Welcome to Texans for Obama

Obama Bill Sets Date For Troop Withdrawal

Why does the media only report on the media's fascination with Sen. Barack Obama?

The biggest issue of our times is the Iraq war.  This is an unmistakable fact.

One of the biggest decisions regarding the Iraq war is when to withdraw our troops from this bloody quagmire.  We're caught in the crossfire of a civil war, and George Bush and John McCain are putting their foot on the gas instead of the brake. 

So Obama, the supposedly "inexperienced" Senator from Illiniois, proposes a serious policy decision regarding the withdraw date for our troops in Iraq, the Washington Post decides to put in on Page 4.  What gives?

For those of us who have read the book and have followed Obama closely, we know he's a man of serious intellect and substance.  He's a wonk who actually has charisma, unlike John Kerry.  Obama gets it, and yet he doesn't come across as arrogant.

Obama decided to publicly oppose the Iraq war from the beginning.  That took courage, and Obama is again displaying courage by proposing an Iraq redeployment plan that is more aggressive than any of his rivals.

It may not be that important to the editors of the Washington Post that the next president of the United States is proposing a bold change of strategy in Iraq, but it is important to the regular people of America who overwhelmingly opposed our continued occupation of Iraq.

Peace Rally Pictures

What a great turnout this afternoon!  There were almost 1,000 people today at our peace rally at the Capitol.

If Sen. Obama were President, then we wouldn't have to march in the streets to demand change.  Instead, we would actually have a compassionate leader who actually understands the rest of the world.  If we elect Sen. Obama to become our next President, that will send a powerful message to the world that the American people don't support George Bush's misguided war policies.  America can be a peaceful nation again, and it's time to put a Democrat in the White House!

Enjoy these pictures from today's peace rally...

Peace Rally Today - City Hall to Capitol

It's a beautiful day in Austin, Texas!

Everybody come out and join the fun, bring your dog and enjoy a sunny stroll up Congress Ave. in support of peace, starting at 3:30pm today at City Hall.

As we all know, Sen. Obama took a bold and principled stand against Iraq during 2002 while all the other Democrats were voting for Bush's Iraq war. 

Here's Obama speech from October, 2002...five months before the Iraq invasion:

I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all
circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and
yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of
multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union and drive the
scourge of slavery from our soil.

I don't oppose all wars. My grandfather signed up for a war the day
after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He fought in
the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that
triumphed over evil.

I don't oppose all wars. After September 11, after witnessing the
carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this
administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would
slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly
take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again.

I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I
am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical
attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair,
weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own
ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in
lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove
to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty
rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate
scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst
month since the Great Depression.

That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not
on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He
is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to
secure his own power.... The world, and the Iraqi people, would be
better off without him. But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent
and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors...and
that in concert with the international community he can be contained
until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the
dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S.
occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with
undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a
clear rationale and without strong international support will only
fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather
than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment
arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars. So for those
of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us
send a clear message to the president.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin
Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and
a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and
a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure that...we
vigorously enforce a nonproliferation treaty, and that former enemies
and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate
their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and
India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and
that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless
wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure our
so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians,
stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and
tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies
so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects,
without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off
Middle East oil through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve
the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles
that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and
intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

Republican Opposition to Iraq Plan Grows

The bad news only gets worse for President Bush.  Republicans are now taking the lead offensive against Bush's failed policies.

From the Associated Press:

Congressional Republicans pushed back Monday against President Bush's decision to increase troop strength in Iraq, some voicing opposition while others urged holding the administration and Iraqi government more accountable for the war effort.

"We've had four other surges since we first went into Iraq," said Sen. Susan Collins, referring to the administration's plan for an additional 21,500 troops. "None of them produced a long-lasting change in the situation on the ground.

"So I am very skeptical that this surge would produce the desired outcome," said the Maine Republican.

In the Senate, Collins joined two Republicans and one Democrat to unveil nonbinding legislation expressing disagreement with Bush's plan. The president should consider "all options and alternatives" involving a smaller force, the measure said.

Sen. John Warner of Virginia, former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, joined Collins and Norm Coleman of Minnesota in producing the legislation expressing disagreement with Bush's plan. Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., joined them.

