5 Reasons Why Barack Lost the 1st Debate
September 29, 2008
I co-hosted a Debate Party on Friday night that doubled as a Fundraiser for Barack Obama. The party was fun, the food was delicious, and the people I watched the debate with, including the Bus Chick & people from YES! Magazine and Reclaim the Media, couldn’t have been cooler.
What could have been better was my candidate’s performance. Here’s why this debate was a lost opportunity:
- Too much agreement
- Posturing on Pakistan & Afghanistan
- Nuclear Iran only posing a threat to Israel
- Iran’s army is a terrorist organization
- Venezuela is a rogue nation
(All the references I make here can be seen in the Debate Transcript, courtesy of the New York Times.)
Breaking news re: Iran
December 3, 2007
In breaking but not surprising news, it was revealed today that Iran is not actually developing nuclear weapons. From the New York Times via truthout.org.
Washington - A new assessment by American intelligence agencies concludes that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the program remains on hold, contradicting an assessment two years ago that Tehran was working inexorably toward building a bomb.
The conclusions of the new assessment are likely to be a major factor in the tense international negotiations aimed at getting Iran to halt its nuclear energy program. Concerns about Iran were raised sharply after President Bush had suggested in October that a nuclear-armed Iran could lead to “World War III,” and Vice President Dick Cheney promised “serious consequences” if the government in Tehran did not abandon its nuclear program.
Now before you think that this report will actually end the saber-rattling regarding Iran, please put your dancing shoes back in the closet. The Bush administration has already shifted its justification against Iran by citing Iran’s meddling in Iraq. We are very much not out the woods yet and I would ask for all of my liberal-minded friends to not think that evidence or facts prevail in Bush’s world. Please continue to speak out against war escalation and not just in safe progressive bubbles.
Stay up fam,
Brandon Q.
Bin Laden must be in Iran
August 14, 2007
I don’t have any kids but I have been around them enough to know that they have a very short attention span. This reminds me of the Bush administration. An article in WaPo states,
“The
United States has decided to designate Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps, the country’s 125,000-strong elite military branch, as a “specially designated global terrorist,” according toU.S. officials, a move that allowsWashington to target the group’s business operations and finances.”
How was I supposed to know?
May 23, 2007
This will be the type of ignorant but calculating excuse that Bush would use if and when a conflict would breakout with
General Patraeus and Iran
April 26, 2007
The following is taken from an article at Voice of America.
The top
U.S. commander inIraq says an Iraqi group affiliated with an elite Iranian force carried out an attack last year in which fiveU.S. soldiers were killed near the Iraqi town ofKarbala . The statement by General David Petraeus follows months of suspicion about Iranian involvement in the incident, but the general says he cannot directly connect Iranian agents to the attack.
First of all, if you can’t confirm your claims with evidence, shut up. Do I need to remind you of Colin Powell’s presentation of mobile lab cartoons and the empty vile prop? I am sick and tired of this administration being able to make claims that are passed off as facts but cannot be confirmed.
And seriously, with all of the work that General Patraeus has to do in making the “surge” successful, why are we trying to link
Brandon Q.
Iranian hostage crisis
April 3, 2007
In CNN today, it was reported that Iraq is pressing the U.S. to release the 5 Iranian officials it seized in
Of course, Bush could only be quiet for so long.
“President Bush was asked by a reporter in
“I support the Blair government’s attempts to solve this issue peacefully. So we’re in close consultation with the British government,” he responded. “I also strongly support the prime minister’s declaration that there should be no quid pro quos when it comes to the hostages.”
For clarity, Bush was saying that the
Keeping you informed,
Stay up fam,
Brandon Q.
Iran seizes British Navy soldiers
March 23, 2007
Fifteen British Navy personnel have been captured at gunpoint by Iranian forces, the Ministry of Defence says. The men were seized when they boarded a boat in the Gulf, off the coast of Iraq, which they suspected was smuggling cars.
Fortunately, The Royal Navy said the men, who were on a routine patrol in Iraqi waters, were understood to be unharmed.
In the continuing stand off between the West and the Iranian nuclear program, it will be situations like the one just described that will be the proverbial straw that breaks the camel’s back.
