Obama takes the time to personally visit the flood sites in the Midwest and chip in filling sandbags, and discussing disaster relief plans with everyday people at the same time:
And he also engaged his grassroots network of supporters to volunteer and donate to aid in the relief effort:
On McCain's website: nothing. No call for action, no call for volunteers, no discussion of why our government is so unprepared for natural disasters, no plans, no hint of the destruction in the Midwest.
Now contrast Obama's multi-pronged response to the disaster, and compare it with what Bush and McCain did during Katrina:
Bush and McCain celebrating McCain's birthday while New Orleans and the Gulf coast languished under the destruction of Hurricane Katrina
There is only one candidate I want in control if a disaster, natural or otherwise, were to strike, and the choice is as crystal clear as the differences. The choice in this election is striking. When a disaster hits, you can learn a lot from what LEADERS do. McCain is missing in action. Bush is in Europe oblivious. Cheney doesn't concern himself with people. And Obama taps into his community organizing roots and gets to work helping, personally, while discussing solutions with everyday people.
John McCain was widely criticized for his past comments that us having troops in Iraq for another hundred years would be "just fine" with him. McCain has said that he doesn't really want to keep troops in Iraq for 100 years, and accuses people who say he does of being disingenuous. However it seems that the premise of the critique, that he is in no hurry to bring American troops home, and that he is comfortable with a very long military presence in Iraq (not necessarily 100 years, could be 50, could be 99, could be 110, who knows), is fundamentally correct. Watch McCain on the Today Show today saying that bringing the troops home from Iraq isn't important, instead, the only thing that is important to McCain is just having less of them being killed:
There are many things wrong with this. First, and most obviously, it proves that the "100 years" actually was something he was serious about. It shows that McCain really is nonchalant about the sacrifice of military families who have loved ones in Iraq, sometimes on their 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th tours of duty there. Apparently to McCain this situation is alright, and sustainable for the very long term. Apparently McCain doesn't care that military spouses have to constantly be afraid every time the phone rings that it will be that macabre phone call that informs him or her that their spouse has been killed or wounded in Iraq. Apparently it is okay that children are growing up without having a relationship with one of their parents, and who also constantly have to worry whether or not mommy or daddy is ever coming home. None of that is important, and McCain apparently sees no reason to hurry home.
Second, McCain compares our open-ended commitment to an occupation in Iraq to having troops in Germany, South Korea and Japan. This shows us that he really is envisioning keeping troops in Iraq for decades. And let's be clear, because we aren't at war with Germany, South Korea or Japan we don't have those troops there to fight a domestic insurgency of people who see us as an occupying force. Our troops in these countries aren't viewed as the enemy, and they NEVER face attacks. Does John McCainseriously think that is what is going to happen in Iraq? Does McCainreally lack the basic understanding necessary to realize the not-at-all-subtle differences between Iraq and Germany, Japan and South Korea? Does he really think Iraqis are ever going to view US occupation of their country as anything but a violation of their sovereignty and an attack on their national identity? If he does believe that, he shouldn't be anywhere near decision making bodies in this country, including Congress. And yes, it will always be an occupation as long as we are there, because, and this might come as a shock to McCain, the Iraqis don't want us there! The government doesn't want us there, and the people sure as hell don't want us there. If it were up to them we'd be gone, and we'd have ZERO military bases there and ZERO military presence there. If it isn't up to them, then it is an occupation against their will, and we are the aggressors, and they will never stop killing our soldiers.
Lastly, the surge is NOT working. McCain added that little dig at people who don't know "the facts on the ground" (which is of course very funny considering how many times McCain has proven himself to be very ignorant of the facts on the group, or in the region), but the truth is that the people who actually know the facts on the ground know that the surge hasn't worked. The goal of the surge was to provide breathing room for political and sectarian reconciliation. This has no happened, the goals have not been met, not even close. The goal of the surge was political, and it was a failure. On the military side, yes, violence has decreased somewhat, but contrary to the Republican spin, it hasn't decreased because of the surge, it decreased for three major reasons:
1) Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr declared a unilateral ceasefire to regroup, which had a dramatic impact on the fighting. This wasn't because of the surge, al-Sadr is still probably the most powerful person in Iraq, and the violence is still on the brink of spilling over again. All al-Sadr has to say is "now", and sectarian violence will erupt into another bloodbath. And you know what is likely to spark such violence? The United States' refusal to leave Iraq. In other words, John McCain's policies will cause more violence, especially against Americans. (Update (6/14): Muqtada al-Sadr has, predictably, called for his Mahdi Army to resume its fight against the American occupation as a direct result of Bush/McCain policy of indefinite occupation.)
