International money buying election influence
The Drudge Report is breaking a
story on how MoveOn.org is raising money from
outside the United States:
Frustrated with the lack of
domestic support, left-leaning website MoveOn.org
has apparently been reaching beyond American
borders to generate cash revenue over the
internet! The provocative international
fundraising strategy threatens to embroil the
presidential candidacies of General Wesley Clark
and former Vermont Governor Howard Dean. Both men
are named on international fundraising websites
suggesting donations to MoveOn.org.
MORE
Meanwhile, MoveOn.org, which has
been running ads critical of the Bush
Administration, has named an "International
Campaigns Director," the DRUDGE REPORT has
learned.
It is not clear how much money
has been raised -- to date-- from foreign sources,
but political websites from London to Portugal to
Montreal are directing their citizens to stop the
American president George Bush by donating to
MoveOn.org!
Wesley Clark's official campaign
website has been offering a
link to "Canada For Clark", which in turn
advises Canadians: "Non-Americans can't by law,
give money to any particular candidate's campaign.
But we can support pro-democracy, progressive
American organizations like MoveOn.org, which do
their best to spread the ugly truth about Bush and
publicize the Democratic message. "
The top traffic referrer to
CanadaForClark.com is
Clark's Official Campaign Website.
MORE
Dean04Worldwide.com is a noncommercial and
volunteer website offered by Corinne Sinclair, a
non-US citizen, based in London. Domain
registration information indicates the website
name servers are owned by PromoHosting.com, a
website hosting service based in Portugal.
Dean04Worldwide.com encourages non-Americans
across the global to help Dean win the 2004
election.
A notice on the website explains
how to provide funds to MoveOn.org, since
non-Americans cannot donate directly to the Dean
campaign.
Late last week, a Swedish
website removed an "EU-MoveOn.org Fundraising
Appeal," claiming MoveOn.org "No Longer Accepts
Contributions From Non US Citizens/Permanent
Resident Aliens."
Former U.S. Vice President Al
Gore, who has been headlining moveone.org events,
is said to have vocalized serious concerns about
the website accepting cash from foreign sources,
the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
MORE
"To avoid even the appearance of
impropriety, we are not going to take
contributions from overseas," Wes Boyd, one of the
founders of MoveOn.org, explained this weekend.
Boyd refused to disclose how much revenue had
already been generated abroad.
Filet of Democrats
Max Boot, a senior fellow at the
Council on Foreign Relations, writes a commentary
in the LA Times that filets the Democrats on their
positions on the war in Iraq:
But is the Democratic plan a realistic option?
Specifically, is there any reason to think that
the "international community" — that wonderful
abstraction — is ready and willing to assume
responsibility for Iraq?
The answer is no. The United Nations pulled out
almost all of its staff after its Baghdad
headquarters was pulverized in a suicide bombing
in August. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has not
given any indication that he is rethinking that
decision. It's a little difficult to run Iraq — or
even to hold an international tribunal to try
Saddam Hussein — if you're too scared to go there.
He also provides damning
evidence that Democrats could ease relations with
France. It seems that if proof of the failure of
the EU conference on a constitution is not enough
then Frances response to England’s NATO
secretary-general, Lord George Robertson should
give a clue:
Just look at Afghanistan, where NATO has already
taken over responsibility for the 5,700-strong
International Security Assistance Force and has
pledged to extend its reach beyond Kabul. This
month, the indefatigable NATO secretary-general,
Lord George Robertson, begged his members to
supply some helicopters to the peacekeepers, who
have only three of their own.
According to the Wall Street Journal, the French
defense minister, Michèle Alliot-Marie, responded
with a sarcastic sneer: "I have a helicopter for
you, Lord Robertson. I will send you a plastic
model of one for Christmas."
Dean is wrong
Sen. Joe Lieberman reacted with
what can only be called revulsion to the Howard
Dean statement that, “The capture of Saddam
Hussein has not made America safer."
"Howard Dean has climbed into
his own spider hole of denial if he believes that
the capture of Saddam Hussein has not made America
safer… Saddam Hussein is a homicidal maniac,
brutal dictator, supporter of terrorism, and enemy
of the United States, and there should be no doubt
that America and the world are safer with him
captured."
"He's wrong," said Sen. John
Edwards in response to Dean’s statement. "The
capture of Saddam Hussein makes it more likely
that Iraq can be secure, and a secure Iraq makes
that region . . . and the world itself more
secure," Edwards said after giving a foreign
policy speech in Des Moines.
Sen. John Kerry also differed
with Dean, "I think Saddam's capture is a very
important step forward because it changes the
dynamics on the ground in Iraq. “It will make us
safer because stability in the Middle East is
critical in the long term to also dealing with the
war on terror. I disagree with the governor."
Kerry offered this question concerning Dean, “How
can you have it both ways? What kind of leadership
is that?”
Rep. Dick Gephardt thought
Dean’s comments were unreasonable, "I think that
arguably the capture of Saddam Hussein may bring
about the beginning of the end of the violence
against our troops in Iraq. If we can bring Iraq
to a more successful conclusion faster, that will
contribute to the security of not only the
Americans in Iraq but Americans anywhere."
Gephardt took the occasion of Dean’s speech to
offer a lengthy criticism of Dean:
"Yesterday, Howard Dean said that Saddam Hussein's
capture was 'above politics,' but today he
delivered a speech described by the Washington
Post as 'repositioning' himself to the center.
