Saturday, November 19, 2005

Howard Dean's Anti War Email From Yesterday

Dear Paramendra,

Shame on them

I want to tell you about John Murtha. He's a Democratic Congressman from Pennsylvania. He's also a combat veteran and retired Marine Corps colonel.

Murtha spent 37 years in Marine Corps, earned the Bronze Star, two purple hearts, the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry, and the Navy Distinguished Service Medal. And for the last thirty years he's been one of the most respected voices in Congress on military issues -- universally respected by Democrats, Republicans and military brass alike.

Until now.

Republicans have disgraced themselves by viciously attacking John Murtha with such disrespect that not only veterans, but every decent American should be angry.

What did Murtha, a decorated combat veteran, do to draw fire from a White House led by a president and vice president who evaded service in Vietnam? He questioned their management of the war in Iraq. Here's part of what he had to say:

The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. The American public is way ahead of us. The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq, but it is time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We cannot continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region. ...

For two and a half years, I have been concerned about the U.S. policy and the plan in Iraq. I have addressed my concerns with the Administration and the Pentagon and have spoken out in public about my concerns. The main reason for going to war has been discredited. ...

I have been visiting our wounded troops at Bethesda and Walter Reed hospitals almost every week since the beginning of the War. And what demoralizes them is going to war with not enough troops and equipment to make the transition to peace; the devastation caused by IEDs; being deployed to Iraq when their homes have been ravaged by hurricanes; being on their second or third deployment and leaving their families behind without a network of support.

Shameless Republicans immediately went on the attack. Dick Cheney, who has said that he had "other priorities" and collected 5 deferments while people like Murtha served in Vietnam, called Murtha's comments "irresponsible" and regretted that "the president and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory, or their backbone." The White House spokesman, who has also never worn the uniform, pronounced himself "baffled" that Murtha, who volunteered for two wars, wanted to "surrender to the terrorists". A Republican Congressman said Murtha and others "basically are giving aid and comfort to the enemy".

Shame on them. Every one of us -- right now -- needs to let Jack Murtha know that we respect his service, respect his leadership, and respect his right to speak the truth. This man has spent his life serving us. The very least each one of us can do is let him know that no matter what dishonorable smear campaign Republicans wage we will be there with him.

Send Congressman Murtha a note telling him that you will not be silent while he is attacked:

http://www.democrats.org/shameonthem

I will deliver your message to him personally, along with my own thanks for his service to our country and his continuing courage in the face of threats.

Lies and manipulation characterized the Republican case for war, and lies and manipulation have been the primary weapon against anyone who questions their failed leadership.

First it was Senator Max Cleland, who left limbs in Vietnam, being savagely attacked in 2002. Then John Kerry, who received three purple hearts, being smeared in 2004. The history of this war has shown that Republicans value political posturing more than the service of America's veterans.

Republicans don't want a serious debate about Iraq because they know the American people are simply not with them. They cannot respond to the substance of Murtha's criticism -- or any criticism -- because they are wrong.

Jack Murtha is already fighting back. When told of Cheney's comments he reminded people where Cheney was while he was in Vietnam: "I like guys who got five deferments and have never been there and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done."

But Jack can't beat this back alone. Show him that Americans know that Republicans should be ashamed of themselves:

http://www.democrats.org/shameonthem

Enough is enough -- we cannot allow another veteran to be smeared by George Bush's cronies.

Thank you for taking a stand.

Governor Howard Dean, M.D.

P.S. -- Here is the full text of Murtha's statement yesterday:

"The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. The American public is way ahead of us. The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq, but it is time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We cannot continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region.

"General Casey said in a September 2005 hearing, 'the perception of occupation in Iraq is a major driving force behind the insurgency.' General Abizaid said on the same date, "Reducing the size and visibility of the coalition forces in Iraq is part of our counterinsurgency strategy."