"I personally, speaking for myself, have great concern about the American G.I. being thrust into that situation, the origins of which sometimes go back over a thousand years," Warner said.

Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Olympia Snowe of Maine have said they back the Democrats' resolution.

Obama's lack of "experience" is actually a plus

This is an interesting analysis from Jake Tapper and Mary Claude Foster of ABC News. 

They point out that Sen. Obama will distinguish himself from his competitors by pointing out that the Iraq war should never have happened in the first place.  Considering that Obama's main rivals, John Edwards & Hillary Clinton, voted for the war, this subtle line of attack will prove to be quite effective.  When critics try to argue that Obama lacks "experience", Obama will easily turn that around and ask why the DC Democrats didn't use their "experience" in 2002 to stop Bush's misguided war.  Americans in general, and Dem primary voters in particular, are fed up with Bush's Iraq war, and we're hungry for a leader who had the foresight and courage not to lead us to similar misadventures.

Obama's meteoric rise shows how much can happen in the world of politics in a short period of time: Nasty politics can get even nastier, a president's popularity can plummet, and an already-brutal war can devolve into what many see as a catastrophic civil war.

And so a once-obscure state legislator turned media phenom can sense a moment, as did Obama, a liberal Democrat with charm, charisma, a compelling personal story — and very little experience.

"Today, our leaders in Washington seem incapable of working together in a practical, common-sense way," Obama told supporters in his video message.

"Politics has become so bitter and partisan, so gummed up by money and influence, that we can't tackle the big problems that demand solutions," he said.

Experience as a Detriment?

Not only did the man who is only two years into his first term in the U.S. Senate target all those politicians whose experience outmatches his, he also seemed to say that their experience may be part of the problem.

After all, as Obama told "Nightline" anchor Terry Moran just a few months ago, former Defense Secretary "Donald Rumsfeld has one of the best resumes in Washington. And yet I would also argue that one of the consequences of bad judgment on his part is some of the problems that we've seen in Iraq," he said at the time.

That was also the message Tuesday, if you read between the lines.

"We're still mired in a tragic and costly war that should have never been waged," Obama said, choosing to emphasize his view that the decision to go to war was a grievous error.

Obama May Not Have Same Iraq Baggage

Of course in 2002, supporters of the war included all his major rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination: Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Joe Biden, John Edwards, John Kerry and Chris Dodd.

Senate resolution to criticize Iraq plan

Bush's escalation plans took a "shot across the bow" with this Senate resolution supported by Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel.  Hagel deserves credit for his willingness to buck his party and challenge Bush's misguided policies.

From the Associated Press:

Senate Democrats working with a well-known Republican war critic are developing a resolution declaring that President Bush's troop build up in Iraq "is not in the national interest," said people familiar with the document.

 The resolution also would put the Senate on record as saying the U.S. commitment in Iraq "can only be sustained" with popular support among the American public and in Congress, according to officials who are knowledgeable about the draft.

Sen. Chuck Hagel, a Nebraska Republican and potential 2008 presidential candidate, is helping Democrats with the wording of the anti-war resolution.

It is not in the national interest of the United States to deepen its military involvement in Iraq, particularly by escalating U.S. troop presence in Iraq," it says.
The Senate leadership is expected by Thursday to propose the resolution, with debate planned around the same time that Bush delivers his State of the Union speech next Tuesday.

Hagel's agreement to help Democrats champion the resolution amounts to a setback to the administration and to Bush, who has argued vehemently that some 21,500 additional U.S. troops are needed to help the Iraqi government calm sectarian violence in Baghdad and Anbar province.

The resolutions in Congress seemed likely to be largely symbolic and they would not affect the Pentagon's war budget or challenge the president's authority over U.S. forces. Such votes, however, could be a shot across the bow to Bush.

The resolutions also would help Democrats measure GOP support for more aggressive legislative tactics, such as cutting off funds for the war.

Such a vote puts many Republicans in an uncomfortable position. They will have to decide whether to stay loyal to an unpopular GOP president and risk angering voters disillusioned by the war or buck the party line.

 

Sen. Obama was against the Iraq war before it became politcally popular to oppose this quagmire

Sen. Obama has guts.  He's not afraid to take a bold stand.  He knew the Iraq quagmire was wrong, and he wasn't afraid to say so, even when Bush was beating the war drums in 2002 and the other Democrats were supporting Bush.