"Let's be clear. Howard Dean has been playing
politics with foreign policy for over a year and
his repositioning is just the latest Howard Dean
political game. Despite issuing contradictory
statements on Iraq over the last year, Governor
Dean has used this issue to constantly attack his
Democratic opponents and to seek political
advantage.
"Last month, Howard Dean ran the first negative ad
of the campaign attacking me for my support of our
troops in the field. He attacked me for a position
he had previously agreed with and said he would
not use politically against his opponents.
Yesterday was the first day that Howard Dean put
the issue of Saddam Hussein 'above politics.'
"As Howard Dean repositions himself today, I would
hope that he chooses to reposition his future
foreign policy statements without the politics
that have characterized his positions throughout
this campaign," Gephardt said.
America disagrees with Dean
Americans said by a 62%-to-32%
majority Sunday that the war in Iraq has made the
U.S. more secure -- contrary to Dean's assertions
-- up from a 52%-to-43% margin in September.
Americans also do not agree with Democrats that
the quest for Mr. Hussein represents a diversion
from the global war on terrorism, 57% said his
capture will make that broader war easier to win.
Dean gets good news, bad news
As Howard Dean arrived in
Arizona today, he received the good news he had
pulled ahead in Arizona. A poll released Monday by
Northern Arizona University gives the former
Vermont governor a solid lead with 22 percent of
the vote. With 12 percent, Wesley Clark was the
only other candidate with double-digit support.
The bad news was that the
state’s leading newspaper, The
Arizona Republic, had the headline: “Dean on
defensive.”
Dean’s endorsement campaign
Two congressional Californians,
Congressman Xavier Becerra and Congresswoman
Lucille Roybal-Allard, endorsed Howard Dean.
Bacerra’s endorsement came yesterday at the
Democratic National Committee's luncheon.
Roybal-Allard is to be announced tonight. Becerra
is a member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus,
where he served as chair during the 105th Congress
(1997-98), and the first Latino to serve on the
House Ways and Means Committee. Roybal-Allard has
represented California's 34th Congressional
district, which contains metropolitan downtown Los
Angeles.
Dean is also campaigning to
bring in Democrat governors and word is he has
N.J. Gov. James E. McGreevey signed. He plans to
endorse Howard Dean on Friday and has already
asked state Democrats to begin campaigning for
Dean.
Kerry’s ray of hope
“We interrupt the regularly
scheduled Kerry-bashing for a ray of political
hope.” Those were the lead words in today’s
Boston Globe column on Sen. John Kerry’s
campaign. The Globe offers this possible reason:
But here we are, five weeks until the first vote
is cast, and something has really, finally
changed. Maybe humility does that to a man. On the
stump, he talks no longer about himself, but his
ideas, repeatedly telling people, "This isn't
about me, folks." His thoughts are presented not
in calculated jargon, but in pointed prose.
The article also relates the
importance of Iowa to the Kerry campaign -- Kerry
is probably in third place behind Dean, who is
locked in a battle with Dick Gephardt at the top
in Iowa:
Kerry knows one true thing. Forget New Hampshire.
To salvage his candidacy, he needs at least a
second-place finish in Iowa -- a goal that became
a lot more real when Saddam Hussein was captured
over the weekend and Dean's antiwar fervor didn't
seem quite so fervent any more.
A
NY Times’ article agrees with the possible
hope emitting from the Kerry campaign. They also
point out Iowa’s importance to Kerry:
To that end, Mr. Kerry has sent to Des Moines
Michael Whouley, a veteran Democratic field
operative who first worked for Mr. Kerry on his
1982 race for lieutenant governor and who was Bill
Clinton's national field director in 1992 and Al
Gore's in 2000. Mr. Whouley, in turn, has had
several staff members from states with later
primaries transferred to Iowa to help, campaign
officials said.
Mr. Whouley's knack for identifying supporters,
turning them out to vote — and thinking on his
feet — is the stuff of legend in New Hampshire: on
primary day in 2000, after 4 p.m. surveys of
voters leaving polls showed Mr. Gore down 4 points
to Bill Bradley, Mr. Whouley sent workers onto the
street to knock on doors and helped eke out a
victory.
Kerry’s foreign policy statement
Or -- bash Dean, bash Bush
The following is Sen. John
Kerry’s speech on foreign policy as it was
prepared for delivery:
Shortly after he took office,
Thomas Jefferson – America’s first chief diplomat
– laid out the goals of American foreign policy:
“We are pointing out the way to struggling nations
who wish, like us, to emerge from their
tyrannies.” For 225 years – and with gathering
force during the course of the last century –
these words have guided an America that has come
to believe that the surest way to defend our
people is to advance our ideals.
Saturday evening, halfway around
the world, in a dark hole beneath a mud shack on a
sheep farm, Jefferson’s promise was fulfilled
again. Saddam Hussein was a totalitarian who waged
a reign of terror against his people and
repeatedly endangered the peace of the world. And
no one can doubt that we are safer – and Iraq is
better – because Saddam Hussein is now behind
bars.
His capture is a great tribute
to the skill and bravery of the U.S. Armed Forces,
who showed Saturday as they do everyday what it
means to have the greatest military in history –
and why we must never retreat from having the
strongest military in the world. This nation
stands united with a single message for our
troops: Job well done.
Saddam Hussein’s capture also
represents a two-fold opportunity. For President
Bush, it is still another chance to transform the
situation in Iraq from an American occupation to a
global coalition. And it is an opportunity for
America to reclaim the best of our historic role
overseas and to once again lead the world toward
progress and freedom.