"Successful" ethnic cleansing has also had an impact on violence. Most of the violence was in mixed Sunni-Shia neighborhoods, but after 5 years of unchecked ethnic cleansing right under our noses, most of these mixed neighborhoods are now homogeneous--in other words, all of the people they wanted to kill have either already been killed, or have been chased away from their homes, so there is no need to fight anymore now that the ethnic cleansing is complete. That is how John McCain defines "success" for our mission in Iraq, that over a million Iraqis have been murdered, and over 4 million Iraqis have been forced from their homes and are now refugees. And what do you think is going to happen when those 4 million Iraqis try coming home only to find the people who forced them out are now sleeping in their beds? I'm guessing they won't hold hands and cheer for how successful the surge was. No, they will start killing each other again.
The US cut deals with many Sunni (pro-Saddam) tribal groups, supplying them, our "former" enemies with weapons to use to go after al-Qaeda. While short term placation of Sunni militias with US weaponry might have the effect of dropping violence for a while, the long term logic of arming a violent minority who is opposed to a central government controlled by a violent majority (the Shia) doesn't seem like a very smart idea. And of course to all this McCain goes, "What? Who the hell are the Shia? Wait, are those al-Qaeda or are those the Palestinians? Wait, but I thought Iran was Sunni just like al-Qaeda?" Maybe you should sleep on it McCain, tackle it again in the morning...we know its hard...maybe you'll catch up one day...
The surge hasn't worked, all the problems are still there, nothing has been solved, and the country is falling apart. And don't misunderstand, despite the lowering of violence in certain places, and the "successful" ethnic cleansing in most neighborhoods, Iraq is still full of fighting, terrorism and murder. We just don't hear about it as much anymore because the media has been occupied with constant reporting of the election rat race here in the United States. The surge isn't the cause of the fall in violence, and Obama was right when he predicted the surge would result in more killing (it did, until the three elements I listed above came into play). Iraq has slipped from the headlines, but the country is still consumed by chaos, and it is never more than a few inches from erupting into an even worse living hell for Iraqis. And our presence there isn't making it any better, and the surge has done absolutely nothing.
Actually, that's not true, the surge (and the endless occupation) has had one striking effect, and that is stretching our military to the breaking point, and damaging our ability to effectively respond to natural disasters his in the United States. We saw this with Katrina, we saw this with the tornadoes in Kansas last year, and now we are seeing it in the devastating flooding in the Midwest. It is bad enough that this Republican administration has gutted FEMA's ability to respond to disasters and picks unqualified people to head the agency, we also don't have enough National Guard troops at home to, you know, GUARD the nation! In states like Iowa now they are facing such a shortage of resources and labor thanks to this never-ending occupation and mismanagement that they are now taking convicts out of prison and putting them to work on sandbagging and other disaster relief. What a nice position the Iraq war and our limitless commitment there has put us in. And John McCain wants to keep us there, and under-protected here, for decades, if not 100 years or more.
But we all know how high of a priority McCain puts on responding to disasters:
Bush and McCain celebrating McCain's birthday while New Orleans and the Gulf coast languished under the destruction of Hurricane Katrina
Update: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid hits McCain over his comments:
McCain's statement today that withdrawing troops doesn't matter is a crystal clear indicator that he just doesn't get the grave national-security consequences of staying the course -- Osama bin Laden is freely plotting attacks, our efforts in Afghanistan are undermanned, and our military readiness has been dangerously diminished. We need a smart change in strategy to make America more secure, not a commitment to indefinitely keep our troops in an intractable civil war.