"For two and a half years, I have been concerned about the U.S. policy and the plan in Iraq. I have addressed my concerns with the Administration and the Pentagon and have spoken out in public about my concerns. The main reason for going to war has been discredited. A few days before the start of the war I was in Kuwait - the military drew a red line around Baghdad and said when U.S. forces cross that line they will be attacked by the Iraqis with Weapons of Mass Destruction - but the US forces said they were prepared. They had well trained forces with the appropriate protective gear.

"We spend more money on Intelligence that all the countries in the world together, and more on Intelligence than most countries GDP. But the intelligence concerning Iraq was wrong. It is not a world intelligence failure. It is a U.S. intelligence failure and the way that intelligence was misused.

"I have been visiting our wounded troops at Bethesda and Walter Reed hospitals almost every week since the beginning of the War. And what demoralizes them is going to war with not enough troops and equipment to make the transition to peace; the devastation caused by IEDs; being deployed to Iraq when their homes have been ravaged by hurricanes; being on their second or third deployment and leaving their families behind without a network of support.

"The threat posed by terrorism is real, but we have other threats that cannot be ignored. We must be prepared to face all threats. The future of our military is at risk. Our military and their families are stretched thin. Many say that the Army is broken. Some of our troops are on their third deployment. Recruitment is down, even as our military has lowered its standards. Defense budgets are being cut. Personnel costs are skyrocketing, particularly in health care. Choices will have to be made. We cannot allow promises we have made to our military families in terms of service benefits, in terms of their health care, to be negotiated away. Procurement programs that ensure our military dominance cannot be negotiated away. We must be prepared. The war in Iraq has caused huge shortfalls at our bases in the U.S.

"Much of our ground transportation is worn out and in need of either serous overhaul or replacement. George Washington said, "To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace." We must rebuild out Army. Our deficit is growing out of control. The Director of the Congressional Budget Office recently admitted to being "terrified" about the budget deficit in the coming decades. This is the first prolonged war we have fought with three years of tax cuts, without full mobilization of American industry and without a draft. The burden of this war has not been shared equally; the military and their families are shouldering this burden.

"Our military has been fighting a war in Iraq for over two and a half years. Our military has accomplished its mission and done its duty. Our military captured Saddam Hussein, and captured or killed his closest associates. But the war continues to intensify. Deaths and injuries are growing, with over 2,079 confirmed American deaths. Over 15,500 have been seriously injured and it is estimated that over 50,000 will suffer from battle fatigue. There have been reports of at least 30,000 Iraqi civilian deaths.

"I just recently visited Anbar Province Iraq in order to assess the condition on the ground. Last May 2005, as part of the Emergency Supplemental Spending Bill, the House included to Moran Amendment, which was accepted in Conference, and which required the Secretary of Defense to submit quarterly reports to Congress in order to more accurately measure stability and security in Iraq. We have not received two reports. I am disturbed by the findings in key indicator areas. Oil production and energy production are below pre-war levels. Our reconstruction efforts have been crippled by security situation. Only $9 billion of the $18 billion appropriated for reconstruction has been spent. Unemployment remains at about 60 percent. Clean water is scarce. Only $500 million of the $2.2 billion appropriated for water projects have been spent. And most importantly, insurgent incidents have increased from about 150 per week to over 700 in the last year. Instead of attacks going down over time and with the addition of more troops, attacks have grown dramatically. Since the revelations at Abu Ghraib, American causalities have doubled. An annual State Department report in 2004 indicated a sharp increase in global terrorism.

"I said over a year ago, and now the military and the Administration agrees, Iraq can not be won 'militarily.' I said two years ago, the key to progress in Iraq is to Iraqitize, Internationalize and Energize. I believe the same today. But I have concluded that the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is impeding this progress.

"Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency. They are untied against U.S. forces and we have become a catalyst for violence. U.S. troops are the common enemy of the Sunnis, Saddamists and foreign jihadists. I believe with a U.S. troop redeployment, the Iraq security forces will be incentivized to take control. A poll recently conducted shows that over 80% of Iraqis are strongly opposed to the presence of coalition troops, about 45% of the Iraqi population believe attacks against American troops are justified. I believe we need to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis. I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice that the United States will immediately redeploy. All of Iraq must know that Iraq is free. Free from United Stated occupation. I believe this will send a signal to the Sunnis to join the political process for the good of a "free" Iraq.

