extremists who kill the innocent, and have declared their intention to destroy our way of life. In the long run, the most realistic way to protect the American people is to provide a hopeful alternative to the hateful ideology of the enemy - by advancing liberty across a troubled region. It is in the interests of the United States to stand with the brave men and women who are risking their lives to claim their freedom - and to help them as they work to raise up just and hopeful societies across the Middle East. How about raising a JUST and HOPEFUL society here in the US, instead of one consumed by FEAR and HATE?

From Afghanistan to Lebanon to the Palestinian territories, millions of ordinary people are sick of the violence, and want a future of peace and opportunity for their children. And they are looking at Iraq. They want to know: Will America withdraw and yield the future of that country to the extremists - or will we stand with the Iraqis who have made the choice for freedom?

The changes I have outlined tonight are aimed at ensuring the survival of a young democracy that is fighting for its life in a part of the world of enormous importance to American OIL security. Let me be clear: The terrorists and insurgents in Iraq are without conscience, and they will make the year ahead bloody and violent. Even if our new strategy works exactly as planned, deadly acts of violence will continue - and we must expect more Iraqi and American casualties and we can help, by sending more Americans into harm's way. The question is whether our new strategy will bring us closer to success. I believe that it will.

Victory will not look like the ones our fathers and grandfathers achieved. There will be no surrender ceremony on the deck of a battleship. But victory in Iraq will bring something new in the Arab world - a functioning democracy that polices its territory, upholds the rule of law, respects fundamental human liberties, and answers to its people. Wow! I wish we could have that: upholds the rule of law, respects fundamental human liberties, answers to it's's that 26% approval of your handing of the war feeling? How about the 60% that want US troops out? How about those November A democratic Iraq will not be perfect. But it will be a country that fights terrorists instead of harboring them - and it will help bring a future of peace and security for our children and grandchildren.

This new approach comes after consultations with Congress about the different courses we could take in Iraq oh really? who in Congress?. Many are concerned that the Iraqis are becoming too dependent on the United States - and therefore, our policy should focus on protecting Iraq's borders and hunting down al Qaeda. Their solution is to scale back America's efforts in Baghdad - or announce the phased withdrawal of our combat forces.

We carefully considered these proposals. no, ya didn't. And we concluded that to step back now would force a collapse of the Iraqi government, tear the country apart, and result in mass killings on an unimaginable scale. Such a scenario would result in our troops being forced to stay in Iraq even longer, and confront an enemy that is even more lethal. If we increase our support at this crucial moment, and help the Iraqis break the current cycle of violence, we can hasten the day our troops begin coming home. lies, all LIES!

In the days ahead, my national security team will fully brief Congress on our new strategy. If members have improvements that can be made, we will make them lies all LIES! If circumstances change, we will adjust. Honorable people have different views but we'll still call them traitors, and they will voice their criticisms. It is fair to hold our views up to scrutiny. And all involved have a responsibility to explain how the path they propose would be more likely to succeed.

Acting on the good advice of Senator Joe Lieberman what?! and other key members of Congress, we will form a new, bipartisan working group that will help us come together across party lines to win the war on terror. so, Republicans and Lieberman, that's real bipartisan. This group will meet regularly with me and my administration. It will help strengthen our relationship with Congress. not likely. We can begin by working together to increase the size of the active Army and Marine Corps, so that America has the armed forces we need for the 21st century. and where do you propose we get these soldiers, of course we won't institute anything like the draft. We also need to examine ways to mobilize talented American civilians to deploy overseas - where they can help build democratic institutions in communities and nations recovering from war and tyranny.

In these dangerous times, the United States is blessed to have extraordinary and selfless men and women willing to step forward and defend us. These young Americans understand that our cause in Iraq is noble and necessary - and that the advance of freedom is the calling of our time. They serve far from their families, who make the quiet sacrifices of lonely holidays and empty chairs at the dinner table. They have watched their comrades give their lives to ensure our liberty. We mourn the loss of every fallen American - and we owe it to them to build a future worthy of their sacrifice.

Fellow citizens: The year ahead will demand more patience, sacrifice, and resolve. you have never asked the American people to sacrifice anything! It can be tempting to think that America can put aside the burdens of freedom. Yet times of testing reveal the character of a nation. And throughout our history, Americans have always defied the pessimists and seen our faith in freedom redeemed. Now America is engaged in a new struggle that will set the course for a new century. We can and we will prevail. this reminds me of v for vendetta "england prevails"

We go forward with trust that the author of liberty will guide us through these trying hours. Thank you and good night.

what? no God Bless America?

And so concludes our direct commenting on the speech. More below.

