Skip to main content


To Gina Cooper and the YearlyKos planning committee, the more than 1,000 of you that were in the conference hall, and the tens of thousands more that were with us in spirit online, thank you so much for inviting me to join you and for giving me such a warm reception in Las Vegas.

Speaking with you at YearlyKos was exhilarating because it reminded me of what democracy is all about -- and what America can be all about once more, if we keep fighting for what we believe.  After joining you in Las Vegas, I'm more confident than ever that we can take back Congress this November -- but it's going to take all of us pulling together online, and reaching into our offline communities, to get it done.

More below the flip.

I know a few folks were disappointed because out of all of the issues we agree on, there were a couple of areas where I expressed different views. Please know that I'm known in my state as someone who speaks straight from the shoulder even though I may not be saying everything an audience wants to hear. I do it out of respect for my listeners and for myself.  At the end of the day, I think you and I agree on 99% of the issues.

One of the toughest issues we continue to face is the war in Iraq.  As I told you at YearlyKos, I recently introduced a resolution in the Senate that calls on the Bush Administration to redeploy U.S. forces from Iraq within 6 months or earlier, if practicable.  My resolution also calls for a quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon Marine presence to be deployed in the region.

This week, the Senate will be voting on a similar resolution written by John Kerry, Russ Feingold, and me.  The other side says this policy is "cut and run." I disagree. Our call for an exit strategy is "smart and strategic." It is smart because it calls on the Iraqis to take over their own country. It is strategic because it allows us to target our limited resources to the war on terror where they can best be used to keep America safe.

Sticking with the President's "stay the course" plan means leaving our brave men and women in the middle of an Iraqi civil war where their mere presence makes them targets for the Iraqi insurgency and fosters an environment of terrorism.  And that's absolutely unacceptable.

Tell your Senators you support the Kerry/Feingold/Boxer effort to redeploy U.S. troops from Iraq -- email your Senators today!

After three long years, the deaths of more than 2,500 American troops, more than 18,000 wounded, and the deaths of more than 40,000 Iraqis, it's beyond time to bring our mission in Iraq to a close.

Today, with Democrats and even many Republicans urging the President to change course, we have a chance to do just that.  

It's time for Congress to clearly say "enough is enough" and force the President to act.  It's time for Democrats and Republicans to unify behind a plan to bring our troops home.  You can help me make that happen -- today -- by urging your Senators to sign on to our resolution to end the war in Iraq.

Join the effort to end the war in Iraq -- urge your Senators to support the Kerry/Feingold/Boxer resolution today!

The Bush Administration misled us into an elective war that we didn't have to fight.  Despite President Bush's mistakes, mismanagement, and misleading statements, our brave men and women in uniform have performed admirably, successfully meeting every goal that was set for them -- from capturing Saddam Hussein and freeing the Iraqi people to training Iraqi security forces and fostering the creation of an Iraqi government.  Now it should be up to the people of Iraq to decide what kind of future they want.

It is completely unacceptable to me to see our government paralyzed over a failed policy -- a policy that is bringing so much pain to so many.  The Bush Administration's open-ended commitment in Iraq is not only causing death and destruction to our brave troops, it's also serving as a catalyst for further terrorist recruitment.

It's time for the Iraqis to assume responsibility for their own country.

We can't afford to lose more American lives over a failed policy -- especially when our men and women in uniform have done everything we've asked of them.  

Urge your Senators to support the Kerry/Feingold/Boxer Iraq resolution now!

-- Barbara

P.S.  Thanks again for inviting me to join you in Las Vegas.  I was truly honored and moved by your enthusiastic reception.  Your support keeps me fighting each and every day in the U.S. Senate!

UPDATE (4pm ET): Thanks so much for all of your feedback and comments. I've answered a number of them below. Now I'm off to prepare for my floor speech about the Kerry/Feingold/Boxer amendment this afternoon. I hope many of you tune in!

