24 July, 2008 (13:31) | John McCain, terrorism, Care2, government, video, Barack Obama, politics, military, war, Bush, Iraq, news, opinion, election | By: Catherine Morgan
Even though Afghanistan has become more deadly for our troops than Iraq, there will be no surge. It’s because of the war in Iraq, that there is just not enough troops available for a surge in Afghanistan. This will be another mess that the Bush administration will leave behind for the next President.
—
From Jessica…
First off, let’s be clear about what “surge†was supposed to mean in reference to Iraq. It was supposed to mean that troops would be added to trouble spots in Iraq for a period of six months. The addition of these troops was supposed to bring down violence so that political reconciliation could take place (as the violence levels were being blamed for the lack of political reconciliation). After the six month period, the troops were to be withdrawn, this was why the administration was calling it a “surge†and not what it really was, an escalation. (Keen observers might note that the “surge†has, in fact, lasted an entire year and that the ultimate goal - political reconciliation - is still very far from being achieved.). . .
Afghanistan has needed reinforcements for a long time as the forces there have, for many months, been losing the ground that was initially gained. Resources were directed away from Afghanistan when we went to war in Iraq and we’ve been paying the price for it dearly. This month will likely be the third month that U.S. casualties in Afghanistan are outpacing those in Iraq and considering we a much smaller force in Afghanistan, that’s really not good. Paul Reickhoff, Executive Director of the veteran organization Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America says that many soldiers that served there call it “Forgotistan.â€
So, we hear a lot about how the surge in Iraq is working, and how important it is for us to “win” the war in Iraq. But…Are we winning the war in Iraq at the expense of our troops in Afghanistan? Could we “lose” the war in Afghanistan? Let me know what you think in comments.
Comments: -
20 July, 2008 (17:34) | election 2008, terrorism, John McCain, Care2, video, Barack Obama, politics, military, war, Obama, Iraq, democrats, opinion, news, election | By: Catherine Morgan
Barack Obama meets Afghan leader and discusses terrorism, and he is also going to Iraq. Check out the video clip and let me know what you think? Is this trip going to help or hurt his campaign?
—
From The New York Times…
In an interview with CBS News on Sunday, Mr. Obama said: “We have to understand that the situation is precarious and urgent here in Afghanistan. And I believe this has to be our central focus, the central front on our battle against terrorism.
From Politico…
In a presidential campaign where the Democrat faces an especially intense variation of a familiar Republican assault-that he is, in some sense, not “one of us,” the trip abroad represents an opportunity for Obama to assert that he is, rather, not one of them.
He began with stops in which he has been pictured largely in the company of American soldiers. In Kuwait, he examined military vehicles and signed autographs for soldiers on a military base. The first images out of Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, where he landed after a brief visit to a base in Kuwait, show him with two uniformed members of the military, three other American officials, and a large statue of a bald eagle.
From Washington Street Journal…
I believe U.S. troop levels need to increase. And I for at least a year now have called for two additional brigades, perhaps three. I think it’s very important that we unify command more effectively to coordinate our military activities. But military alone is not going to be enough. The Afghan government needs to do more, but we have to understand that the situation is precarious and urgent here in Afghanistan. And I believe this has to be our central focus, the central front on our battle against terrorism. …
I think one of the biggest mistakes we’ve made strategically after 9/11 was to fail to finish the job here, focus our attention here. We got distracted by Iraq.
Let me know what you think about Obama’s trip to Afghanistan and Iraq in comments.
Comments: -
15 July, 2008 (11:13) | terrorism, journalism, Care2, Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, politics, opinion, youtube, Obama, media, news, freedom of speech, election | By: Catherine Morgan
Here is a guest post by Cynthia Samuels from Don’t Gel Too Soon.
OK. What do we think about this? I can tell you one thing. It hurts to look at it, even though I guess I understand what the artist, Barry Blitt, says he was trying to do. Rachel Sklar’s Huffington Post interview with the magazine’s gifted editor David Remnick explains further.