From the Battle of Belleau Wood
to the Battle of the Bulge, from Korea to Kosovo,
the story of the last century is of an America
that accepted the heavy responsibility of its
historic obligation – to serve as not just a
beacon of hope, but to work with allies across the
world to defend and extend the frontiers of
freedom.
But today, we confront a dual
danger – two major detours from the true path of
American leadership. On one side is President Bush
who has taken America off onto the road of
unilateralism and ideological preemption. On the
other side are those in my own party who threaten
to take us down a road of confusion and retreat.
Iraq has been ground zero in
that ideological tug of war, with difficult
decisions that had to be made, and complicated
issues of national security that had to be
discussed with Americans honestly and responsibly.
When America needed leadership
on Iraq, Howard Dean was all over the lot, with a
lot of slogans and a lot less solutions. One
moment he supported authorizing the use of force,
the next he criticized those who did. He said
Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction,
then he said he’d figured out that he didn’t. He
said he opposed the war all along, but less than a
month before it began he said that if the U.N.
wouldn’t enforce its own mandates, then
‘unilateralism is a regrettable, but unavoidable
choice.’
And at other times, Governor
Dean said that we should not go into Iraq unless
the UN Security council gave us authorization.
That is a fundamental misunderstanding of how a
President protects the United States. I have said
many times I believe that America should have
worked to get international backing before going
to war. Our diplomacy should have been as good as
our soldiers. A true international coalition would
have been better for our troops, better for our
security, better for Iraq’s future. Perhaps it
reflects inexperience, but for Howard Dean to
permit a veto over when America can or cannot act
not only becomes little more than a pretext for
doing nothing – it cedes our security and
presidential responsibility to defend America to
someone else -- a profound danger for both our
national security and global stability.
The Democratic Party has always
been stronger than that. Woodrow Wilson led
America in a fight for self-determination and
against old empires. Franklin Roosevelt defended
freedom from fascism. Harry Truman contained the
expansion of communism and introduced the Marshall
Plan. John F. Kennedy pledged a “long twilight
struggle” to end the Cold War. Jimmy Carter
renewed America’s commitment to human rights
around the world. And from Haiti to Bosnia, Bill
Clinton placed America’s might on the side of
America’s values while he expanded our circle of
allies at the same time. And none of them would
ever have given others the power to prevent
America from defending its interests or its
ideals.
To follow the path that Howard
Dean seems to prefer is to embrace a “Simon Says”
foreign policy where America only moves if others
move first. And that is just as wrong as George
Bush’s policy of schoolyard taunts and cowboy
swagger. Our job is to lead the world to a better
place, to convince allies of mutual interest and
global responsibilities.
We need a President who will not
walk away from a dangerous world – and a President
who will not walk alone by choice – but a
President who will lead a new alliance of free
nations to build a new era of security and peace.
A President who will rally democratic countries to
join in a lasting coalition to address the common
ills of a new century – terrorism, loose nukes,
and drug trafficking, environmental destruction
and epidemic disease. And with your help, that’s
the kind of President I will be.
I believe it was right to hold
Saddam Hussein accountable for violating UN
agreements. I believed then – and I believe now –
authorizing force was the only way to get
inspectors in, and the only way ultimately to
enforce Saddam Hussein’s compliance with the
mandate he had agreed to, knowing that as a last
resort war could become the ultimate weapons
inspections enforcement mechanism.
And I also believe that those
who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be
better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who
believe we are not safer with his capture don’t
have the judgment to be President – or the
credibility to be elected President.
A year and a half ago, as this
campaign was starting, I argued that for Democrats
to win America's votes we must first convince the
voters that we will keep America safe.
I believed then and I believe
now that Americans deserve better than a false
choice between force without diplomacy and
diplomacy without force. To provide responsible
leadership, we need to take the third path in
foreign policy – a bold, progressive
internationalism – backed by undoubted military
might – that commits America to lead in the cause
of human liberty and prosperity. If Democrats do
not stand for making America safer, stronger, and
more secure, we won’t win back the White House –
and we won’t deserve to.
We need a President who can take
us back to America’s rightful path in the world
because President Bush has taken us so far off
course. Whether it is failing to support a new
Afghanistan or supporting a failed coup in
Venezuela, whether it is pushing the world away on
the Kyoto treaty or pushing the world into danger
over North Korea, this Administration’s
go-it-alone attitude has endangered our interests
and enraged those who should be our friends.
Nowhere is that clearer than in
Iraq. The Bush Administration has not just been
unilateralist in war, but unilateralist in the
ongoing guerilla struggle. And we have been paying
too high a price – in dollars and the deaths of
young Americans – to continue down this road.
Let’s be clear: Our problems in Iraq have not been
caused by one man – and simply capturing Saddam
Hussein does not finally and fully clear the path
to a peaceful and democratic outcome. This is a
moment of opportunity, a turning point when the
Administration can and should face the realities
of how you gain international support in this
effort. We cannot expect other nations to join us
now if the Administration prohibits them from
sharing the reconstruction because they opposed us
previously. That not only defies common sense –
it’s childish retribution which puts our troops at
greater risk. It’s time we leave no doubt what we
believe: Iraq belongs to the Iraqi people, not
Halliburton and Bechtel.
The Administration’s reluctance
to share power and responsibility is all the more
stunning because it prevents them from investing
Europe and Middle Eastern neighbors in their own
self-interest not to have a failed state on their
doorsteps and borders.
Saddam’s capture is a victory
for the Iraqi people; they no longer need to fear
the return of a brutal dictator who terrorized
them for so long. But Saddam’s capture also
represents a vital chance for the United States to
build the coalition to win the peace that we
should have built to win the war. To offer a real
invitation to the rest of the world that says:
“Join us. Share the burden of creating a peaceful
and stable Iraq because your security depends on
it too.”
The threat of Saddam himself is
gone. But the threat of terror continues to reach
from the streets of Baghdad and the Middle East to
the streets of Asia, Europe, and America itself.
We must not waste this opportunity to rebuild
alliances, both in Iraq and against global
terrorism.
We owe this kind of
internationalism first of all to our troops. Today
American soldiers in Iraq fear getting shot while
getting a drink of water. They wonder whether the
old station wagon driving toward their checkpoint
will explode when it gets there. For their sake,
we must put aside arrogance and swagger and enlist
other countries to share the burden and the
authority in Iraq so that we get the targets off
the back of our soldiers. We need tools of
diplomacy equal to the tools of war. Our forces
are doing their job and doing their best. Now it’s
time for America to have leaders that do the same.
With Saddam in custody, with
others who did not join us in Iraq now celebrating
that fact, we must reach out to the U.N. and our
allies – and internationalize the reconstruction
of Iraq. I hope that the President exercises that
kind of leadership.
Unfortunately, on three
different occasions, when he could have led in the
past, he stubbornly refused to do so.
The first opportunity came last
fall after Congress authorized the use of force.
President Bush promised America he would “work
with the UN Security Council to meet our common
challenge.” Instead, he refused to give the
inspectors time and rushed to war without our
allies.
There was a second opportunity –
after the Iraqi people pulled down Saddam
Hussein’s statue in Baghdad. Again, the President
could have worked with the United Nations to share
the burden of rebuilding Iraq – to ensure that the
Iraqi people would not see us as an occupying
power. And again, the President chose to let
America shoulder the burden alone.
Then this Fall, the President
addressed the UN General Assembly. Other nations
stood ready to stand with us – to provide troops
and funds to stabilize Iraq. But instead of asking
for their help, the President repeated the old
formulas of his unilateralism, raising the risk
for American soldiers and the bill to the American
treasury.
Today, the risk is still too
high and the bill is still too large. But today,
we have also been given that rare fourth chance to
set things right. We can return to the world,
reject the idea of going it alone and hoarding all
the power, and forge a shared response to the
challenges of Iraq. No more snubbing allies, no
more stonewalling the U.N., and no more sham
coalitions. It’s time to win the peace, and it’s
time to do it right.
So President Bush needs to take
four immediate steps.
First, go back to the
international community and to the United Nations
and offer a real partnership in Iraq. We need a
new Security Council resolution to give the United
Nations authority in the rebuilding process and
the development of a new Iraqi Constitution and
government. Ambassador Bremer and the Coalition
Provisional Authority should be sincerely thanked
for their service – and replaced by a UN Special
Representative in Iraq who will remove the stigma
of foreign occupation from our presence there. The
United States has ample power and influence to
establish a working relationship which guarantees—
indeed guides us to—an outcome which meets our
goals and security needs.
Second, the UN authorization for
international forces in Iraq is finally in place,
but to expand participation we have to share
responsibility, which the Administration still
won’t do. We need to conduct real diplomacy with
the goal of really getting boots on the ground.
As we internationalize the work
in Iraq, we need to add 40,000 troops – the
equivalent of two divisions – to the American
military in order to meet our responsibilities
elsewhere – especially in the urgent global war on
terror. In my first 100 days as President, I will
move to increase the size of our Armed Forces.
Some may not like that. But today, in the face of
grave challenges, our armed forces are spread too
thin. Our troops in Iraq are paying the price for
this everyday. There’s not enough troops in the
ranks of our overall armed forces to bring home
those troops that have been in Iraq for more than
a year.
President Bush’s policies have
overextended our military – and turned reserves
into full-time soldiers. Iowa, with a population
of less than three million people, is in the Top
10 states in the proportion of National Guard
troops on active duty; more than 2,600 of Iowa's
9,500 Army and Air Guard soldiers have been
activated. George Bush and Don Rumsfeld say we
have enough troops. I think they’re putting
politics and pride ahead of what is right for our
soldiers, our reserves, and our security.
Third, we need a reasonable plan
and a specific timetable for self-government, for
transferring political power and the
responsibility for reconstruction to the people of
Iraq. That means completing the tasks of security
and democracy in that country – not cutting and
running in order to claim a false success for the
sake of the 2004 election. The timing of events in
Iraq should not be keyed to the timetable of the
Bush re-election campaign. Genuinely engaging the
Iraqi people in shaping new institutions is
fundamental to the long-term cause of a stable,
peaceful, and independent Iraq that contributes to
the world instead of threatening it.
The actions we now take to try
Saddam Hussein can advance that hope – or set it
back. Justice must come to a brutal tyrant who has
threatened the world and murdered hundreds of
thousands of his own citizens.
But it must come through a new
American partnership with the people of Iraq and
of the international community. This is a unique
time when we can show and not just speak the
values of a free and just society to Iraqis, to
the rest of the Arab world, and to our own people
here at home. We can demonstrate in an
unforgettable way that the rule of law includes
rights that cannot be denied even to a despot.
What a powerful signal that would be – a signal
that would reverberate across the globe and even
across generations.