"My plan calls:

  • To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.
  • To create a quick reaction force in the region.
  • To create an over-the-horizon presence of Marines.
  • To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq.

"This war needs to be personalized. As I said before, I have visited with the severely wounded of this war. They are suffering.

"Because we in Congress are charged with sending our sons and daughters into battle, it is our responsibility, our obligation, to speak out for them. That's why I am speaking out.

"Our military has done everything that has been asked of them, the U.S. can not accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It is time to bring them home."

Paid for and authorized by the Democratic National Committee, www.democrats.org. This communication is not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

Contributions or gifts to the Democratic National Committee are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes.

Click here to unsubscribe from this mailing list.

DNC, 430 S. Capitol St. SE, Washington DC 20003

Thanks David For Bringing Me Back To DFNYC

A Piece On DFNYC

I am glad at least someone associated with DFNYC is willing to discuss race as a topic. If you go to three DFNYC events, that is like a total of nine hours out of a month. That is not the major part of a month. So I guess it can be hip hop plus DFNYC plus the city plus Nepal plus other stuff. I guess I will keep my options open about showing up for DFNYC events.

David Michaelson

There is Abhi's Research Advocacy meeting in 10 days, and a LinkUp in 17 days. I guess I will keep my options open. I might or might not show.

Oh, and I just found out, there is some kind of a A five-hour Dance-a-thon benefiting GMHC, Also benefiting Community HIV/AIDS Mobilization Project (CHAMP). Last night I went to Webster Hall, and I could only go on for two hours, maybe a little less than two. Then I kind of just sat and took in the music, for hours.

I mean, I went to the Mixer Thursday evening, and it was great fun. As usual.
  1. The concepts I cultivate at this blog, it is very much work in progress. I feel like I am building a mathematical model. That is the first step. As for the application, I have said it is open source. There is no diktat. It is not like I am going to come up with this grand proposal and hold DFNYC hostage to it.
  2. DFNYC is not a major time commitment.
From: "David Michaelson"
To: paramendra@yahoo.com
Subject: RE: A Piece On DFNYC
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 09:42:34 -0500

Interesting piece. Race is such a major issue in NYC, and not just white vs. minority. Hatian blacks and "Southern" blacks go at it all the time. Various Hispanic groups don't get along. Etc. DFNYC does a lot better than the average NYC progressive group in reaching out to minorities and minority candidates. But race is a big issue for NYC progressives and one that is not often addressed.

My current poliitical group has been focused quite a bit on good candidates of all races: Norm Seigel, Margarita Lopez-Torres, Freddy Ferrer, Chris Owens, Tish James, Norm Titus and Paul Wooten in particular. Only one white in the crowd. I was kind of proud when I realized that our efforts had focused on so many minorities. Often Democratic groups do not focus on this. That is one of my complaints about Independent Neighborhood Democrats. Their slate tends to be pretty white. Hard to fight the local Dem machine when you show a solid white face.

Chris Owens wrote an excellent piece on race in Brooklyn politics. It was part of a private email discussion among political organizers and was in response to something I wrote. It was not intedned for public circulation but he has given us permission to pass it along if we feel it appropriate. I will point out that several DFNYC organizers were part of this dicussion and were very responsive to Chris' statements. You might be interested in it:

"David is correct, of course. We need a 50-state strategy (and/or ongoing revisions to 50 state strategies) and we certainly need a 5-borough strategy for progressive advancement here in New York City. Staten Island does indeed represent an area where the common economic concerns and common concerns about education, health care and affordable housing provide political pontoons for Democrats that could become real bridges.

However, since we are having an open and honest discussion here, I wish to highlight an important issue that is uncomfortable for many people but which can really impede our ability to move together -- race.