Obviously I wouldn’t have run a cover just to get attention — I ran the cover because I thought it had something to say. What I think it does is hold up a mirror to the prejudice and dark imaginings about Barack Obama’s — both Obamas’ — past, and their politics. I can’t speak for anyone else’s interpretations, all I can say is that it combines a number of images that have been propagated, not by everyone on the right but by some, about Obama’s supposed “lack of patriotism” or his being “soft on terrorism” or the idiotic notion that somehow Michelle Obama is the second coming of the Weathermen or most violent Black Panthers. That somehow all this is going to come to the Oval Office.
The free speech and marketplace of ideas concepts that I’ve treasured all my life clash with my reaction to all of this; I know that. The Constitutional protection of freedom of speech exists to guarantee the right both to speak and to hear not only popular, but also unpopular ideas. We don’t need to protect the popular ones; it’s the ideas that enrage people that need the protection. And I’m all for that.
But for a responsible and respected publication like The New Yorker to abuse that freedom by offering such blatant stereotypes to make its point, particularly when the subjects are the first African American Presidential (Columbia and Harvard-educated) candidate and his (Princeton and Harvard-educated) wife, an accomplished attorney — each of whose life trajectory suggests two stars who did everything expected of them to grow into exciting, productive citizens — seems to me abusive and dangerous. In an effort to make a point about the hate that’s being distributed concerning these two, they’re feeding it.
It will be interesting to see how many right wing websites and publications make use of this image. There’s been plenty of reaction so far and most of it is far more sophisticated than I could dream of being. I’m having too much trouble with my emotional, gut sense of right and wrong to be very thoughtful; this just feels wrong - perhaps even more so because of who printed it. I’ve been a New Yorker groupie since I was a high school kid in Pittsburgh wishing I was in Greenwich Village living the life of Susie Rotolo. Like this - walking through the Village with Bob Dylan.
—
So it’s particularly disturbing to me that something so terribly offensive was pubished by this beloved icon.
The stereotypes don’t fit the Obamas, obviously. That’s what the New Yorker is trying to demonstrate by feeding these stereotypes out there in such a naked way. But even if they did, how many of us who ever cared about anything is willing to stand by every position we adopted in our younger days?
Congressman Bobby Rush was a Black Panther. Now he’s chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection, serves on the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet and is a co-chairman of the Congressional Biotech Caucus. Isn’t that what we want? Growth.Even if the Obama’s were flamers back then (and I don’t think they were, by a long shot), isn’t the American way for young activists to rebel, maybe the wrong way, early in their lives then “grow up” to ultimately help to make change from inside? Justice Hugo Black, one of the great justices of the 20th century, started out as a member of the Ku Klux Klan - then went on to be a staunch defender of civil liberties for all. If we deny our future leaders the capacity to grow and question while they’re young, we will end up with leaders who may be what we deserve, but not who we need, by a long shot.I guess what I’m saying is that this effort to force Americans to confront political trash talk by offering up a visual representation of it all is, to me, a terrible mistake. An image that casts a shadow over the remarkable symbolic gift of this landmark candidacy - an image that lingers like a scar.
[cross-posted at The Care2 Election Blog]
Also See:
McCain, Obama campaigns agree: New Yorker cover is not satire.
Comments: 3
6 July, 2008 (12:30) | democracy, terrorism, journalism, politics, election 2008, family, video, Barack Obama, government, military, opinion, Bush, women, Republicans, Iraq, feminism, freedom of speech, media, youtube, election | By: Catherine Morgan
Here is a guest post from my friend Cynthia Samuels at Don’t Gel Too Soon.
Have you seen this movie? I sat in bed watching it early Sunday morning on cable and was just blown away. It’s one of the saddest, scariest, most moving American documentaries I’ve seen in a long time. That’s no surprise, since it was directed by Barbara Kopple, who made Harlan County USA - the landmark documentary about coal mine union battles in Kentucky.
What happened to the Dixie Chicks is infuriating: performing in London just before the start of the Iraq war, lead singer Natalie Maines (married, by the way, to HEROES star Adrian Pasdar,) told the crowd “Just so you know, we’re ashamed the President of the United States is from Texas.” The scene is included in this preview.
