Obama's War

Afghanistan Body Count: 01/23/2011
Total Americans Killed: 1,466
Post Obama Inauguration: 836
http://icasualties.org/

“…We will finish the job…” Pres. Barack Obama

----------------------------

Latest Confirmed Casualties:


*Sgt. Omar Aceves, 30, of El Paso, TX died Jan. 12, in Ghazni province, Afghanistan.

*Spc. Jarrid L. King, 20, of Erie, PA died Jan. 12, in Ghazni province, Afghanistan.
*Pfc. Benjamin G. Moore, 23, of Robbinsville, NJ Jan. 12, in Ghazni province, Afghanistan.

*Sgt. Zainah C. Creamer, 28, of Texarkana, TX died Jan. 12, in Kandahar province, Afghanistan.

*Maj. Evan J. Mooldyk, 47, of Ranch Murieto, CA died Jan. 12 in Khowst province, Afghanistan.

*Pfc. Zachary S. Salmon, 21, of Harrison, OH died Jan. 12 in Kunar province, Afghanistan.

*Cpl. Joseph C. Whitehead, 22, of Axis, AL died Jan. 17 in Helmand province, Afghanistan.

*Spc. Joshua T. Lancaster, 22, of Millbrook, AL died Jan. 19, in Kandahar, Afghanistan.

*Petty Officer Dominique Cruz, 26, of Panama City, FL was found [dead] during search and rescue operations Jan. 19 in the Gulf of Oman.

*Sgt. Jason G. Amores, 29, of Lehigh Acres, FL died Jan. 20 in Helmand province, Afghanistan.

*Pfc. Amy R. Sinkler, 23, of Chadbourn, NC died Jan. 20 in Baghlan province, Afghanistan.


Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue

President O'Clinton and Social Security

There has been quite a bit of speculation lately over whether or not President O’Clinton is going to offer up cuts in Social Security to appease the new Republican majority in the House of Representatives. Most of the independent Progressive groups like Moveon.org and Progressive Change Campaign Committee are calling for folks to sign petitions telling the president that this is not the way to go. Now I don’t have any idea what will be announced at the SOTU Address on Tuesday night but, (to borrow a phrase from Rachel Maddow) if past is prologue; it would not seem outside the realm of possibility to hear a willingness on the part of this administration to “compromise” once again in the hopes of securing his newly regained popularity amongst “the middle.” But Social Security? Really?!


First; in light of President O’Clinton’s most recent compromise – the one where he joined with the so-called deficit hawks in Congress to continue the Bush Tax Cuts and balloon the deficit by almost another trillion dollars – does anyone in DC have any credibility in complaining about the deficit (at least for the next two years)? Then there is the matter of whether or not the funds for Social Security are actually contributing to our deficit. I don’t know about you, but on my paycheck Federal Withholding and Social Security are two separate items. The way it was explained to me; it was set up that way on purpose to maintain the integrity of the system. In other words, the money for Social Security comes from the specific Social Security taxes we all pay and, therefore does not contribute to the deficit. Again, back to the infamous O’Clinton Compromise; somebody must think that Social Security is in pretty good shape to warrant a TWO YEAR payroll tax “holiday” (which will DECREASE the amount of money going into the trust fund).

Consider this: Before George W. Bush stole the Whitehouse, there was a projected surplus. It doesn’t take a genius to realize that invading and occupying two countries at a cost in the hundreds of billions while, at the same time, cutting taxes across the board (amounting in an almost equal value in lost revenue) put us in the financial situation we are in. Hell, even candidate Obama said that. So why is it now that Social Security finds itself as even a part of the conversation? Well because President O’Clinton’s “Cat Food Commission” said so and the Republicans; just as with the unemployed a couple of months ago, are going to hold retired and about to be retired folks hostage. Boehner and most of the rest of the Republican Party will refuse to place military spending on the table without Social Security lying there beside it. Will O’Clinton negotiate with the hostage takers? Watch on Tuesday night. We may well be watching the last piece of the foundation of the Democratic Party being chipped away.

Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue

IWR News

Iraq Body Count: 01/18/2011
Total Americans Killed: 4436
Post Obama Inauguration: 216
Post “End of Combat”: 19
http://icasualties.org/

“…a small price…” Rep. John Boehner

----------------------------

Latest Confirmed Casualties:


*Pfc. Dylan T. Reid, 24, of Springfield, MO died Oct. 16 in Amarah, Iraq.

*Pfc. David R. Jones Jr., 21, of Saint Johnsville, NY died Oct. 24 at Baghdad, Iraq.

*Sgt. 1st Class Phillip C. Tanner, 43, of Sheridan, WY died Oct. 26 at Ali Al Salem, Kuwait.

*Staff Sgt. Loleni W. Gandy, 36, of Pago Pago, American Samoa, died Nov. 19 in Balad, Iraq.

*Sgt. David J. Luff Jr., 29, of Hamilton, OH died Nov. 21 in Tikrit, Iraq.

*Pfc. David D. Finch, 24, of Bath Springs, TN died Dec. 8 in Wasit province, Iraq.

*Sgt. Jose M. Cintron Rosado, 38, of Vega Alta, Puerto Rico died Jan. 2 in Taji, Iraq.

*Spc. Jose A. Delgado Arroyo, 41, of San Juan, Puerto Rico died Jan. 2 in Taji, Iraq.

*Spc. Jose A. Torre, Jr., 21, of Garden Grove, CA died Jan.15 in Baghdad, Iraq.

*Sgt. Michael P. Bartley, 23, of Barnhill, IL died Jan. 15 in Mosul, Iraq.

*Spc. Martin J. Lamar, 43, of Sacramento, CA died Jan. 15 in Mosul, Iraq.


Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue

"How Do You Ask a Man to be the Last Man to Die for a Mistake?" - John Kerry

From the Associated Press:

BAGHDAD – Two U.S. troops were killed Saturday by an Iraqi soldier who apparently smuggled real bullets into a training exercise and opened fire, raising fresh concerns about insurgents worming into the nation's security forces as the Americans prepare to leave by the year's end…

…Additionally, another American soldier was killed Saturday during an unrelated military operation in central Iraq, making it one of the deadliest days for U.S. forces in the country in months. A U.S. military statement offered no details about that death…

The deaths of these three US service members brings the total US dead in Iraq to 4,435 with 18 killed since President Obama declared the end of the US combat mission in that country.

And the beat goes on.

Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue

To "...make gentle the life of this world."

I (and I am sure many others) just received the following email from Congressman Jay Inslee (D-WA01) addressing the tragedy in Tucson and what must happen to move forward. I found it moving and wanted to pass it along:

Dear Chad,

We all feel the pain and loss from Arizona. On the faces of all whom we have met lately, Trudi and I have seen the concern for our friends, for ourselves, and for our country. The country is divided on many things but not on the national scope of this singular tragedy. I thought I would take a moment to share a thought or two.


First, the loss of anyone is painful, particularly the shortened life of nine-year-old Christina Taylor Green. Knowing Gabby, I feel a particularly acute sadness and anger at her shooting. I have come to know Gabby principally through our mutual work on clean energy, where she has been a member of the Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition I formed in the last congress.

Reports you have heard of her brilliance and humanity have not been exaggerated. To see assaulted a person with such a kind heart and desire to serve is a blow to the future of the country. When I see pictures of her next to the solar panels she so treasured, it reminds me how we need her spirit of innovation in a sometimes gridlocked congress.

We are all buoyed by her strength and hope for her return to service.

When I think of how to move forward, our best guidance may have been offered by Bobby Kennedy on the night Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated. He said,

"We can do well in this country. We will have difficult times. We've had difficult times in the past, and we will have difficult times in the future. It is not the end of violence; it is not the end of lawlessness; and it's not the end of disorder.

But the vast majority of white people and the vast majority of black people in this country want to live together, want to improve the quality of our life, and want justice for all human beings that abide in our land.

And let's dedicate ourselves to what the Greeks wrote so many years ago: to tame the savageness of man and make gentle the life of this world."

In the days ahead we could do worse than to focus on what we can do to "make gentle the life of this world."