So the question of how to
structure the trial of Saddam Hussein is not just
a legal issue; it is a test of our values and our
intentions. Saddam Hussein committed heinous
crimes against the Iraqi people and the
international community, but we cannot try him in
some kind of kangaroo court without due process of
law. To do so would reinforce our image as an
occupying power and set back the cause of a new
beginning in Iraq. We need to work with the Iraqi
leadership to create a path to true justice that
is fair and credible – in their eyes, in the eyes
of other Arab and Muslim people, and in the eyes
of the international community.
After working with the Cambodian
government and the United Nations for years to
form the upcoming genocide tribunal in Cambodia,
it is clear to me that we cannot and must not
ignore the emotional and political stake the Iraqi
people have in this issue. But as I saw in
Cambodia, the international community also has a
major stake in the quest for justice.
The Iraqi people should see the
trial firsthand because that will prove once and
for all that Saddam Hussein is gone. It was
important that Nazi war criminals be tried in
Germany, just as it will be important that those
responsible for the Killing Fields be tried in
Cambodia. Trying Saddam Hussein in Iraq will
provide an essential sense of closure for the
Iraqi people. And we and the world have a deep
interest in showing the Iraqi people that a
judicial process with transparency, fairness, and
justice can provide accountability and a penalty
that fits the crime.
That’s why I believe a mixed
tribunal, in which international judges,
prosecutors, and investigators work alongside
Iraqis, is the best guarantee of a fair and valid
process. While setting up a credible mixed
tribunal in Iraq may be more difficult then going
to an international tribunal in the Hague, I
believe it will be more credible in the long term;
it will give Iraqis a place and a stake in the
process – and it will lead to a stronger judicial
system in that country for years to come.
Fourth, as we establish the rule
of law, we urgently need to rebuild a sense of
basic order. Today lawlessness and chaos, rampant
violence and property destruction, threaten Iraqis
and undermine the creation of a civil society. The
job properly belongs to the new Iraqi security
forces. And the United States and the allies we
enlist need to do a far better job of training
them – and then transferring authority to them.
The Iraqi military battalion we
just trained suffered a massive desertion when
about half the troops left over inadequate pay. We
need to get the planning right and stop making
elementary mistakes. We need realistic support,
equipment and pay. And we need to get this Iraqi
Security force into shape to achieve early
successes so that Iraqis can have confidence in
their army and the troops can have confidence in
themselves.
Iraqi police forces also need
adequate training and mentoring. Here at home, a
police officer has four to six months of training.
We may not have that luxury in Iraq, but training
must be sufficient – not just speedy. And the
police forces too need real support, equipment and
pay. Countries like Italy, France, and Spain have
national police forces with a paramilitary
capability. They could contribute by preparing and
mentoring a similar Iraqi force.
But they won’t do it unless the
Bush Administration changes course, renounces
unilateralism, and turns a new page in Iraq and in
all our international relations. We must lead, not
order.
We should be prepared to act to
protect our interest, but we must also be ready to
listen to others.
So leadership is the issue –
abroad and at home.
In a world shadowed by
terrorism, Americans are asking. Who can best
defend us? Who can meet the challenge of this
dangerous time? In the next election, Democrats
owe the American people more than anger; we owe
them answers. To earn their trust, we must prove
by our experience and our vision that our approach
to national security and foreign policy is strong
and credible – and the best way to defend our
nation.
I am here to say that holding
Saddam accountable was important, even if not
always popular. I am here to say that doing
nothing would have been the most dangerous path of
all. But I am also here to say that the price of
unilateralism in Iraq is too high, and Americans
are paying it – in resources that could be used
for health care, education, and our security here
at home. We are paying that price in respect lost
around the world – respect we need to win the war
not just in one country, but the global war on
terror. And most important, the price is paid in
the lives of young Americans forced to shoulder
the burden of this mission alone.
We must change a course of
unilateralism and pre-emptive war that is
radically wrong for America. Saddam’s capture
offers even this Administration the chance to make
change. And if we as Democrats are to change
America, we cannot seek to replace the Bush
unilateralism with confusion and retreat. Let’s
bring in our allies, take the target off our
troops, and let’s finally win the peace in Iraq.
In a time of fear, in a uncertain world, let’s
affirm that America’s security depends on our own
strength, but also on our ideals, and on the will
and wisdom to forge a new era of internationalism
where this nation truly and proudly is, as Lincoln
said, the “best hope of earth.”
Millosevick unrepentant
Reuters reports that Wesley Clark stated that
Slobodan Milosevic was unrepentant in his behavior
as Clark testified for the second day:
"I saw no change in his demeanor, his
stubbornness, his petulance, from the man I
believe was responsible for so much of the
slaughter and victims in the Balkans," Clark, a
U.S. Democratic presidential hopeful, told
reporters in The Hague.
"It was a typical Milosevic performance. It was
grandiose in effort, misplaced, in some ways
overly personal," Clark said.
"For me it was a very, very satisfying experience
because I've watched the ravages of his leadership
in Europe for years. I've talked to his victims.
I've met them. I've seen the results in the
shattered cities of former Yugoslavia."
In a separate development, the
NY Post reports that Madonna is giving a
concert in her home in L.A. as a fund-raiser for
Gen. Wesley Clark.
Edwards on Flu
In an innovative high-tech town
hall meeting linking voters in Manchester,
Hanover, Gorham, and across the state, John
Edwards today proposed strengthening public health
systems and detailed his plans to prevent future
vaccine shortages like the current shortage of flu
vaccine.
"This
outbreak is a reminder that we must improve our
public health system," said Edwards. "Whether it's
a mild flu or a deadly anthrax attack, we depend
on our public health system to respond. That is
why doctors and nurses in New Hampshire and around
the country need to be able to turn to one place
for accurate, real-time information about disease
outbreaks. And our public health system needs the
resources to respond to emergencies and keep us
healthy."