—
As I watched the film, seeing the rage and cruelty that emerged in the response to this one sentence, my first thought was, “Oh my God, what does this mean for Barak Obama?” The people who went after the Dixie chicks were nowhere near a sense of respect for the First Amendment - and sounded like they would be particularly vulnerable to “elitist” or racist accusations against a candidate. If you remember the exit polls in West Virginia, Ohio and Pennsylvania you’ll recall that many respondents just about acknowledged that they would not vote for Senator Obama simply because of his race. Am I unfair to wonder if many of those people are the same ones booing and even threatening Maines’ life? Still “out there” in larger numbers than we wish? Look at these figures:
Read more »
Comments: 2
1 July, 2008 (12:25) | politics, military, terrorism, John McCain, video, government, opinion, GOP, war, Bush, Iraq, Iran, news, election | By: Catherine Morgan
It’s been almost seven years, why can’t the U.S. find Bin Laden? Should we still be in Afghanistan? How do you think the “war on terror” is going? Let me know what you think in comments.
From The New York Times…
Late last year, top Bush administration officials decided to take a step they had long resisted. They drafted a secret plan to make it easier for the Pentagon’s Special Operations forces to launch missions into the snow-capped mountains of Pakistan to capture or kill top leaders of Al Qaeda.
. . .
After the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush committed the nation to a “war on terrorism†and made the destruction of Mr. bin Laden’s network the top priority of his presidency. But it is increasingly clear that the Bush administration will leave office with Al Qaeda having successfully relocated its base from Afghanistan to Pakistan’s tribal areas, where it has rebuilt much of its ability to attack from the region and broadcast its messages to militants across the world.
Afghanistan: Lowered Priority…
What is the purpose of our troops being in Afghanistan? At first, they were meant to capture Bin Laden, to topple the Taliban, so as to punish a regime that had allowed Al Qaeda to base itself there, and to deny Al Qaeda that base. But now? Presumably, they are meant to prevent the Taliban from coming back to power, and providing Al Qaeda a future base. But it’s one thing to strike at an enemy, another to deploy troops indefinitely to prevent a possible future threat. There is something to be said for defending a friendly Afghan regime, however weak, as opposed to the diplomatic and military costs of toppling an enemy regime once again–but still, the threat from Al Qaeda in Afghanistan must be taken as a diminishing hypothetical. And, yes, honor demands we capture Bin Laden — but we muffed our best chance, and keeping an army in Afghanistan in perpetuity is too great a price to pay.
What do you think?
[cross-posted at The Care2 Election Blog]
Comments: -
26 June, 2008 (17:10) | terrorism, politics, election 2008, John McCain, video, Care2, opinion, economy, youtube, Obama, healthcare, democrats, GOP, environment, election | By: Catherine Morgan
Will You Be Scared Into Voting For McCain? - by Catherine Morgan (cross-posted at The Care2 Election Blog)
The GOP wants to scare you into voting for McCain. Don’t fall for it. Last week, I posted on how John McCain’s top adviser, casually mentioned that a terrorist attack would help Republicans. I hope everyone (both Republicans and Democrats) will vote on all the issues, and not on one emotion (fear).
From The Huffington Post…
Last week, as expected, the GOP, unable to run on its disastrous record, pulled out its 2004 playbook and opened it to “Scare Tactics,” offering up fear-mongering hatchet men Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, and John Bolton to deliver the message that we should all be afraid — very, very afraid — of what an Obama presidency could lead to. Little things like the obliteration of a U.S. city (Gingrich) and more terrorist attacks (Bolton).
This fright-fest came in the wake of McCain telling us that al Qaeda will increase its violent attacks to try to defeat him, and that Hamas wants Obama to win.
In case we didn’t get the message, up popped McCain’s chief campaign advisor Charlie Black with his considered opinion that another terrorist attack on U.S. soil “certainly would be a big advantage” for McCain.
(read full FearWatch ‘08 post here)
What do you think? Can fear win the election for John McCain? Does the issue of “fear” trump issues like the economy, healthcare, and the environment? Do you expect there will be an “October Surprise” designed to scare the public? Would you change your vote out of fear? Let me know what you think in comments.