There ought not be any partisan dispute about the wisdom of encouraging all who have the honor of serving in public office to temper their rhetoric. Rather than casting blame, or fanning the flames of irrational fears, we must explore better ways to find common ground with those with whom we disagree and speak to one another in a mutually respectful manner when common ground eludes us.

Many have expressed concern about how Trudi and I feel about the potential for violence. While we appreciate very much people's concern, we can honestly say that it is not something that troubles us. We feel very comfortable continuing our duties mixing with the good people we work for.

We cannot, and will not, allow fear to diminish democracy.

I look forward to returning next week to Congress, where I will engage with my colleagues, those I agree with and those with whom I do not. We will take up once again important issues like health care, creating jobs, growing the economy, and reducing the national debt. As you know, I strongly disagree with the new House majority's effort to repeal the health insurance reforms we passed last year, and I expect there to be vigorous debate.

But if we are to move past this tragedy, to engage in a dialogue that, as the President said Wednesday night, serves the memories of those who have died and moves our nation to meet the expectations of our children, we must do better. We have come too far to allow the voices of fear and intimidation to silence our democratic process.

To paraphrase Theodore Parker and Martin Luther King, Jr., in the midst of this pain I hope you find the peace of those who know that the arc of the moral universe bends toward justice, no matter how troubled the journey.

Very truly yours,

Jay Inslee

Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue

Obama's War

Afghanistan Body Count: 01/11/2011
Total Americans Killed: 1,455
Post Obama Inauguration: 825
http://icasualties.org/

“…We will finish the job…” Pres. Barack Obama

----------------------------

Latest Confirmed Casualties:


*Cpl. Tevan L. Nguyen, 21, of Hutto, TX died Dec. 28 in Helmand province, Afghanistan.

*Sgt. Michael J. Beckerman, 25, of Ste. Genevieve, MO died Dec. 31 in Kandahar province, Afghanistan.

*Lance Cpl. Maung P. Htaik, 20, of Hagerstown, MD died Jan. 1 in Helmand province, Afghanistan.

*Cpl. Jacob A. Tate, 21, of Columbus, OH died Jan. 2 in Helmand province, Afghanistan.

*Sgt. Eric M. Nettleton, 26, of Wichita, KN died Jan. 5, in Tarin Kowt, Afghanistan.

*Sgt. 1st Class Robert W. Pharris, 48, of Seymour, MO died January 5 in Nangarhar Province, Afghanistan.

*Spc. Christian J. Romig, 24, of Kenner, LA died January 5 in Nangarhar Province, Afghanistan.

*Spc. Ethan C. Hardin, 25, of Fayetteville, AR died Jan. 7 in Logar Province, Afghanistan.

*Pfc. Ira B. Laningham, IV, 22, of Zapata, TX died Jan. 7 in Logar Province, Afghanistan.

*Pfc. Robert J. Near, 21, of Nampa, ID died Jan. 7 at Kandahar, Afghanistan.


Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue

Happiness is a Warm Gun

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” - 2nd Amendment, US Constitution

And so, in exercising his “un-infringed” 2nd Amendment right an American citizen shot and killed 6 other American citizens and wounded 13 others, including an Arizona congresswoman who was conducting a citizen’s outreach at a local supermarket parking lot. Among the 6 dead is a 9 year girl who was born on September 11, 2001.

In keeping with the American tradition of fixing blame rather than the problem, folks from the left side of the political dial began immediately assigning blame to the “infamous” of the right who have been associated with language which, while also protected under the same constitution, would seem to incite violence against politicians and others who share a more liberal view of government. Indeed, it was quickly asserted by many that the individual who fired the gun was a Tea Party “fanatic” out to apply his “2nd amendment remedy” to the outcome of the November election. Of course, the right (as one might expect) took a defensive posture and began asserting equivalence between rightwing and leftwing hate (albeit separated by decades). To be fair; both sides have quickly condemned the shooting and offered condolences to the victims.