Originally posted to Barbara Boxer on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 09:26 AM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Thanks (192+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Meteor Blades, Sharoney, pontificator, Malacandra, wozzle, Alumbrados, Ed in Montana, jgkojak, Donna Z, Terri, Athena, RF, Night Owl, Sean Robertson, Dr Van Nostrand, matt n nyc, ferg, alyosha, acquittal, Hornito, MattBellamy, marcvstraianvs, Nina Katarina, Pandora, mem from somerville, juls, Shockwave, wu ming, LynChi, Pondite, OLinda, GayHillbilly, John Campanelli, Kevin in Long Beach, x, Bexley Lane, frisco, velvetdays, ilona, shpilk, Carnacki, Abou Ben Adhem, bumblebums, shermanesq, maggiemae, smintheus, bronte17, m00nchild, super simian, scionkirk, anotherCt Dem, Doc Allen, susakinovember, bhlogger, Baldwiny, peace voter, Pithy Cherub, buckhorn okie, AndyT, roses, michelle, javelina, L0kI, oceanspray, Fe, luddite, Terre, David Boyle, Cedwyn, sele, suzq, BarbinMD, NewDirection, Chamonix, HeedTheMessenger, Rico, Caldonia, katchen, grayslady, BMarshall, Jill Lehnert, Eddie Haskell, BWasikIUgrad, inclusiveheart, TheJohnny, ChiGirl88, Levity, ybruti, Steven D, Black Max, edalex, bibble, Marc in KS, thereisnospoon, jim bow, iliketodrum, vcmvo2, jonathan94002, Desert Rose, maybeeso in michigan, tribalecho, 3goldens, Treg, powwow500, Rick Oliver, Alegre, Five of Diamonds, brit librarian, sweetirish, mjd in florida, PBen, wizardkitten, saucy monkey, Webster, Simplify, station wagon, juliesie, robelanator, klk, boofdah, NeuvoLiberal, WinSmith, buckeyedem08, tjb22, QuickSilver, Prison4Bushco, lasky57, onanyes, fivefouranonymous, Sharon Jumper, wiscmass, Floja Roja, sodalis, sbdenmon, Shaking the Tree, Alabama Bill, Cory Bantic, Unduna, proudprogressiveCA, Indiana Bob, psyched, soyinkafan, missouri reader, begone, Reality Bites Back, mariva, Alkibiadesdog, ThaliaR, dus7, dannyinla, Major Danby, trashablanca, Liberal Protestant, MissInformation, Nightprowlkitty, Keone Michaels, ama, awakenow, peacepositivemike, virgomusic, Opakapaka, dharmafarmer, martyc35, smokeymonkey, theadmiral, compbear, TheSourcesAss, mango, jlove1982, ormondotvos, OneCrankyDom, imabluemerkin, Dauphin, NearlyNormal, betsyross, Wbythebay, Wage Warrior II, Mad 60, Jiminy Cricket, doingbusinessas, va dare, Dreaming of Better Days, kml, Joelarama, AmericanRiverCanyon, dpinzow, Feeling Blue, Balam, dotsright, Cat Whisperer, Tailspinterry, offgrid

    My afternoon schedule is pretty packed, but I'll stop by as often as I can to respond to some of your comments and questions.  I'll also be speaking on the Senate floor about the Kerry/Feingold/Boxer amendment later today.

    Thanks again for your support!

    -- Barbara

    •  How can you support Joe Lieberman? (68+ / 0-)

      Really, what are you doing sending letters out to Connecticut voters in support of Revoltin' Joe? And then you come here and want to talk about Iraq?

      I care IMMENSELY about Iraq, the 10,000 American families that have been wrecked by this stupid war, the innocent Iraqis who have been murdered in the name of "freedom", -- and America's standing with the rest of the world.

      But how can you say that you feel the same, and then back Lieberman? Do I need to remind you that he was for the war before 9/11! He even helped Bush make the false linkage between Al Qaeda and Saddam.

      Please re-think your support of my Neo-Con Senator. Please. Of all people, I expect better of you.

      Please help send Mr. Lamont to Washington! Donate.

      by DeanFan84 on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 09:35:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Firedoglake on how out of touch Sen. Boxer (14+ / 0-)

        is on the whole Lieberman issue:


        Please help send Mr. Lamont to Washington! Donate.

        by DeanFan84 on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 09:45:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Here's how (55+ / 0-)

        Boxer is my Senator, and I am immensely proud of her. She has taken position after position that I agree with, often as one a lonely few in the Senate. So how can she support Lieberman, you ask, as if that negates all the great work she has done.

        I imagine you are completely unaware of the tremendous pressure that may be put upon a Senator to support a fellow Senator from their party in an election. The Senate is, after all, a certain kind of club and Joe is a long time member of that club, like him or not. The penaties for not suppporting him, especially if he wins, would serve to marginalize Boxer and make all that she tries to do that much more difficult.  Not an outcome we'd like to see.

        You are probably never going to see a Senator support a primary challenge to another Senator of their own party, unless the one being challenged is so egregiously bad and certain to lose, that it becomes a neccessity. Lieberman is awful, but he's not as bad as that. Close, yes, but just not bad enough. I assume that if Joe loses and Lamont becomes the candidate and wins, Boxer will not be all that unhappy, though I would not expect her to say that now.

        Give Barbara a break. She's doing all she can, and a lot more than most.

        A liberal is a man so broadminded he wouldn't take his own side in an argument........Robert Frost

        by mjshep on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 10:00:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I agree (9+ / 0-)

          Senator Boxer has been one of our strongest allies on so many levels. I despise Joe Lieberman and I bet she won't support him if he runs as an independent. She should familiarize herself with what he's been saying though before she unequivocally supports him. Senator Reid has balanced that nicely, imo.

          The men who question power determine whether we use power or power uses us- JFK 10/26/1963

          by vcmvo2 on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 10:28:06 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Didn't ask her to support Lamont... (11+ / 0-)

          I asked her not to lend her good name in support of Lieberman. Senator Boxer didn't have to take a side, but she did. In the name of collegiality or whatever.

          My largest point was that it is hypocritical for her to post a diary about getting out of Iraq, and yet endorse the war-loving Joe Lieberman. I'm sure Barbara Boxer isn't in the "it's just one issue" camp, and I'm surprised that she would sully herself by getting involved in our Connecticut contest.

          Please help send Mr. Lamont to Washington! Donate.

          by DeanFan84 on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 10:44:50 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Correct me if I'm wrong, but the co-sponsor on (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            AndyT, trashablanca

            this bill is Kerry... he voted for the war... right?

            It's not hypocritical, if she went after every senator who voted for the war that would take a lot of her time - you single issue people make it hard to have a big tent.

            -9.13, -7.79 Remember, Remember, the Fifth of November.

            by L0kI on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 10:55:19 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  way to go (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              bellatrys, buckhorn okie

              when you substitute "voted for the war" for "said all the crap that Joe Lieberman has said lately," and throw in the "single issue people" and "big tent" line, you very effectively change the topic from what Lieberman has done to some one thing several other Dem Sens did, too.

              that is an effective rhetorical device!

              anyway, didn't kerry vote for the war "before [he] voted against it"?

              •  I believe that was funding (0+ / 0-)

                that he voted for before against...

                My point is the poster was commenting on how it's hypocritical for her to support a person who supported the war, and I said well she co-sponsored the bill with Kerry and he voted for the war.

                AND the big tent thing is about single issue people (Lieberman is bad) running around mucking up other people's issues b/c they're upset with how their senator (or not their senator) voted, or commented, or thought regarding their one pet issue (Lieberman) - these few people have drawn this thread into a whole crap load of attacks on one of the most loved liberal senators b/c she wont support their particular view on this issue.  If you have a problem with her supporting Lieberman, I think that warrants a diary, discussing all the crap he's said, his votes, his nuttery and why it's wrong for her to support him, but hijacking this thread b/c you think you have a chance to get in her face is not the way to do it.  

                -9.13, -7.79 Remember, Remember, the Fifth of November.

                by L0kI on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 12:02:47 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  what's bad (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  Claiming that our opposition to Joe Lieberman is a "single-issue" thing continues to either ignore, obfuscate, or outright lie about the basis for the opposition.

                  I'm glad we've got folks like Barbara Boxer in the Senate. I'd be happier still if she'd refrain from endorsing fundraising for Lieberman's primary campaign, and ecstatic if she'd admit that she overlooked some of the truth about why Ned Lamont's drawing such broad support.

         ... somebody really ought to register this domain name ...

                  by wystler on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 12:42:17 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I think it's silly to claim I was (0+ / 0-)

                    ignoring, obfuscating or outright lying about the basis for your opposition to Lieberman.  You're attacking me b/c you disagree; I'm not lying, I'm stating my opinion that people wasted that entire thread attacking her for her views on this one issue instead of discussing her resolution.  Anyway, feel free to accuse me of being republican all you want... but I did nothing except state my opinion on the inappropriate use of this thread and at the disrespect so many were throwing at the Senator, but hey, I'm a liar...