As African Americans (particularly those with Southern origins) decrease in NYC's population, the level and intensity of racial sensitivity and concern regarding political empowerment will increase. This process has already started. Unfortunately, tension between Black and Hispanic political leadership simmers below the surface. (Ferrer's ascendancy is a crucial step in dissipating some of the tension. But, should Ferrer lose, will the 2009 Democratic Primary pit Billy Thompson against Adolfo Carrion and Anthony Weiner?)

And the more conservative cultural influences within the African-American, Caribbean-American and African populations are very powerful. On this front, the ideological tension between these communities and liberal white communities is clear and there has been too little effort on either side to overcome this.

As the Latino population -- as divided as it may be -- increases its political clout there will be exponential increases in the intensity of concerns regarding political empowerment. There will also be significant growing pains regarding practices that traditional "progressives" abhor but may have to endure and/or overlook to sustain coalition-building.

The Asian community's political situation is similar to that of Hispanics. The primary growth areas are Brooklyn and Queens. Empowerment issues are emerging here as well, particularly now that John Liu has provided a tangible role model.

Conservative whites, particularly the orthodox Jewish communities, are increasing in number and, in Brooklyn, the percentage of the voting population. Leaders in these communities are admirable -- actually role models -- in their ability to deliver services and influence the political system.

Progressive whites, and progressives in general, are a floating minority in this demographic soup. We are actually good at getting attention, providing policy leadership, and keeping the New York Times and Village Voice, for example, to the left of the spectrum. But the competing racial empowerment dynamics will create serious issues within the next 20 years.

There will certainly be a Latino and Black candidate in every Mayoral election going forward. And there are those who say that the age of the white Jewish liberal candidate (at the citywide level) is over, for example, and that the profile of successful white candidates going forward will be much more moderate.

Finally, to be that much more real, we must acknowledge the power of money. If there is one force that will regulate the race-based clashes of New York's future, it will be the mutual desire on the part of all community leaders to have "access" to power brokers and to "make money" off of politics. New York City will become more and more like Washington, DC -- more similar to the way in which the Congress is treated by lobbyists and interest groups.

This is the real battle that progressives must confront: racially-charged political struggles addressing public policy influenced by those willing to spend money on the politicians. Racial and ethnic "fiefdoms" will emerge and be bought, sold or pitted against each other by those seeking power and exploiting needs. The Atlantic Yards experience is a harbinger of things to come.

In fairness, there are efforts being made -- including work by the New Democratic Majority and several political clubs in Brooklyn. Ironically, some of the more liberal clubs have been LESS successful at creating a good racial mix in their membership. Why is this? Because our system of political representation includes the creation of political jurisdictions that promote racial segregation. This is a by-product of the Voting Rights Act's application to our state's politics and, frankly, I am not sure how to change this. Again, some things are simple -- like clubs meeting in areas more likely to encourage participation by many who don't normally participate. Sustaining interest, however, is much harder. I know because I have been there.

(Remember, New York remains a very segregated city in so many ways. I often wonder if the truest expression of equality would be when the number of white nannies walking the streets of Brownsville with Black children in strollers equals the number of Black and Hispanic nannies walking the streets of Park Slope with white children. There are few more dramatic statements of where we are and where we need to go than this one.)

We also need to advocate for policy changes that will force political leaders to talk to everyone, rather than segment the populace like radio markets. The use of Instant Runoff Voting in our Citywide and/or Statewide primary elections, for example, would both save money and promote greater unity. Yes, the end result may be more conservative than you or I may want, but we will not be carved up as we are today based upon our political "bloc". The other institutional change is to move our primary elections back to June. This would allow voters real time to consider differences between the parties and diminish the focus on differences between Democratic candidates.

Finally, there must be boroughwide and citywide efforts to transcend the boundaries at the local level and pull people together in a different way. The same hard work and respect needed to bridge the blue state-red state gap is needed between racial and ethnic groups here in New York City. It is my hope to build a political organization, New Brooklyn Leadership, that will move in this direction -- boroughwide with local chapters.

To be continued ...

Chris"

David Michaelson

http://democracyforum.blogspot.com/2005/11/piece-on-dfnyc.html

http://www.paramendra.com
http://www.swapn.biz 1