While officials from the president down to the sheriff investigating the shooting have expressed their concern about the effects (perceived or real) of vitriolic language in our current political discourse, very few, if any, of today’s political leaders will address the impact of the “un-infringed; God-given” right to bear arms in this country. Consider the following from a study by the University of Utah:

“In the U.S. for 2006, there were 30,896 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 16,883; Homicide 12,791; Accident 642; Legal Intervention 360; Undetermined 220. This makes firearms injuries one of the top ten causes of death in the U.S. The number of firearms-related injuries in the U.S., both fatal and non-fatal, increased through 1993, declined to 1999, and has remained relatively constant since. However, firearms injuries remain a leading cause of death in the U.S., particularly among youth (CDC, 2001) (CDC, 2006).

The number of non-fatal injuries is considerable--over 200,000 per year in the U.S. Many of these injuries require hospitalization and trauma care…”

Whether or not the Arizona shooter was incited by a set of cross-hairs on a political pamphlet or just another mentally challenged American; too many people each year are victim to our need for a “well regulated militia.” It is long past due to have a real discussion of the relevancy of the 2nd Amendment in today’s United States. If we need to maintain the amendment as it is currently interpreted and enforced, we need to examine the definition of “infringed”. Are the rights of the individual to be both protector and protected superior to the rights of the community to feel safe from the well regulated militia of one living next door with his arsenal of pistols, rifles, and whatever else constitutes “arms”?

Citizens by the tens of thousands will continue to die because, for 200 plus years, too many other citizens hold a single sentence from one of our founding documents with same reverence that other citizens hold the 10 commandments (perhaps more; considering that one of the commandments says something about not killing each other). We must stop and ask ourselves why. We must ask ourselves how many more 9 year olds are we willing to sacrifice because we won’t apply basic common sense to the issue of guns and gun control.

Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue

Happy(?) New Year for Progressives

Happy New Year. As much as I would like to start the year off with a rosy assessment of 2010 and a positive prediction for 2011, I have to say that I have never been more concerned about the near-term fate of the Progressive movement in this country. What makes this assessment so disappointing is the fact that it is coming off a year when Democrats held all the cards in government. Unfortunately, in the face of a pair of douches deuces (Republicans and the Tea Party); Democrats folded a full house (House-Senate-White House).


Entering 2010 on a down note after having been pretty much bitch-slapped by the O’Clinton Administration over the healthcare reform bill, things didn’t really improve as the election season found Democrats across the country backing down from fight after fight; whether it be “Cap and Trade” or reinstating Glass-Steagall. Democrats (beginning with President O’Clinton) simply accepted the Tea Party/Republican notion that the American people were rejecting the (laughable) perception of a liberal agenda, even though poll after poll indicated that just as many voters were frustrated at the lack of real Progressive change and were abandoning Democrats for failing to live up to their promises. The icing on the cake came in the closing weeks of the year as; after placing repeal of the “Bush Tax Cuts” toward the top of their election promises since 2004, President O’Clinton and congressional Democrats managed to even enshrine trickledown economics for, at a minimum, two more years. I know that people will say that it was because of the “O’Clinton Compromise” that Democrats were able to go on to repeal of DADT and a ratification of the latest START treaty but really, these things should have happened without any prodding as they both represented ideas that cross party lines as matters of civil rights and national security. If there was something that might have needed negotiating in the final days of 2010 it might have been the DREAM Act and we know where that ended up.

Entering 2011 we find Progressives fighting to simply remain relevant in the discussion. O’Clinton long ago made it known that he was going to pay little more than lip service to Progressives; feeding them a bone from time to time to keep them in line (Elizabeth Warren comes to mind) while constantly forcing “lesser of all evils” votes down their throats by negotiating away key Progressive elements of legislation long before floor votes were taken. The impact has been to move the ideological goal posts even further to the right. While the Tea Party extremism of the Republican Party is becoming more their mainstream, Democratic “Blue Dogs” and even President O’Clinton are regularly referred to as Progressive, Liberal, or even Socialist. Even among Progressives there is a widening divide over tactics as some call for bringing the fight to the streets while others argue that we should regroup and try to rebuild from “the start” that O’Clinton has given us. This divide really came into focus in the past couple of weeks as two of the leading voices of the Progressive movement, Dennis Kucinich and Howard Dean appeared at odds with the prevalent view of Progressives over President O’Clinton’s acceptance of tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and his most recent appointment of two more former Clintonites and champions of Wall Street to hold leading roles in the administration. First there was Kucinich speaking with Lawrence O’Donnell and giving cover for the O’Clinton Compromise (citing the “moral obligation to the long-term unemployed” and glossing over the fact that it was the failure of Democrats to “go to the mats” for those very folks that left us in this position.) And then there was this exchange between Rachel Maddow and Howard Dean over O’Clinton’s recent appointment of former Clinton Commerce Secretary and current Mid-west Chairman of JP Morgan, Bill Daley, to become new White House Chief of Staff (on the heels of another former Clintonite, Rahm Emmanuel):