                    -9.13, -7.79 Remember, Remember, the Fifth of November.

                    by L0kI on Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 09:00:00 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  Kerry (11+ / 0-)

              isn't running onto Hannity's show every time he gets the chance, nor are there pics of Kerry smooching Dumbya all over the left blogsverse. Actually, Kerry has stated he made a mistake supporting the war.

              You're comparing apples and oranges.

              •  I understand your point, but my point is (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                mjshep, Fe, sweetirish

                wasting this thread complaining about her view on this particular issue draws our talk and debate away from the more important issue - the war, this resolution and getting people to call their senators and take action on THIS issue.  You are not going to agree with everyone about every damn issue, get over it, she's not going to jump on the anti-lieberman train with us... moving on.


                -9.13, -7.79 Remember, Remember, the Fifth of November.

                by L0kI on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 11:58:12 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  And I understand your point :-) (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  vivacia, L0kI

                  But I think the reason everyone's so hung up on Lieberman is because he's been a very vocal supporter of the war, which, of course, is completely contrary to Senator Boxer's position, so seems hypocritical of her.

                  Now I'm a big Boxer fan, and I agree with you that we can't get hung up on one issue. But we've seen what happens when our government officials put loyalty (to party, to friends, etc.) over what's best for the country. And any Senator who still supports the bloodbath in Iraq (Lieberman) is not good for the country. I think the posters here just want Senator Boxer to acknowledge that.

            •  right wing phrasing (0+ / 0-)

              Not accusing you of anything, but we spent most of 2004 that Kerry did not "vote for the war" as such.

              It's not a minor semantic point.  There's a difference between saying to the electrician:  "Please fix the broken light in the bedroom, and if you really have to rewire the whole house, go for it, but ONLY IF NECESSARY" - having him rewire the whole house, and then find out all he had to do was change a fuse.

              Kerry voted for authority to use force - not the debacle we have now.

              "I will make a bargain with the Republicans. If they will stop telling lies about Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them." -- Adlai Stevenson

              by Scientician on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 03:23:28 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You are right, sorry... (0+ / 0-)

                but, yes, this is semantics, my point is that she's not being hypocritical by supporting Lieberman and introducing this bill...

                -9.13, -7.79 Remember, Remember, the Fifth of November.

                by L0kI on Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 06:13:01 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  You and Sen Boxer Are Misrepresenting The Issue (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          nehark, LynchMob

          "You are probably never going to see a Senator support a primary challenge to another Senator of their own party..."

          None of us are asking Ms. Boxer to do this.  We do, however expect all democrats to pledge support to the winner of a democratic primary.  But whether Boxer does this or not is not why so many of us are upset by her.

          "I know a few folks were disappointed because out of all of the issues we agree on, there were a couple of areas where I expressed different views."  This is so not why we were disappointed with Senator Boxer.  There is a huge difference between being well informed about an issue and having a different opinion, and having no clue whatsoever about an issue.  You and Senator Boxer are trying to pretend that the former is true when clearly it is the latter that is true.  The FDL story has her "snapping" at the reporter, "Why are you so focused on Lieberman?"  If she had any clue about this issue, she would not have reacted that way.

          Barbara Boxer is my senator as well, and I am familiar with her record.  It is better than most, but she is not my favorite.  She has the same hypocritical "Republican Lite" position on immigration that all democrats do; which is to say I don't agree with it, but it is no worse than any other democrat.

          In this case, I found her attempt to portray this as a well-informed difference of opinion to be condescending and insulting to my intelligence.  I would prefer an apology for not realizing how important the "Lieberman Problem" is to us.  She should also ask her good friend "Joe" to be a true democrat and support the primary winner even if it is not him.  But even if she doesn't do this, she should acknowledge that she did not know the whole story, not pretend that she knew all of the facts from the beginning.

        •  It'd be easier ... (0+ / 0-)

          ... to give Senator Boxer a break if she'd stop campaigning FOR Senator Eeyore-man. A question's been raised about emails sent, either by her or using her name, in Lieberman's support. It's not like we're not asking her to endorse Ned Lamont; standing down, and letting nature take its course, would be a marked improvement.

 ... somebody really ought to register this domain name ...

          by wystler on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 12:36:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Thank you Senator (15+ / 0-)

        Senator Boxer, I respect & admire you immensely & have for years.

        Unfortunately we here can count on one hand the sitting members of the Senate who actually have a conscience, let alone who actually use it to uphold their oath of office: to defend the Constitution. You are one of the too rare few.