This speech below is from Sen. Obama on Oct. 26, 2002, 5 months before we invaded.  Just recently, Sen. Obama followed up with this email opposing Bush's new "surge".

I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all
circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and
yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of
multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union and drive the
scourge of slavery from our soil.

I don't oppose all wars. My grandfather signed up for a war the day
after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He fought in
the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that
triumphed over evil.

I don't oppose all wars. After September 11, after witnessing the
carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this
administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would
slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly
take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again.

I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I
am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical
attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair,
weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own
ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in
lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove
to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty
rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate
scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst
month since the Great Depression.

That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not
on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He
is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to
secure his own power.... The world, and the Iraqi people, would be
better off without him. But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent
and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors...and
that in concert with the international community he can be contained
until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the
dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S.
occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with
undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a
clear rationale and without strong international support will only
fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather
than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment
arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars. So for those
of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us
send a clear message to the president.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin
Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and
a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and
a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure that...we
vigorously enforce a nonproliferation treaty, and that former enemies
and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate
their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and
India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and
that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless
wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure our
so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians,
stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and
tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies
so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects,
without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off
Middle East oil through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve
the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles
that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and
intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

Sen. Obama has guts.  He's not afraid to take a bold stand.  He knew the Iraq quagmire was wrong, and he wasn't afraid to say so, even when Bush was beating the war drums in 2002 and the other Democrats were supporting Bush.

This speech below is from Sen. Obama on Oct. 26, 2002, 5 months before we invaded.  Just recently, Sen. Obama followed up with this email opposing Bush's new "surge".

I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all
circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and
yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of
multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union and drive the
scourge of slavery from our soil.

I don't oppose all wars. My grandfather signed up for a war the day
after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He fought in
the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that
triumphed over evil.

I don't oppose all wars. After September 11, after witnessing the
carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this
administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would
slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly
take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again.

I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I
am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical
attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair,
weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own
ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in
lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove
to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty
rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate
scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst
month since the Great Depression.

That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not
on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He
is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to
secure his own power.... The world, and the Iraqi people, would be
better off without him. But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent
and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors...and
that in concert with the international community he can be contained
until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the
dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S.
occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with
undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a
clear rationale and without strong international support will only
fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather
than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment
arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars. So for those
of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us
send a clear message to the president.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin
Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and
a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and
a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure that...we
vigorously enforce a nonproliferation treaty, and that former enemies
and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate
their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and
India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and
that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless
wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure our
so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians,
stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and
tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies
so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects,
without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off
Middle East oil through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve
the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles
that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and
intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

Molly Ivins demands action

This is a great op-ed from Molly Ivins:

The president of the United States does not have the sense God gave a duck--so it's up to us. You and me.

I don't know why President Bush is just standing there like a frozen rabbit, but it's time we found out. The fact is we have to do something about it. This country is being torn apart by an evil and unnecessary war, and it has to be stopped now...

What happened to the nation that never tortured? The nation that wasn't supposed to start wars of choice? The nation that respected human rights and life? A nation that from the beginning was against tyranny? Where have we gone? How did we let these people take us there? How did we let them fool us?

It's a monstrous idea to put people in prison and keep them there. This administration has done away with rights first enshrined in the Magna Carta nearly 800 years ago, and we've let them do it.

 

Statesman: Bring them home

The Statesman wrote this editorial that supports Obama's position that it's time to bring our troops home.

Are Americans to believe now that the administration has figured out how to build a democratic nation in the Middle East? We think Americans gave their answer in the Nov. 7 elections. If the president insists that this nation must remain fully engaged in Iraq, then he ought to lay out the full price of doing so — and call on the American people to start paying it now rather than continue to dump its cost on our children by borrowing the money. Yet he's already ruled out any tax increase.

The best way forward in Iraq is to start pulling out U.S. troops and to invest in diplomatic efforts to protect and advance our interests in the Middle East.

The old strategy has failed, and putting more troops in Iraq will make little difference in curbing the violence but will forever alter the lives of the troops and their families.

It is time to end the misery.