In the interactive discussion
with health care professionals and activists
across the state, Edwards outlined his plans to
prevent similar shortages in the future,
specifically by consolidating disease control
coordination, tracking disease outbreaks and
vaccine availability in real time, decreasing
vaccine production time, and long-term funding and
planning for public health systems that deal with
outbreaks.
"When
it comes to the flu, we don't need to panic; we
need to prepare," said Edwards. "In America,
people who need the flu vaccine should be able to
get it, but right now they can't because supplies
are running out. For this year, we need to buy
more safe vaccine overseas. For future years, we
need to have enough vaccine and to move more
quickly in response to outbreaks--so we stop the
flu before the flu stops us."
Edwards also called for the
immediate importation of vaccines and reiterated
his call for an investigation into lower vaccine
production this year and rising costs over recent
years.
The
Associated Press reports that Edwards was
asked by a New Hampshire health care advocate why
he's not pushing a single-payer, government health
care system. Edwards said he opted for a pragmatic
approach that helps the most vulnerable Americans.
He wants to require parents to enroll their
children in private or government plans, with $25
billion annually in tax credits to help them do
so. The plan also includes some targeted subsidies
aimed at helping more than 8 million uninsured
adults afford health care and cost-control
measures he estimates will save $15 billion to $17
billion annually.
Lieberman’s multiplying websites
Sen. Joe Lieberman is
multiplying websites to gain state support in
Oklahoma and New Mexico, both sites of Feb 3 Super
Seven Presidential contests. Both sites feature a
"MoJoe," a grassroots toolkit for Oklahoma
residents who want to get more involved in the
campaign. The toolkit allows residents to be a DNC
convention delegate for Joe, tell a friend about
their support for Lieberman, host a neighborhood
meeting; or join Lieberman's Oklahoma steering
committee, according to Joe Lieberman's Campaign
Director Craig Smith.
Lieberman: I’m not Howard Dean or George Bush
Sen. Joe Lieberman joined the
plethora of Democrats who find it necessary to
offer a major foreign policy speech. Here is his
speech:
It's
been quite a week, hasn't it? First Howard Dean
captured Al Gore's endorsement. Then our armed
forces captured Saddam Hussein, bringing joy to
the world this holiday season.
Together, these two developments have brought new
clarity to this Democratic campaign. They have
helped crystallize the choices facing the
Democratic Party and our country.
It's
important for you, the hardworking middle-class
people here at Electropac and around New
Hampshire, to hear about these differences and to
think about them -- because in the end it's your
choice, your jobs, your security, your families,
and your future that are on the line in this
election.
FORWARD OR BACKWARD
I
know you appreciate straight talk, so that's what
I'm going to deliver. And the decision
before you is as direct as this: Are we going to
bring this country together and move it forward?
Or are we going to keep it divided and take it
backward?
Are
we going to build on the pro-growth, pro-jobs,
fiscally-responsible, strong-on-security, socially
progressive legacy of Bill Clinton to keep our
people safe, to get our economy going, and to make
us one America again?
Or in
our well-justified anger toward George W. Bush for
protecting the special interests and yielding to
ideological extremists, are we going to fall back
on the failed policies and positions of the past
-- weakness on defense, silence on values, raising
walls of protectionism around our country, and
raising taxes on the middle class?
Is
that what is right for America? Is that the way to
deny George Bush four more years? I know it is
not.
I
love this country and the opportunities it has
given me.
I
believe in the Democratic Party that I've belonged
to for all my public life.
VISION OR ANGER
For
decades I have fought for a cleaner environment,
for civil rights, and to protect a woman's right
to choose. Nine times I've earned a 100% rating
from the League of Conservation Voters. I have
fought for civil rights, marching with Dr. Martin
Luther King Jr. I have protected a woman's right
to choose. Time and again, I have taken on the
special interests when they were not playing by
the rules -- no matter how big they were.
In
this campaign, I'm putting forward a strong,
positive vision for America.
And that stands in sharp contrast to what Howard
Dean offers today. He seems to believe if you are
just against everything, that's enough. Against
removing Saddam Hussein. Against tax cuts. Against
knocking down walls of protection around the world
so we can sell more products that are made in
America, by Americans.
Dr. Dean has become Dr. No.
Look.
I admire how Howard has energized a lot of people.
I want to speak to and for those people every one
of you who believes George Bush
has led the country in the wrong direction.
But
we need more than one wing to fly. We Democrats
are just a third of this country, and we can't
beat George Bush if we only talk to each other
about how mad we are. We have to show that we have
a larger vision and a shared mission to lead
America forward -- to reach out to and welcome
Democrats of all stripes, Independents, and
disappointed moderate Republicans.
SAFE ABROAD
First, that means understanding how to make
America safe.
We're
at war -- we need a war-time president.
We're
threatened by brutal enemies who hate us more than
they love life. They've attacked us in the most
vicious way possible, and will keep doing so until
they are defeated. We cannot leave our children a
world torn by religious strife, ruled by tyranny,
and threatened by terrorism. We cannot
just wish for a better America and a safer world,
we must elect a President who will give us the
strong, new leadership to make America better and
the world safer.
And
this is where Howard Dean and I fundamentally
disagree.
How
many people here agree that we are safer with
Saddam Hussein in prison?