        I know you're smart as hell. I know you've got heart. I know you've got spirit.

        If by "we agree on 99% of the issues" means we'll have to look the other way about your "1%" support of Lieberman- uhhh... alrighty then! I suppose you have your reasons. But it makes me think that nefarious groups like "The Lobby" have their sticky hands all over even you. I hope this is not the case. And if it is, I hope that we here can find some way to help negate their influence.

        I also hope Ned Lamont kicks Lieberman's sorry ass right out of town.

        Meanwhile- thanks for coming to Vegas. I look forward to hearing more from you.

      •  How can she support Sen. Lieberman? (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AndyT, Cedwyn, Rick Oliver, sweetirish

        Barbara Boxer is a team player, and wants the Democrats to regain control the Senate next fall.  If that means Joe Lieberman remains as a Democrat in the Senate, Barbara Boxer considers that a small price to pay compared to the subpoena power she will have on the Foreign Relations and Environment and Public Works Committees, where she now serves.  It's as simple as that.

        Also, remember, Barbara Boxer and Joe Lieberman agree on much.  They both voted the same way on the so-called "Partial Birth" Abortion bill.  They both voted the same way on the Balanced Budget and Flag Desecration amendments.  They both voted the same way on allowing ex-felons who have completely served their sentences to have their voting rights restored immediately after incarceration.  They both strongly support the Equal Rights Amendment.  Need more?

        Today, the Court purports to be the dispassionate oracle of the law. - Justice Blackmun

        by jim bow on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 10:40:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Silly argument. (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kevin lyda, Inky, beemer, nehark, LynchMob

          Lamont would also be a Democrat.

          Boxer helping Lieberman does nothing towards a Senate majority. All it suggests is that collegiality trumps conviction.

          Please help send Mr. Lamont to Washington! Donate.

          by DeanFan84 on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 10:54:34 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Her actions do not 'suggest' (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Terri, AndyT, sweetirish

            whatever you say they do, just because you say they do.

            Other people have different opinions, regain perspective please, while you're waiting for everyone to adopt your personal viewpoint on the issues, a lot of stuff isn't getting done.  For example, right now you're sitting here berating one of the first contributing senators of DailyKos instead of worrying more about how to get your man elected; or I dunno, calling your senator about this resolution, or ANYTHING else that helps the cause more than you calling one of our best allies "clueless."

            -9.13, -7.79 Remember, Remember, the Fifth of November.

            by L0kI on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 10:59:29 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Challenging, not berating... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              I have pretty much full respect for Senator Boxer. I just wonder why she has involved herself in our Connecticut primary by sending out a letter of praise and support for Sean Hannity's favorite Democrat.

              And I didn't call Barbara "clueless". Jane Hamsher did. I did suggest that she is out of touch with the netroots when it comes to Lieberman.

              Please help send Mr. Lamont to Washington! Donate.

              by DeanFan84 on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 12:20:15 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  jeebus, people (19+ / 0-)

        Senator Boxer came here to talk about Iraq. She is on the side of less dead people. Can't we credit her for that, rather than foam at the mouth about Joe?

      •  Listen. It's okay to support Lieberman... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jerseycorn, Joelarama


        While I might not always agree with everybody in the Democratic Party, but first and foremost they should be loyal to the party (and not for instance giving speeches at the Republican convention if you know who I mean).  I might  disagree with Senator Boxer on her support of Lieberman


        If Lieberman loses the primary and decides to run as an independant will she support Lamont? Lamont has promised to support Lieberman should Lieberman win and asked for Lieberman to pledge the same.  What we hear back is Lieberman is not ruling out running as an independant.

        This makes me think that Lieberman is for Lieberman first, Democrats second.

      •  you make some valid points (9+ / 0-)

        but my god, man; show a little more respect to the only senator who stood in challenge of the 2004 election results.

        she'll probably get the message about joe much more clearly if she doesn't feel attacked.  

        weather forecast

        The palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. - Paine

        by Cedwyn on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 12:02:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That was an attack?? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kevin lyda
          Far from it.

          Senator Boxer does deserve to be challenged on her support of Lieberman, however. Do you know that Joe is planning on bringing in a bunch of his DC cronies in a last-ditch attempt to save his Senate seat?

          I don't mind if Barbara goes to bat for Joe. But she shouldn't carry on about how important it is to end the war, and at the same time help out the war's biggest enabler.

