Obama '08?

If one can be condemned by faint praise, Obama should feel praised so far by faint condemnation. If empty rumors are the worst that his enemies can come up with in their desperate attempts to chip away at his amazingly pristine image, he's doing remarkably well.

But, fasten your seat belt, Senator. It's going to be a bumpy ride, to paraphrase Bette Davis in "All About Eve."

okie, You're talking about a world far in the past when you talk about the imprisonment of Japanese Americans during WWII. That was a mistake that subsequent presidents apologized for, and most Japanese Americans have forgiven and forgotten as as failure of past administrations. "We" are more concerned about the treatment of Arab Americans today.

As for Bush, he has continued to lie about the illegal wiretaps and not torturing prisoners at Gitmo and abu Garaib. He has also restricted sharing critical information with congress concerning intelligence on WMDs, and currently with the agreements between the Iraqi government and ours. Bush also asks for suggestions, but ignores almost everybody when provided with same. The Hamilton-Baker report recommends diplomacy with Iran and Syria, but Bush refuses to do so. The American People by a majority of 75 percent wants American troops redeployed out of Iraq, but Bush ignores this. The majority of Iraqis want US troops out of their country, but Bush ignores them too!

His surge has already accomplished greater violence in Iraq.

When we have an ignoramous in the white house, we must suffer two more years of this dangerous tyrant. After all, the American People voted him in for the second term.

In short, my fellow liberals, we cannot have it both ways. If George W. Bush was unqualified to be our president, Barack Obama is even more so. One day, I hope, the quiet young man who sat next to me in class will sit in the Oval Office. But that day is still a few years off, and none of us should be shy about saying so. Like our presidents, we need to learn from experience.

Dear Friend,

Today, we sadly find ourselves at the very point in Iraq I feared most when I opposed giving the President the open-ended authority to wage this war in 2002 - an occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences in the midst of a country torn by civil war.

We have waited and we have been patient. We have given chance after chance for a resolution that has not come, and, more importantly, watched with horror and grief the tragic loss of thousands of brave young Americans.

The time for waiting in Iraq is over. The days of our open-ended commitment must come to a close. And the need to bring this war to an end is here.

That is why today, I'm introducing the Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007. This plan would not only place a cap on the number of troops in Iraq and stop the escalation, it would begin a phased redeployment of U.S. forces with the goal of removing of all U.S. combat forces from Iraq by March 31st, 2008 - consistent with the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group that the President ignored.

The redeployment of troops to the United States , Afghanistan , and elsewhere in the region would begin no later than May 1st of this year, toward the end of the timeframe I first proposed in a speech more than two months ago. In a civil war where no military solution exists, this redeployment remains our best leverage to pressure the Iraqi government to achieve the political settlement between its warring factions that can slow the bloodshed and promote stability.

The U.S. military has performed valiantly and brilliantly in Iraq . Our troops have done all we have asked them to do and more. But no amount of American soldiers can solve the political differences at the heart of somebody else's civil war, nor settle the grievances in the hearts of the combatants.

When it comes to the war in Iraq, the time for promises and assurances, for waiting and patience, is over. Too many lives have been lost and too many billions have been spent for us to trust the President on another tried and failed policy opposed by generals and experts, Democrats and Republicans, Americans and even the Iraqis themselves.

It is time to change our policy.

It is time to give Iraqis their country back.

And it is time to refocus America 's efforts on the challenges we face at home and the wider struggle against terror yet to be won.

Sincerely,

U.S. Senator Barack Obama

That is why today, I'm introducing the Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007. This plan would not only place a cap on the number of troops in Iraq and stop the escalation, it would begin a phased redeployment of U.S. forces with the goal of removing of all U.S. combat forces from Iraq by March 31st, 2008 - consistent with the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group that the President ignored

Congress used its war powers to cut off or put conditions on funding for the Vietnam war and conflicts in Cambodia, Somalia and Bosnia.

Under the Constitution, lawmakers have the ability to declare war and fund military operations, while the president has control of military forces.

okie wrote:

Thomas, please tell me you didn't say that. Bernie Sanders especially.

I'm sorry, Okie, but I did say that, and I stand by it. I may be a libertarian, but I'm easily corrupted by personalities. In particular, Feingold and Sanders are two non-libertarians who succeeded at corrupting me.

BIDENISM OF THE DAY:

On Barack Obama:

"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," he said. "I mean, that's a storybook, man."

Clean?

• "Articulate" and "clean" are code for "not too black."
  
  
• This may be it for Biden. I love the guy. But if Trent Lott said something like this, he'd be kicked out of the Republican leadership again. [..]
  
  However, I think there is a grain of truth here. Biden presumably means Obama ain't that black (to paraphrase Colin Powell's own paraphrasing of others about him). White Americans are much more comfortable with black politicians who don't "sound" black, for better or worse.
  
  On second thought, I think I'm going to go ahead and just totally retract that statement.
  
  "...articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy..."
  
  "Articulate" is white code for "not that black." But the rest of it - clean, nice-looking - is impossible to rationalize. This was Biden's id speaking. I don't see any way out of this for him.
  
  
• welcome to unconscious racism..
  so sue me, someone had to say it.
  
  
• Biden's only saying what most white lefties think. The entire Obama candidacy is an exercise in liberal white guilt wish fulfillment. [..]
  
  
• C'mon people! It's obvious that Biden meant to say "clean-shaven."
  
  After all, look at the two other men most often mentioned in the same breath as Obama: Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.
  
  What do Jackson and Sharpton have in common? Mustaches! And are either held in high regard? Hell no! Coincidence? I thnk not!
  
  Everyone knows how much white America hates black men with facial hair (except for Isaac Hayes, of course).
  
  When will we, as a nation, have to courage to confront this follicle-based discrimiantion head on?
  
  
• In all fairness to Biden, however, Obama is one fine, upstanding Negro. Isn't that neat!
  
  
• "rorschach". i looked up this spelling yesterday because it will be used a lot in next two years. that quote is nasty. so maybe it will be the ones that adore obama for the wrong reasons who will sink him. who wants to vote for a black candidate who is fawned over with those adjectives. i can see now where the destructive path lies..

Joe Biden is, naturally, saying he only meant that Barack Obama is a fresh new face. Unfortunately the problem he faces is that the nature of his gaffe--for those who assume the worst--can't be explained away. It's a less-extreme version of George Allen's macaca crack: Allen's defenders said it was ludicrous to consider "macaca" a slur and not, say, a meaningless goofy nickmame, because clearly no politician would slur someone in public even if he was thinking such vile thoughts. But the charge in that case, as in Biden's, is that it was the subconscious talking in some unintentionally revealing way. And no amount of spin or contrition can undo that.