Here's what the NYTimes has to say:

"The plan, outlined by the president in stark, simple tones in a 20-minute speech from the White House library, is vintage George Bush – bull-headed, even delusional about the prospects for success in Iraq in the eyes of critics; resolute and principled in the eyes of admirers. It is the latest evidence that the president is convinced that he is right and that history will vindicate him, even if that vindication comes long after he is gone from the Oval Office."

Uh huh, great. we are all screwed. here's an aesop's fable that I am lifting directly from Dkos:

"One Thursday morning at Aesop's Place...

Here's a little story, a fable if you will.

Once upon a time, the biggest, toughest kid in the village was bitten by a mouse. Yes, a mouse. But don't think this wasn't a very bad bite! It hurt so very much, and left a scar on the tough kid. It was very bad, that bite. But the bite is not the story, the story is what happened after the bite.

See, the big kid could not admit to his friends or his family that he was bitten by a little mouse. He didn't ask them to help him put out mousetraps – even though this would have been a wise thing to do. Instead, he said that he was bitten by a monster. A very big and scary monster, one that wanted to kill him and all his family. One that wanted to take over the whole village.

Some people doubted this, which only made the kid angry. He said that one of them was helping the monsters, so he ran to his house, smashed everything, and left many people badly hurt. But there were no monsters there. Now many people doubted the child – which only made sense, because the child was a liar. But when he heard people making fun of him, the lying child only got angry. He would show them. He would claim they where helping monsters, too. And then he would smash their houses, and hurt their families, and he would get his friends to help, and he would... he would...

Oh, hell with it. Bush tried to inflate the importance of a rag tag group that never had more than 10,000 members and turned it into something that would justify his desire to start a war across the whole Middle East, and when he screwed up Iraq, his response was to line up the guns for a shot at Iran. And he's running a proxy war in Somalia, too.

And the mouse ate everyone's damn cheese, and they were all pissed off ever after."

Meanwhile, according to an AP poll this morning, fully 70% oppose the escalation in Iraq - but don't think that Bush feels accountable, he's already sent 900 more troops - so much for consulting Congress. Did I mention that 70% oppose more troops?

And in other news, the coalition of the willing is becoming more and more unwilling, news broke that Great Britain is pulling half of their troops...

House Dems have a brilliant plan to block funds for this escalation by attaching benchmarks that Bush would have to meet in order to get them. details here.

From the press conference this morning with Sec. Rice and Sec Gates, we have these nuggets:

"Syria and Iran should end their destabilizing behavior in the region," Rice warned. "The United States will defend its interests and those of our friends and allies in this vital region." this sounds like more fighting words against Iran and Syria

Asked if the new U.S . plan would include trying to arrest or kill Muqtada al-Sadr, the radical Shiite cleric, Gates replied, "I'm not going to hang specific targets on specific people, but all law breakers are susceptible to being detained in this — or taken care of in this campaign." this guy controls something like 30 seats in parliament and has 5 ministers, i don't think that killiing him a) does any good b) sets good precedent. Oh you don't like what he has to say, just kill him. that would be like someone from canada, thinking that sen. Lieberman is a blowhard and advocate his being detained or "taken care of."

More Americablog goodness - they dug up this excerpt from a BBC comedy, "Blackadder", from 1983.

" GENERAL: Now, Field Marshal Hague has formulated a brilliant new tactical plan to ensure final victory in the field.

CAPTAIN BLACKADDER: Ah, would this brilliant plan involve us climbing out of our trenches and walking very slowly towards the enemy, sir?

CAPTAIN DARLING: How could you possibly know that Blackadder, it's classified information?

CAPTAIN BLACKADDER: It's the same plan that we used last time, and the seventeen times before that.

GENERAL: Ex... ex... ex... actly! And that is what is so brilliant about it! It will catch the watchful Hun totally off guard. Doing precisely what we've done eighteen times before is exactly the last thing they'll expect us to do this time!

There is, however, one small problem.

CAPTAIN BLACKADDER: That everyone always gets slaughtered in the first ten seconds?

GENERAL: That's right. And Field Marshal Hague is worried that this may be depressing the men a tad. So, he's looking to find a way to cheer them up.

CAPTAIN BLACKADDER: Well, his resignation and suicide would seem the obvious."

seems disturbingly relevant.

And of course, our good man Keith Olbermann had a mini special comment, but big things do come in small packages, because clocking in at just a quarter of his normal length, it is no less than scorching.

Olbermann: President Bush makes no secret of his distaste for looking backward, for assessing past results.

But in our third story on the Countdown tonight… too bad.

Any meaningful assessment of the president's next step in Iraq must consider his steps and missteps so far.

So, let's look at the record:

Before Mr. Bush was elected, he said he was no nation-builder; nation-building was wrong for America.

Now, he says it is vital for America.