I predict that the Iran government will return the soldiers home unharmed in part to show the world that they are much more humane and reasonable than their Western counterparts would have you believe.
And God forbid these soldiers were American, there would be major saber-rattling on the part of the Bush Administration. Moreover, America’s lack of diplomatic relations would not allow Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice to do what British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett did by being able to summon the Iranian ambassador in London to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in an attempt to negotiate the men’s release.
Chances are, it was just an honest misunderstanding but when negotiating is cut off, you simultaneously cut off options for reasonable compromises.
God, I pray for peace in this world.
Categories:
Iran
International Affairs
Congress can do more to stop US involvment in Iraq
March 14, 2007
Congress can do more to stop US involvement in Iraq than people think.
To give background without getting into a lot of details, our government is set up in a way that each branch has a way to guard itself from being overpowered by the other two branches. The Congress does this in many cases by what is called the “Power of the Purse,” or the ability to control how the government spends money.
With regard to Iraq, [the Democratic] Congress has a lots of options when it comes to finding a way to end the current occupation. The one that is talked about the most is using its “Power of the Purse” to not allow the money to be spent on sending more troops to Iraq. This has been falsely criticized as “not supporting the troops” by spin doctors, but the reasons why that view is misguided are will not be addressed in this article.
If Congress looks beyond the “Power of the Purse,” it is likely to find alternative strategies that are not only possible, but safer politically and less vulnerable to being deemed unpatriotic.
One option is to keep the spending the same while limiting:
- The scope of the mission
Example: Congress can say that it’s alright to train Iraqi troops but not alright to take non-defensive action - The number of troops sent
Example: Congress can cap the size of the troop escalation, setting it ideally to ZERO. - The specific places troops are sent
Example: Congress can direct where troops can/cannot go (yes to Afghanistan, no to Iraq, no to Iran).
I don’t see how this could be framed as an unpatriotic. I have no military experience, but being specific and deliberate about where soldiers go and what they do sounds like supporting them to me. From the NY Times article:
…The Supreme Court has long recognized Congress’s authority to set limits on the president’s military power, as in 1799 when it accepted Congress’s power to authorize the seizure of ships going to, but not coming from, French ports…[Former Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court] Mr. Rehnquist cited numerous historical examples including a 1940 law prohibiting the deployment of drafted soldiers outside the Western Hemisphere. More recently, under President Clinton, we in the office of legal counsel repeatedly recognized the authority of Congress to limit the scope, nature and duration of military engagements.
What this tells me that all of this is precedented and has been done before successfully. Why can’t it be done again now? This is the type of plan that I would like to see proposed and passed through legislature at the same time that measures to withdraw troops as soon as possible are being debated.
Categories
Politics
Iraq
Iran
So-called “War on Terror”
Iran, Iran, Iran…
February 25, 2007
For anyone confused as to why there is so much talk about the possibility of a conflict with Iran, I strongly urge you to read this article aptly titled, “The Redirection” by famed journalist, Seymour Hersh. I won’t attempt to provide an analysis as insightful as him but I will leave you an excerpt;
Flynt Leverett, a former Bush Administration National Security Council official, told me that “there is nothing coincidental or ironic” about the new strategy with regard to Iraq. “The Administration is trying to make a case that Iran is more dangerous and more provocative than the Sunni insurgents to American interests in Iraq, when - if you look at the actual casualty numbers - the punishment inflicted on America by the Sunnis is greater by an order of magnitude,” Leverett said. “This is all part of the campaign of provocative steps to increase the pressure on Iran. The idea is that at some point the Iranians will respond and then the Administration will have an open door to strike at them.”
It is not a game.
Categories:
“So-called” war on terror
Iran
The fruition of a nightmare
February 1, 2007
In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today, Zbigniew Brzezinski, former national security advisor under President Carter, said this, (emphasis mine)
If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large. A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a “defensive” U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.
Don’t be silent, speak out against this misguided policy. Too many Americans are now afraid of what the government in power may do, but time is now for the government to be afraid of the people.
Categories:
Iran
International Affairs
“So called” war on terror
|