Comments: 1
23 June, 2008 (23:41) | John McCain, election 2008, terrorism, Care2, government, video, Barack Obama, politics, military, Iraq, Bush, Republicans, democrats, news, opinion, GOP, election | By: Catherine Morgan
McCain Top Adviser Says…Terrorism Help Republicans — by Catherine Morgan (cross-posted at The Care2 Election Blog)
The Republicans and the McCain campaign intend to run on the politics of fear. But, we already knew that. The question now is…How far are they willing to go to get elected? Would the administration ignore a terrorist threat for the good of the party? Watch this video and let me know what you think in comments…
Here is what other bloggers are saying…
Read more »
Comments: -
18 June, 2008 (15:55) | terrorism, climate change, Care2, government, video, politics, opinion, Iraq, Bush, environment, news, economy, election | By: Catherine Morgan
Midwest Flooding: Mother Nature or Failing Infrastructure? - by Catherine Morgan (cross-posted at The Care2 Election Blog)
Levees are breaking and the Midwest is flooding. This will end-up being a huge disaster, hurting not just the people who are flooded. We will all be affected by this one way or another, with more strain on our economy and higher food prices.
MSNBC has an Interactive Map of the Midwest Flooding, showing the areas of concern.
The question many are asking…
Is ‘Mother Nature’ Really To Blame for Midwest Flooding?
The U.S. infrastructure appears to be falling apart, and we are spending all of our “borrowed” money in Iraq. At this point, we wont need the terrorists to destroy our country, it’s going to just fall apart bit by bit on its own.
Also See:
Care2 News Network
Comments: -
16 June, 2008 (15:54) | democracy, terrorism, journalism, Care2, government, video, bloggers, politics, world, Iraq, war, blogging, media, opinion, news, Bush | By: Catherine Morgan
Afghan Prison Break - Taliban Fighters Taking Control — by Catherine Morgan (cross posted at The Care2 Election Blog)
Have you heard about the prison break by Taliban rebels in Afghanistan on Friday? You might not have, it’s not getting very much coverage in the MSM. However, as the days have gone by, this situation has escalated. Here are some video and news clips, as well as blogger reaction to this news.The first report I heard about this prison break was this 1 1/2 minute piece of coverage…
What do you think? How big of a problem is this prison break? How big of a problem is the Taliban in Afghanistan? Has the war in Iraq hurt the war on terrorism?
READ FULL POST AND SEE ALL THE VIDEO CLIPS AT THE CARE2 ELECTION BLOG–
Comments: -
18 April, 2008 (18:36) | politics, terrorism, family, world, opinion, war, feminism, news, women | By: Catherine Morgan
Here is a guest post by Penny Ronning from The Non Silent Majority.
As the silence against the violence women continue to experience during war remains just that, SILENT on the political front, a new film series looks to empower the collective voices of the women on the frontlines of these horrendous acts of war. I encourage all women to speak up for those that are powerless to speak for themselves. As women, let’s make silence on violence against women a top issue in this political year. Stand up, Speak up, Change the world!
News release from the UNFPA, UNIFEM and dev.tv:
NEW FILM SERIES TAKES ON CULTURE OF SILENCE ON VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
First Global Broadcast — Women on the Frontline — Presented by Annie Lennox
on BBC World, Tomorrow, 18 April 2008 at 1930 GMT
United Nations, Geneva, 17 April 2008 — This is an unfortunate anniversary.
Fourteen years ago, in April 1994, news got out that ethnic violence in Kigali was spreading throughout Rwanda. Since then, the world community has struggled to explain how the genocide of 800,000 people happened in full view, but less discussed is the ongoing impact of the rape and other forms of sexual violence committed against hundreds of thousands of women.
Violence against women is the theme of Women on the Frontline, a series of seven films being broadcast for the first time tomorrow Friday night by BBC World at 1930 GMT to about 300 million households to help peel away the silence surrounding the brutality of gender-based violence that crosses all borders.
“Violence against women threatens the lives of more young women than cancer, malaria or war,†said Annie Lennox, the British singer who presents the series of investigative reports. “It affects one in three women worldwide. It leaves women mentally scarred for life, and it is usually inflicted by a family member.â€
Unfortunately, when it comes to war, the use of rape as a weapon continues.
Read more »
Comments: 1