“RM: …Is there a story about Bill Daley that explains his choice to be Chief of Staff as something other than a deliberate provocation to make the left mad? Was Bill Daley picked for a reason other than the Democratic satisfaction of “punching the hippie”? Joining us now - no hippie; but a man who has the respect of a lot of us hippies, Howard Dean, former governor of Vermont. Good to see you. Thanks for joining us.

HD: I was going to say, I was interested to see earlier today, [Former Clinton Labor Secretary] Bob Reich also said he thought it was a good choice. I'll tell you why -- I haven't talked to the former Secretary of Labor -- but I'll tell you why we both like Bill Daley; because we like him. He's an honest guy, no BS, no game playing. I know he's not a Progressive. Having worked for Wall Street makes me a little uncomfortable. I suspect he didn't have a lot to do with the chicanery that went on along with the capitalized mortgage obligations that got us into such trouble. He's a business guy. He's straight forward and respectful. The reason I like him, even though he's not a Progressive, is because when you sit down with him, you look him in the eye and he looks you in the eye you have a respectful, working relationship. I think that's a big deal. The president needs an adult there. We've had a rough two years; a lot of inside the belt way nonsense. Bill Daley is not an inside the belt way guy. He lives in Chicago. He's a Chicago, mid-west guy. I think he'll help the president get re-elected by not playing political games. That is why I like him.

**************

RM: Do you think that the president's agenda, whether as a reformer or in terms of his progressive goals or his agenda to get re-elected in 2012, do you think the president's agenda depends on having a good, constructive relationship with Wall Street or depends on being able to be confrontational with Wall Street? I think this may be one of the differences between Democrats and the left; specifically in terms of how the president appears to position himself against business.

HD: First of all, I think the problem is the president also has a communications problem; which I think he's in the middle of trying to remedy as well. There's nothing wrong with being against Wall Street. Wall Street did a lot of harm to this country over the last couple of years. There is something wrong with being against the business community. Leaving aside the Chamber of Commerce, which is…they are irrelevant in the debate. The fact of the matter is there's a lot of businesses that create jobs and we need some jobs right about now. Daley gets that. I really like the guy a lot. I may be wrong and may be on this show eating crow six months from now after we have a big fight. I think this guy is a straight forward guy. What you see is what you get. There's no BS. We have had conversations where I've been to the left of him and we've had discussions about that. I've never felt when I left his office, he didn't understand what I was talking about or didn't respect me as a person because we had a disagreement. That makes a big difference. A lot of the problems that progressives have with the Obama Administration is not over fundamental policy differences, it's the contempt with which Progressives were treated by his staff. It's Progressives; those kids that slept on floors for 20 weeks before this campaign, that got this president elected. All we need is not a president that makes a sharp left turn. What we need is a president willing to respect his base. I think Richard Daley respects other people.

RM: I think I'd be happier being insulted and JP Morgan not getting their way.

HD: I don't think JP Morgan is necessarily going to get their way.

RM: Because the mid-west chairman is now going to be the White House Chief of Staff?...”

I heard Howard make this same case with Keith Olbermann and, just as now, am left unconvinced by his argument. It is not often you will find me at odds with Governor Dean but in the light of O’Clinton’s actual record of turning his back on the base, I have no reason to believe that; in the face of a tough re-election fight, he will be moving in any direction other than further to the right. And with the party’s continuing shift to the right, Progressives will find ourselves fighting just to maintain the status quo.

Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue