The Rights of Women and Children, Worldwide: The Candidates Differ

[You can talk] to women -- from the Philippines to Latin America to the Middle East -- who can vote, own property, or go to school, because Hillary Clinton helped start a global women's movement for women's rights. [You can travel] to Africa and Asia, where Hillary Clinton visited countless remote villages to show how the poorest of the poor could become entrepreneurial and self-sufficient when given access to small loans. -- Lissa Muscatine and Melanne Verveer, "Hillary's Unprecedented Experience on the World Stage,"Huffington Post, Dec. 14, 2007

In 1996, Hillary Clinton addressed the Council on Foreign Relations:  

There's more...

Wesley Clark -- Op-Ed response to Obama's attack

The New Hampshire Union Leader published the following Op-Ed written by General Wesley Clark this Sunday Morning:

Clinton's approach deters a rush to war

I am not allowed to post the entire Op-Ed. Please read the entire piece for a full picture. I post just excerpts below:

In the back and forth on Iran, one critical issue is being missed: which candidate will create the strategic shift necessary to deal with the challenge of Iran and help end the fighting in the Middle East? I believe that candidate is Hillary Rodham Clinton. snip

That is why I am so dismayed and disappointed about political attacks that misrepresent the senator's positions and betray a fundamental misunderstanding about how to conduct effective diplomacy in the 21st century.

In supporting legislation that seeks to exert diplomatic pressure on Iran, Senator Clinton is standing up to the Bush administration, which has recklessly refused to talk to Iran about its clandestine nuclear program. In voting for a non-binding resolution that urges the administration to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, she is forcing the Bush administration to apply diplomatic pressure. This is the best way to call attention to the problem, empower US diplomacy, and warn Iran that it must cooperate.

There is nothing in the non-binding Kyl-Lieberman bill that would give President Bush any authority whatsoever to go to war.

snip

The issues we confront in the Mideast today are serious. Iran must not be allowed to build or acquire nuclear weapons. Neither must Iran be permitted to intervene with force, arms or terrorism inside Iraq. Actions like putting pressure and sanctions on the Revolutionary Guard are necessary and appropriate. And, as Senator Clinton has said, these actions must be combined with a far-reaching diplomatic initiative in the region that includes a dialogue with Iran.

This is not the time to rush to war, nor is it the time to do nothing. Rather, this is the time to work resolutely to avert the need to use force at some point in the future.

This Op-Ed is obviously a response to Barack Obama's Op-Ed attacking Hillary Clinton, published last week in the same newspaper, Union Leader.

I have great respect for Senator Dick Durbin, the senior Senator from Illinois.  He is Obama's mentor and biggest supporter.  I don't think that we can find a more honest arbiter on the issue of whether Obama's attack against Hillary Clinton is fair. He said that Obama is wrong about the Non-Binding "Sense of the Senate" resolution on Iran's Revolutionary Guard:

Durbin, 62, said Obama was wrong to upbraid Clinton for her Sept. 26 vote to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, a nonbinding resolution that Durbin also supported. Obama, who was campaigning in New Hampshire and missed the vote, said the language of the measure could potentially push the U.S. closer to war with Iran.

"It's rare that Barack and I disagree on an issue of this magnitude," Durbin, the second-highest ranking Senate Democrat, said in an interview with Bloomberg Television's "Political Capital with Al Hunt," scheduled to air today. "I have the same concerns that Barack Obama does about this administration and what they might do with the power that they have. But I don't think this resolution gives them a green light to do anything." 

Also of concern to me is the fact that Obama skipped the vote.  Ninety-eight Senators were present for this vote. If Senator Obama believed the measure was as dangerous as he says, wouldn’t he have had some obligation to stand up, speak out, and fight against it?  Obama's excuse for being absent was:

"This is one of the problems with running for president," Obama said. "You can't always anticipate which votes are which, but I put out a statement at the time stating that this was a bad idea and that I would have voted against it."

Obama blamed scheduling for the missed vote.

"If you're in New Hampshire, then it's hard to get back," he said.

But, Senator Joe Biden says differently:

"I wonder why he wasn't there to vote," Biden said. "We all knew that this vote was coming up."

I also want to bring attention to the fact that Obama co-sponsored the following BINDING bill:
The "Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007," which Obama cosponsored on April 24, 2007, states clearly that:

"The Secretary of State should designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a Foreign Terrorist Organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189) and the Secretary of the Treasury should place the Iranian Revolutionary Guards on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists under Executive Order 13224 (66 Fed. Reg. 186; relating to blocking property and prohibiting transactions with persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism)."