He said he would never put U.S. troops under foreign control. Today, U.S. troops observe Iraqi restrictions.

He told us about WMDs. Mobile labs. Secret sources. Aluminum tubing. Yellow-cake.

He has told us the war is necessary…Because Saddam was a threat; Because of 9/11; Osama bin Laden; al Qaeda; Because of terrorism in general; To liberate Iraq; To spread freedom; To spread democracy; To keep the oil out of the hands of terrorist-controlled states; Because this was a guy who tried to kill his dad.

In pushing for and prosecuting this war, he passed on chances to get Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Muqtada al-Sadr, Osama bin Laden.

He sent in fewer troops than recommended. He disbanded the Iraqi Army, and "de-Baathified" the government. He short-changed Iraqi training.

He did not plan for widespread looting, nor the explosion of sectarian violence.

He sent in troops without life-saving equipment.

Gave jobs to foreign contractors, not the Iraqis.

Staffed U-S positions there, based on partisanship, not professionalism.

We learned that "America had prevailed", "Mission Accomplished", the resistance was in its "last throes".

He has said more troops were not necessary, and more troops are necessary, and that it's up to the generals, and removed some of the generals who said more troops would be necessary.

He told us of turning points: The fall of Baghdad, the death of Uday and Qusay, the capture of Saddam, a provisional government,the trial of Saddam, a charter, a constitution, an Iraqi government, ¤elections, purple fingers, a new government, the death of Saddam.

We would be greeted as liberators, with flowers.

As they stood up–we would stand down, we would stay the course, we were never 'stay the course',

The enemy was al Qaeda, was foreigners, terrorists, Baathists.

The war would pay for itself, it would cost 1-point-7 billion dollars, 100 billion, 400 billion, half a trillion dollars.

And after all of that, today it is his credibility versus that of generals, diplomats, allies, Republicans, Democrats, the Iraq Study Group, past presidents, voters last November, and the majority of the American people.

Meanwhile, McCain, increasingly delusional, thinks that the Iraq war was "easy" Tell that to the 3,000 brave men and women who have given their lives in Iraq.

RUSSERT: Go back, Senator, to 2002. The administration saying we would be greeted as liberators. John McCain saying you thought success would be fairly easy.

MCCAIN: It was.

RUSSERT: In all honesty…

MCCAIN: It was easy, it was easy. I said the military operation would be easy. It was easy. We were greeting as liberators. Look at the films of when we rolled into Baghdad.

Video here.


So, basically, Bush called for war with Syria and Iran, and at the same time as he was yabbering last night, the US was invading the sovereign land of another sovereign nation by raiding the Iranian embassy in Kurdish Iraq. Tell me again how this is not an act of war? UPDATE: the BBC is now reporting that the building was a consulate - and that American forces are contesting any diplomatic status assigned to the building.

Ok, Patriot air defense systems. What do we need patriot air defense systems for in Iraq? It's not like our soldiers are being killed by missiles and aircraft loaded with fighters. Our soldiers are being killed by snipers and IEDs, neither of which can be defended against by patriot air defense systems. "P atriot is a long-range, all-altitude, all-weather air defence system to counter tactical ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and advanced aircraft" ( Hmmm...from where could we be expecting advanced aircraft and missiles, oh yes, that Iraqi neighbor with which we just threw down the gauntlet, IRAN. Fuck.

here's a little picture, it's what i hope to God we will never see. and if you see it, you should just make peace with your world, before you leave it.

"The picture above is from an actual test of a single U.S. nuclear missile holding at least 8 dummy warheads. Each line shows the deployed warhead striking the ocean at well over 4,000 miles per hour." (compliments neatorama)

Here's other news for the day:

Mitt Romney, republican presidential hopeful is the subject of a recently dug up video of a him debating Ted Kennedy in a failed 1994 senate bid. In the video, he says "abortion should be safe and legal" and with regards to the boyscout ban of gays "all people should be allowed to participate regardless of their sexual orientation." hahahaha He has recently attempted to distance himself from his comments 13 years ago, saying "I was wrong on some issues back then"

so for the republicans, so far we have:

mitt romney - gay loving, abortion supportin' mormon

john mccain - inexorably tied to the "mccain doctrine" - troop escalation and stay the course in Iraq

rudy guiliani - gay loving, mistress keeping, divorce having liberal

I think our field looks pretty good: Clinton, Obama, Gore, Edwards, Vilsack, Clark, Richardson, Dodd etc.

Speaking of '08, Denver will host the Democratic Nation Convention.

Speaking of Democrats, recently we have passed all of the 9/11 recommendations, increased the minimum wage, and negotiated a cease-fire in Darfur. I think we're doing pretty damn good. UPDATE: Add funding for stem cell research!


Post a Comment

<< Home