Howard Dean says no. He said yesterday that the
capture of Saddam Hussein has not made America
safer. He thinks we're not safer having removed a
homicidal maniac who controlled vast wealth,
attacked other nations, had grand designs,
supported terrorists, killed hundreds of thousands
of his own people, and hated us. I'm afraid Howard
Dean has climbed into his own spider-hole of
denial.
I
know we could have done this much better, with
greater international cooperation, and with better
planning. And I intend to take on George Bush for
his one-sided, off-course foreign policy that has
made America more reviled around the world.
But I
also know we are safer without Saddam Hussein in
power. That's why for 12 years -- long before
George W. Bush became President -- I have stood
with John McCain and others to support the removal
of this tyrant.
And I
stuck with that position even when it wasn't
popular. I didn't try to duck it or explain it
away. That's what fighting for what's right is all
about. That's what leadership is all about. That's
what the American people deserve and need in their
next President.
So
the choice is clear.
With
Howard Dean, Saddam would be in power. With me, he
would be in prison.
And
it goes beyond Iraq. The fact is, Governor Dean
has made a series of dubious judgments and
irresponsible statements in this campaign that
together signal he would in fact take us back to
the days when we Democrats were not trusted to
defend America's security.
I've
spent the past decade working on the Senate Armed
Services Committee to make our military the
best-equipped, best-trained, most powerful
fighting force the world has ever known.
Howard Dean said we should prepare for the day
when America no longer has the strongest military.
I'll never let that happen when I'm
Commander-in-Chief.
More
than anyone in this race, I am prepared to lead
America to victory in the war on terrorism. I will
rebuild our fractured alliances and rally the
international community to fight this common
threat. And I will use whatever force is necessary
to kill those who would kill us, as we have done
and are doing in Iraq.
I
will fundamentally reform our intelligence system
to prevent the breakdowns that preceded 9/11 and
continue to block the necessary sharing of
life-saving information with local law enforcers.
Unlike this President, I will give first
responders the resources they need to shore up our
homeland defenses.
And
knowing that we can't win this war with swords
alone, I will provide ploughshares as well. I will
develop and lead a new international Marshall Plan
for the Muslim World that will fight the
deprivation and alienation that are feeding the
venom and violence in the Arab and Muslim worlds
with real economic assistance, political reform,
and the promise of real freedom. When I am
President, we're going to answer the hate with
hope.
AND STRONG AT HOME
But
ultimately, to be strong in the world, we need to
be strong at home. And the sad fact is, after
three years of George Bush's leadership, we are
weaker at home.
George W. Bush has lost more than two-and-a-half
million jobs, abandoned the middle class,
ransacked the treasury to give tax cuts to people
who don't need them, jeopardized Social Security
and Medicare, done nothing to help with health
care, and left our workers defenseless against
unfair trade practices.
The
real question is: What are we as Democrats going
to do to make things right?
And
here again, there is a clear choice. My plan would
build on the Clinton blueprint to cut taxes for
small businesses and the middle-class, create 10
million new jobs in my first term, reduce the
deficit every year, balance the budget by the end
of my second term, and guarantee that you will
never lose your health care if you lose your job.
Howard Dean's plan, on the other hand, rejects
rather than reflects the lessons we learned in the
1990s.
My
plan would cut taxes for 98 percent of taxpayers
to ease the crushing squeeze on the middle class.
Howard Dean would take back every tax cut that
middle class families got these last three years.
He
tries to paper this over by claiming the middle
class didn't really get a tax cut. Tell that to
the average New Hampshire family. Remember the
increase in the child tax credit? Under Howard
Dean, it's gone. The new 10 percent tax bracket?
Gone. The marriage penalty? Right back in place.
The difference between Howard Dean's tax hikes and
my tax cuts adds up to $2700 a year for the
average New Hampshire family.
That's $500 more than the average annual
family health care premium for employees. More
than two years of home heating oil. Or 70 percent
of a year's property taxes for a typical
Manchester home.
The next clear choice is on trade. Howard Dean
would reverse the policies of the Clinton years.
My
plan would knock down foreign trade barriers and
crack down on unfair trade practices. I will help
you and your company find the new markets you need
for your products so that you can grow and add
jobs. And I will stand up for you when your
foreign competitors don't play by the rules. The
motto of my Administration will be: "Made in
America, Sold Abroad."
Howard Dean would build new economic walls. He's
said he wouldn't trade with any country unless
they meet unrealistic standards.
That
would start a trade war and cost millions of
Americans their jobs. The man who didn't want to
fight a war we should have fought now wants to
start a war we should not be fighting.
Think
about this. How will Howard Dean build the new
alliances he talks about if we won't open up new
markets and expand trade with them?
And
there's a final, critical area of economic policy
where Howard Dean and I differ dramatically. He
has said he would re-regulate whole swaths of the
American economy.
Look
-- I believe in strong government oversight. I've
been a watchdog since I served as Attorney General
of Connecticut. I want to close corporate
loopholes. I believe in cracking down hard on
American businesses that don't play by the rules.
But
to me, "business" is not a four-letter word. It's
businesses that create jobs. That's why I've
proposed tax cuts for small businesses. A tax
credit for manufacturers that create jobs and keep
them here in America. A 10% tax credit for buying
new equipment. And a zero capital gains rate that
would make new investments in small companies
completely tax-free so that we can create new
jobs.
Howard Dean would do none of that. In fact, he
would repeal the few pro-growth tax cuts we
already passed -- including new incentives to
encourage small business investment.
This
is no time to raise taxes on business or impose a
vast new regime of government regulation. We need
to unleash the entrepreneurial and innovative
spirit in America again to create millions of new
jobs.