Why did Senator Obama co-sponsor an actual bill (not a non-binding resolution) designating Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a "terrorist organization" (the ""Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007") if he did not think that the Revolutionary Guard were engaged in "terrorist" activity; and further, where were the Revolutionary Guards engaging in the "terrorist" activity Obama wished to stop?

Wouldn't Obama's binding bill give Bush a greater rationalization to attack Iran as Obama claims the non-binding resolution provides?

Based on the facts that I presented above, I would like to express my profound dissapointment with Obama's attack upon Senator Clinton.  I am in total agreement with Senator Durbin and General Clark that Obama is wrong in attacking Senator Clinton in this manner.

There's more...

So Why Did Dick Durbin Vote For It?

I'll admit, I was spooked by the passage of Kyl-Lieberman amendment, mostly because I don't trust Lieberman.  But, at this point, I don't see passage of this amendment as in an open invitation by Congress for Bush to wage war on Iran no matter how much Lieberman wishes it were so.  And, I'd just like to know, can anyone tell me why, if this is a move toward war with Iran, did Dick Durbin vote for it?

There's more...

Senator Durbin has Betrayed-us

About a month ago (September 7, 2007) at The Center For National Policy, Senator Durbin made a speech called his "No more blank checks" speech, where he said,

"But this Congress must not give this President another blank check for his war in Iraq."

Full text:
http://www.cnponline.org/index.php?tg=ar ticles&idx=More&topics=94&ar ticle=397

Then, week before last, Congress wrote a massive blank check.  Every Dem in the Senate, who was present for the vote, voted for it, except for--bless this man!---Russ Feingold.  As reported by John Nichols in The Nation:

"Posted 09/28/2007 11:48am Congress Quietly Approves Billions More for Iraq War

The Senate agreed on Thursday to increase the federal debt limit by $850 billion -- from $8.965 trillion to $9.815 trillion -- and then proceeded to approve a stop-gap spending bill that gives the Bush White House at least $9 billion in new funding for its war in Iraq.

Additionally, the administration has been given emergency authority to tap further into a $70 billion "bridge fund" to provide new infusions of money for the occupation while the Congress works on appropriations bills for the Department of Defense and other agencies.

Translation: Under the guise of a stop-gap spending bill that is simply supposed to keep the government running until a long-delayed appropriations process is completed -- probably in November -- the Congress has just approved a massive increase in war funding."

Full text:
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?b id=1&pid=237751

There's more...

Ned Lamont the Blue Dogs; Landrieu Must Go(poll)

It is time to defeat some democrats who are not doing their job enough. I would like to see Mary Landrieu of Louisiana to lose. We need a democratic opponent against her. She has voted to fund the war and recently the FISA bill. According to congresspedia.org, here is what she said after Katrina struck:

  In an interview with Chris Wallace, Landrieu called the evacuation of New Orleans prior to Hurricane Katrina "the best evacuation."

Shortly after the aftermath of the hurricane, Landrieu was involved in a testy exchange with Anderson Cooper of CNN in which she praised President Bush and the Senate for responding to Katrina and appropriating money for the effort. To which Cooper responded: "Excuse me, Senator, I'm sorry for interrupting. I haven't heard that, because, for the last four days, I've been seeing dead bodies in the streets here in Mississippi. And to listen to politicians thanking each other and complimenting each other, you know, I got to tell you, there are a lot of people here who are very upset, and very angry, and very frustrated." After this exchange, Landrieu began to criticize President Bush very harshly for his response to Katrina in subsequent interviews.

Landrieu is also one of the more conservative members of the Democrats in the Senate. We cannot tolerate conservative democrats in Congress. We tried to get Lieberman out and succeeded in his loss in the democratic primary.

I would also like to see a third party candidate or possible democrat go up against Dick Durbin in my state of Illinois. He will win easily in 2008 and we need someone to hold him accountable. He is another senator who has funded the war in Iraq and does not show enough strength in leadership as majority whip in the senate. He has lots of power and he must utilize it better. The best way to do this is to get him to earn his victory in 2008.

We need to defeat all republicans and all conservative democrats to truly have a progressive agenda in Congress to represent the people of the United States of America. Landrieu must go and Durbin must be challenged. Spread the word around to other blogs.

There's more...

Diaries

Advertise Blogads