Update #2: McCain's campaign is saying that the Democrats are twisting his words, that he didn't say bringing the troops home wasn't important, he just said it wasn't important doing it anytime soon. This is essentially like saying that there is a huge difference between being sentenced to life in prison, as opposed to 100 years in prison. "Sure it is important that the troops come home! I just don't care if they aren't home for a couple more generations, just like Germany, Japan and South Korea!" Nice McCain, nice distinction. And you are accusing the Democrats of twisting your words? Oh no my friend, I think YOU are twisting your own words, like taffy.
Update #3: Senator John Kerry also gave McCain a lashing for his complete ignorance of what is going on in Iraq, and how completely out of touch he is with the needs of the troops and military families:
Perhaps the most pointed criticism, ironically, came from Sen. John Kerry -- no stranger to having Iraq comments be used against him in a political election context. Taking to a conference call with aides to Sen. Barack Obama, the 2004 Democratic nominee accused McCain of being "unbelievably out of touch," lacking a general understanding, and was having a "debate with himself" over the issue of Iraq. The alleged flip-flopper was now doing the alleging.
"The job of the Commander in Chief is to understand the fundamentals of the conflict in which you have the troops engaged. And it is becoming crystal clear that John McCain doesn't understand it," said Kerry. "This is an enormous flaw on his candidacy, which is supposedly hung on his ability to serve as commander in chief... There are series of contradictions in his statements that reflect a fundamental misunderstands of the conflict."
As evidence, Kerry ushered in McCain's misstatements on the historical conflict between Sunni and Shiites, his falsehood that Iran was arming al-Qaeda in Iraq (they're not), and the varying times in which the Arizona Republican has said he was against a South Korea style model of troop presence in the Middle East, something he now favors.
"This is not a small matter as far as I am concerned. And I think John McCain is offering a recipe to keep the military overextended," he said. "And our attention diverted from the real center of the war on terror which is Afghanistan and Pakistan."
Update #4: This article in Foreign Affairs actually highlights the same three causes for the decrease in violence that I explained, imagine that. Give it a read if you'd like, its a bit longer.
Update #5: Keith Olbermann blasts McCain for his comments, and for accusing Democrats of taking his comments out of context:
Last night Representative Dennis Kucinich stood on the floor of the House for nearly five hours reading 35 articles of impeachment against George W. Bush. Kucinich has been the biggest advocate for justice in Congress, tirelessly pursuing impeachment against Bush and Cheney for their many crimes over the past 7 years.
Dennis Kucinich, Pure Rockstar
Last year he introduced articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney, but the measure was killed by congressional Republicans. Unfortunately this will probably meet a similar fate. Despite the fact books have been written laying out the case for impeachment, and everyone knows it is deserved, there is no political will for it. What people don't understand is that this is far bigger than Bush. This is about accountability, checks and balances, the rule of law. No one is above the law, yet this administration has for years operated under the assumption that they can say and do anything with absolute impunity, and Congress hasn't objected, not even a slap on the wrist.
Here are Kucinich's 35 articles of impeachment against Bush:
Article I Creating a Secret Propaganda Campaign to Manufacture a False Case for War Against Iraq
Article II Falsely, Systematically, and with Criminal Intent Conflating the Attacks of September 11, 2001, With Misrepresentation of Iraq as a Security Threat as Part of Fraudulent Justification for a War of Aggression
Article III Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction, to Manufacture a False Case for War
Article IV Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Posed an Imminent Threat to the United States
Article V Illegally Misspending Funds to Secretly Begin a War of Aggression
Article VI Invading Iraq in Violation of the Requirements of HJRes. 114
Article VII Invading Iraq Absent a Declaration of War.