You'll make up your own mind when you go to the
voting booth. New Hampshire voters always do. But
let me tell you what some leading economists
surveyed by The Wall Street Journal said. Which of
the Democratic candidates, they were asked, would
best create jobs, increase incomes, and grow the
economy? I'm proud to say they picked my plan over
Howard Dean's -- eleven to one.
Add
it all up, and here's the choice. Will we
strengthen America, grow the middle class and help
business thrive again? Or will we erode our
security, shrink opportunity, and sap our
strength?
We
have already had three years of economic misery
because of George Bush.
We
cannot replace that with another set of backward
policies that would only burden the middle class
even further and weigh the economy down even more.
And
we cannot replace a foreign policy that has
antagonized our allies with one that would isolate
us in a growing economic world.
I'm asking for your support.
I
am not George Bush or Howard Dean. I'm Joe
Lieberman -- an independent-minded Democrat who
will restore security and prosperity to America
and fairness and integrity to the White House.
I
will take us forward, building on the policies of
Bill Clinton, not abandoning them as George Bush
has and Howard Dean would. I will unite us, not
seek to divide us with anger or extremism. And
with your help and your support, I will fight for
what's right to give your children and mine a
better future and make this a safer world for
them, more democratic and more united by the
common values and hopes we all share.
God
bless you, and thank you.
Kucinich to campaign in Iowa
Rep. Dennis Kucinich is
scheduled to make another swing through Iowa this
Thursday through Saturday, visiting the towns of
Mt. Vernon, Cedar Rapids, Davenport, Muscatine,
Washington, Coralville, Toledo, Marshalltown, Ft.
Dodge, Algona, Mason City, and Des Moines.
Kucinich is expected to meet up with Jonathan
Meier and four others walking cross-country for
Peace and walk through Mt. Vernon to promote the
Kucinich for President campaign. Kucinich
supporters are walking across America to show
support for Kucinich’s campaign.
Christmas campaigning in New Hampshire
PoliticsNH.com reports on how
the candidates are taking advantage of New
Hampshire’s tradition of parades and Holiday
shopping to campaign. The story also relates how
Howard Dean’s campaign is having none of it and
sticking with their house parties and appeals to
independents:
Granite State campaigns are taking advantage of
the opportunities presented by holiday activities,
events where large numbers of voters gather
together in public places.
In Nashua, U.S. Sen. John Edwards' staff invited
voters enjoying the annual holiday stroll into its
field office to get warm and to hear more about
the candidate. Revelers were greeted with candy
canes and campaign literature.
Sen. Joe Lieberman's campaign staff was out
working the Manchester holiday parade, braving the
cold with signs outside its Manchester office.
They’re coming to Iowa
The Iowa winter scene does not
make the best travel brochure. However, young and
old are making Iowa their travel destination. The
Des Moines Register reports on how the
Democrat candidates are recruiting volunteers to
come to Iowa to get out the January 19th
caucus vote:
"Your
weather is irrelevant to me," says the Internet
business strategist. "I'd walk through a blizzard
in a swimsuit if I thought that would elect Howard
Dean president of the United States."
Absurdity
President Bush broke his
discipline and responded to Howard Dean’s theory
that Bush had advance warning from Saudi Arabia of
the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, suggesting Bush knew
what was going to happen and did nothing to stop
it.
"It's an absurd insinuation,"
said President Bush.
Diane Sawyer’s interview
Diane Sawyer in an interview
with President Bush on Primetime, at 8 p.m. ET,
reports on Bush’s reactions to the capture of
Saddam Hussein and the War on Terrorism:
Bush said the capture of the elusive Iraqi leader
did not mark a sense of finality for him. "The
only thing that's final about it is that the Iraqi
people don't have to worry about Saddam ever
again. But there's no finality for me. There's a
lot more to be done in Iraq." However, he felt
this was a "joyous moment for the Iraqi people."
The United States should continue to play a
leading role in the war on terror, which is the
ultimate challenge of the 21st century, said Bush.
"My job is to do everything I can to protect
America and Americans," he said.
The U.S. must achieve objectives in the war on
terror, while also honoring the memories of those
who have died by terror's rule. Bush told Sawyer
he made a pledge at Ground Zero in New York City
to never forget the lessons of freedom and his
solemn duty to protect the country.
When asked if there is any price that was too high
to pay for freedom in Iraq, Bush responded the
U.S. and its coalition partners should not stop
until they reach their objectives. "The way to
dishonor fallen soldiers is to quit too early," he
said.
Candidate Bush
The
NY Times covers the question of when is Bush
going to announce his candidacy. The issue came up
as Bush repeated that politics could wait:
"It's a tough balancing act," said David Winston,
a Republican pollster. "When you announce, you
become a candidate and you officially enter the
political fray. On the other hand, the velocity
and level of the animus from the Democrats have
created a political dynamic earlier than we have
seen before."
The Times also points out the
last President running for President never
announced his candidacy:
In contrast, Mr. Clinton never stood up and said
he was a candidate in 1996 — a strategy, his aides
said later, to hold him out of the line of
partisan fire as long as possible.
AARP backs out
AARP is backing out of Social
Security forums it agreed to sponsor with the Bush
administration and from a group advocating a
system overhaul to allow stock market investing.
The first of three town hall meetings organized by
AARP, the Social Security Administration and the
National Association of Manufacturers, was set for
Jan. 15 in Minneapolis.
homepage
|
click here
to read past Iowa Daily Reports
|