          Please help send Mr. Lamont to Washington! Donate.

          by DeanFan84 on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 12:24:51 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Senator, may I suggest... (78+ / 0-)

      ...that when the Republicans say, "cut and run,", you say back, "cut the crap!"

      We are long past the point where decorum and feigned civility can be tolerated. People are dying and getting maimed. Our resources are being diverted from real threats and it's costing billions. They want us to stay the course right off the cliff.

      Everyone say it along with me: Cut The Crap!

      •  good one (4+ / 0-)

        can't believe I didn't think of that...

        Best I could do in the diary before this one was
        Cut and Run vs Stay Forever.
        Cut the Crap has that zing...;)

        Mr President, wars are not fashion accessories. And they don't make good pets.

        by kamarvt on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 09:50:06 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  cut the crap (0+ / 0-)

          iraq's a trap!

          : p

          on the topic of cut and run, though, it's not cutting and running if you're being kicked out of the country.  pico came up with a great line in the other thread:

          "The democratically elected government of Iraq has asked us to set a timetable for withdrawal."

          and shrubya did promise we'd leave if asked to do so.

          weather forecast

          The palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. - Paine

          by Cedwyn on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 02:59:31 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Or... (23+ / 0-)

        Cut n run


        Stay & Pay
        (or stay & pray)

        Better still - STOP referring to this as a war.

        It's an occupation - one that isn't working I might add.  It stopped being a war when Junior declared "mission accomplished" three years ago.

        Let's call it what it is (say it with me folks)...

        An OCCUPATION.

        Better we should get out of an impossible occupation than pour more of our soldiers' blood (and our money) down this black hole.

        As John Kerry so eloquently put it many years ago...

        How can you ask a man to be the last to die for a mistake?

        Bloggin' with a bar of soap and my car window IMPEACH -8.75 / -6.10

        by Alegre on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 09:56:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  shoot... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          peace voter, trashablanca

          I should have looked through the full thread before adding my two cents later and saying basically the same thing.  On the other hand, maybe we can call it the "mighty LEFT wing worlitzer"!

          "It's time for America to get REAL." -- Matt O. []

          by billlaurelMD on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 10:25:36 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I like 'Stay and bleed' (5+ / 0-)

          myself, both in terms of lives AND money.

          The budget drain always gets rhetorical second place to soldier's dying, but emphasizing it a little more may wake some hard-line paleoconservatives up to the fact that it's not helping to balance the budget.

          How about this: FOR the war = FOR high taxes.

          Never play leapfrog with a unicorn.

          by Cream Puff on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 10:31:30 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Budget Drain (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Terri, sweetirish, Cream Puff, stagemom

            They're going after the funding for NIH now.

            Bad enough they're cannabilizing our national budget to fund this occupation (by trying to kill off PBS & NPR again!).  Now they're attacking our scientists.

            This on the heels of that new discovery on how to re-grow cells for spinal cord injury patients.  Stem cell research WORKS people and this is one more example of that.  And they're trying to cut NIH funding when we're SO CLOSE!!!

            This occupation needs to end and it needs to end NOW!

            Bloggin' with a bar of soap and my car window IMPEACH -8.75 / -6.10

            by Alegre on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 10:43:57 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Stay the course... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            peace voter, Cream Puff, stagemom

            and cripple the Force.
            Stay the course and don't care for the Force

      •  Gotta say, I like this better ... (8+ / 0-)

        ...than "stay and pay" or "stay and pray."

      •  Senator, may I suggest (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        ... that when Republicans say "stay the course,", you say back "stop the curse!"

      •  stay and pay (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        peace voter

        Mr. Murtha came up with that one, I think it has a nice ring to it.

      •  CUT THE CRAP. (0+ / 0-)

        Is perfect.  It illuminates the whole "war".

        Everything from Halliburton to the mercenaries to the presidential fly-byes have been a resounding clusterfuck. The only solution is to get out...NOW.

      •  What's wrong with 'Cut and Run,' anyway? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sweetirish, proximity1

        I'm all in favor of it.  While there may be political value in talking about a "redeployed-quick-strike-force," the reality is that once we're gone, we're gone.  Do you really think we're going to send our boys back in once they're out of the country -- even if there's a full-fledged civil war?  Hell no!  And rightly so.  

        So you can call it what you want, but I like Cut And Run just fine.  Because that's what I think we should do.  We should cut.  And we should run.  Fast.  Buy our troops track shoes and see how fast they can make it to the airport.  And let them come home to their families.