Article VIII Invading Iraq, A Sovereign Nation, in Violation of the UN Charter
Article IX Failing to Provide Troops With Body Armor and Vehicle Armor
Article X Falsifying Accounts of US Troop Deaths and Injuries for Political Purposes
Article XI Establishment of Permanent U.S. Military Bases in Iraq
Article XII Initiating a War Against Iraq for Control of That Nation's Natural Resources
Article XIII Creating a Secret Task Force to Develop Energy and Military Policies With Respect to Iraq and Other Countries
Article XIV Misprision of a Felony, Misuse and Exposure of Classified Information And Obstruction of Justice in the Matter of Valerie Plame Wilson, Clandestine Agent of the Central Intelligence Agency
Article XV Providing Immunity from Prosecution for Criminal Contractors in Iraq
Article XVI Reckless Misspending and Waste of U.S. Tax Dollars in Connection With Iraq and US Contractors
Article XVII Illegal Detention: Detaining Indefinitely And Without Charge Persons Both U.S. Citizens and Foreign Captives
Article XVIII Torture: Secretly Authorizing, and Encouraging the Use of Torture Against Captives in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Other Places, as a Matter of Official Policy
Article XIX Rendition: Kidnapping People and Taking Them Against Their Will to "Black Sites" Located in Other Nations, Including Nations Known to Practice Torture
Article XX Imprisoning Children
Article XXI Misleading Congress and the American People About Threats from Iran, and Supporting Terrorist Organizations Within Iran, With the Goal of Overthrowing the Iranian Government
Article XXIV Spying on American Citizens, Without a Court-Ordered Warrant, in Violation of the Law and the Fourth Amendment
Article XXV Directing Telecommunications Companies to Create an Illegal and Unconstitutional Database of the Private Telephone Numbers and Emails of American Citizens
Article XXVI Announcing the Intent to Violate Laws with Signing Statements
Article XXVII Failing to Comply with Congressional Subpoenas and Instructing Former Employees Not to Comply
Article XXVIII Tampering with Free and Fair Elections, Corruption of the Administration of Justice
Article XXIX Conspiracy to Violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965
Article XXX Misleading Congress and the American People in an Attempt to Destroy Medicare
Article XXXI Katrina: Failure to Plan for the Predicted Disaster of Hurricane Katrina, Failure to Respond to a Civil Emergency
Article XXXII Misleading Congress and the American People, Systematically Undermining Efforts to Address Global Climate Change
Article XXXIII Repeatedly Ignored and Failed to Respond to High Level Intelligence Warnings of Planned Terrorist Attacks in the US, Prior to 911.
Article XXXIV Obstruction of the Investigation into the Attacks of September 11, 2001
Article XXXV Endangering the Health of 911 First Responders
Now juxtapose all that with what Bill Clinton was impeached on December 19, 1998 for: Lying about cheating on his wife.
Isn't it amazing how far we have come in less than a decade. Just 10 years ago we were appalled by a president lying about his personal business, and now a president commits all of the crimes above (and I'm certain many more), leading to the loss of over a million lives, to say nothing of the other innumerable consequences, and Congress has no spine, no one (but Kucinich) really protests, no one bats an eyelash, no one thinks it is a big deal!
And the scary part is that if Bush leaves office without impeachment, without prosecution, without any consequences, it will set a disastrous precedent, which will essentially show to every future president that they can commit at least as many crimes as Bush, without having to worry about any consequences, and they can most likely commit many more crimes, and escape with little more than a censure (slap on the wrist) from Congress.
Or maybe that is just for Republicans. Perhaps Republicans are just very willing to use impeachment as a political game, while Democrats aren't even willing to use it in a textbook example of why impeachment was created. I don't even know which is worse.
If the nearly 5 hours of video becomes available, I'll post it.
Update: Rep. Robert Wexler supports impeachment:
Our effort to hold the Bush/Cheney Administration accountable has taken another dramatic step forward. Last night, Congressman Dennis Kucinich introduced the first Articles of Impeachment ever to be introduced against President Bush. It includes, in total, thirty-five Articles detailing this Administration's blatant abuse of power. Today, I enthusiastically co-sponsored this vitally important bill.
I am grateful for Dennis' leadership on this issue and for the steadfast support that countless Americans have given to both of our efforts to redeem our government and expose the crimes of Bush and Cheney.
I will now expand my efforts to secure impeachment hearings in the Judiciary Committee for these new Articles of Impeachment against President George W. Bush.
Many of the charges against President Bush are well known – and would shock the conscience of everyday Americans if only the national media would be willing to report on these stark facts.
The Articles present a stunning narrative of offenses that have go well beyond previous crimes committed by any US chief executive. In fact no President or Vice President in history has done more to undermine our constitution.
These charges are broad, with 35 separate allegations including the deliberate lies regarding WMDs that led us to war and the approval of illegal wiretapping of American citizens. The Articles also include new allegations of high crimes – including the explicit approval for high Administration officials to violate treaties and US law banning the use of torture.
The Democratic Party gained a majority in the House and Senate due in large part to our promises to end the corruption of the Republican majority and to hold the Administration accountable to the law. This courageous bill is a crucial step towards fulfilling this promise, but – like the Articles against Cheney – they require your support to convince Democrats and open-minded Republicans to support this bold but necessary action.
Time is running out so we must work together to spread the message and apply pressure.
First, please encourage your friends and family members to sign up at WexlerWantsHearings.com – as it will allow us to keep in touch with you and speak to a wider audience. If you haven't yet put in your phone and address, please sign up again, as we will be doing telephone town halls in the near future.
Second, call your representative and urge them to support Impeachment hearings.
Finally, contact newspapers, news stations, and your favorite bloggers and urge them to report on this movement. We need to keep Impeachment a significant news story until the Democratic leadership sees the value in it.
McClellan Agrees to Testify:
I was pleased to inform you yesterday that Judiciary Committee Chairman Conyers met my call to have Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan testify under oath. I am thrilled to inform you that McClellan has agreed to testify on June 20th at 10AM. This will be the first step in what we hope will be ongoing and deepening examinations of the stark evidence and charges against both President Bush and Vice President Cheney.
Thank you for your continued passion and advocacy. Your support means so much to me.
[I loved seeing "The Democratic Nominee: Barack Obama" at the top of my blog, but we gotta move on to the general election at some point, so let's start now with a look at McCain either lying again, or showing the symptoms of Alzheimer's--and I'm betting he is lying, and expecting people not to know any better:]
During his press conference today in Baton Rouge, John McCain declared in strong terms that he's voted for every investigation of Hurricane Katrina.
The only problem, as the DNC has been pointing out to reporters, is he voted twice against Democratic proposals to investigate the levy failures.
After a local reporter at his Baton Rouge press conference asked why he voted against forming a commission to investigate the levy failures in New Orleans, McCain insisted that he supported every investigation -- and added that he was "not familiar" with what the reporter was talking about:
McCain voted against establishing a commission to investigate the levy failures, in a September 2005 party-line vote in which all Republicans voted against the Democratic proposal. He then repeated that party-line GOP vote against a similar Dem proposal in February 2006.
Whether he simply wasn't aware of his voting record again or he was intentionally misleading the people of Louisiana, John McCain certainly isn't offering us 'leadership you can believe in'.
Update #2: Read this, it goes over much of the same:
For the last few days McCain has been on a tour of New Orleans to observe the stunning success of the Republicans' exploitation of Hurricane Katrina for their orgy of privatization. Even though he embraces every root cause of the disastrous response to Katrina, he faulted Bush for not responding fast enough saying he would have landed his plane "at the nearest Air Force Base and come over personally." Oh, and here is what McCain was doing while Katrina was destroying New Orleans:
I can only assume that the birthday cake has a map of the lower 9th ward on it, and that him and Bush are in a feverish debate over whether or not to even bother rebuilding it, with Bush saying hell no, and McCain saying hell if I know.
While traveling in New Orleans today, McCain told voters that such a disaster of government response "will never happen again in this country." And yet, the Democratic National Committee points out that McCain voted against relief measures for Katrina victims multiple times, as well as voting against an investigation into the failures of the government response. McCain also voted against providing additional funding for first responders' communication systems, despite claiming today:
We know that we had a situation where first responders were unable to communicate with each other. Where government agencies were getting information by watching cable television, rather than having a flow of information themselves.
The primary is finally over, and now it is really time to get to work. The Republicans still think they can deceive the American people into accepting another 4-8 years of Republican disasters, so we have to keep the pressure on. Any support you can give to Obama's campaign, whether monetary or voluntary will help us keep this movement successful. The time for change is now!