        It's what the British did when they got sick of fighting the 'rebels' in America.  It's what we did when we got sick of fighting the Viet Cong.  You're supposed to cut and run when you're stuck in a situation of unending violence with nothing to fight for.

        Cut and run?  Count me in.

        •   Man o' man... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sweetirish, skotrussell

          your post reeks of common sense!

          It's lousy with just plain clear-headed, what-anybody-with-a-clue-and-a-lick-of-sense-and-honesty-would-do kind of thinking.

          I mean, WTF!-- tell the truth? To ourselves ?
          Do the _sensible, fair, honest, and right thing--after everything else has failed so miserably ?

           Nah, it'd never work!  But I do admire you for what is a truly spectacular imagination.

           This is America, these are hide-bound, true-believer Democrats facing equally hide-bound, true-believer Republicans.

           My advice?  Move to a saner country.  If your country deserved you, it'd have proved it by now.

           Americans are going to shoot themselves in their fucking heads until they've no more ammunition.  All you can do is stay out of the line of fire.  Your general good sense shall be very much needed later when survivors are able and willing to listen.

           Senator Boxer---

           Get out of Iraq?  What a damn good idea!  How do we convince your opponents to go along with it?--being totally shut out of any real role in our politics, I mean.

          Can you fix that, too?

          "All life is problem-solving." (book title) --Karl Popper

          by proximity1 on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 12:09:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •   There you have it... (0+ / 0-)

          straight from a working politician.

          Here's that reasoning again, in instant replay, for our viewers:

          "The cut and run line seems to come straight out of Karl Rove's shop. To say we're we're cutting and running after we've been there for so long is ridiculous on its face."

          Yes, as honest as it may be, we simply can't afford that kind of honesty.  Just like we couldn't afford the kind of courage which would have led men and women to refuse service in this war, thereby making it impossible in the first place.

           Remember, Skotrus, if a politician tells you something is ridiculous, better listen to him or her since, surely, the politicians know what the fuck they're doing; don't they?

          "All life is problem-solving." (book title) --Karl Popper

          by proximity1 on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 12:47:45 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •   IOW... (0+ / 0-)

          "The cut and run line seems to come straight out of Karl Rove's shop. To say we're we're cutting and running after we've been there for so long is ridiculous on its face."

          In other words, more of the, "Now that we've started, we can't..."

          I love how we learn.

          "All life is problem-solving." (book title) --Karl Popper

          by proximity1 on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 12:50:27 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  hmmm ... (0+ / 0-)

          Do you really think we're going to send our boys back in once they're out of the country -- even if there's a full-fledged civil war?

          What's likely to happen if, after withdrawing to a marshalling point over the horizon, Irani regular army comes streaming across the border to support Shi'a elements in this civil war? I'm not sure what I'd do if I were in the hot seat, but I know there'd be a loud drumbeat to re-enter to "save" Iraq.

          Just offered in response to your certainty of future events ... follow-up encouraged ...

          As for 1781, the Brits didn't cut and run. They plain got themselves cornered, and had nowhere to go. Different place, different time, and plenty of colonial empire left to concern themselves with.

 ... somebody really ought to register this domain name ...

          by wystler on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 12:53:31 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Respectfully disagree. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            The Brits did cut and run.  True, they got themselves cornered at Yorktown, but it's not like they were anywhere close to tapped out militarily.  They could've easily moved the reinforcements that the French navy prevented them from landing in support of Cornwallis somewhere else and kept that war going as long as they wanted.  The problem wasn't that we beat them militarily.  The problem was that after six years and thousands of dead soldiers and a bunch of wasted money, the colonists were going to continue to shoot at them and run away (the way guerillas or "insurgents" tend to do) and there was nothing they could do to stop it.  To their credit, the Brits finally recognized the war was unwinnable militarily.  But it took them six years.  We've been in Iraq, what, three?  I hope it doesn't take us three more to come to our senses.

            As for whether or not we'd go back - even if Iranians came pouring across the border - your point is well-taken, but I can't imagine this idiot of a president, or any future president for that matter, trying to garner support for another occupation of Iraq.  A token bombing campaign, perhaps, but no way in hell anyone would go for boots on the ground again.  It would be like going back to Vietnam.  Once we were out, nobody but NOBODY would've thought of going back.

            •  they could have what? (0+ / 0-)


              And where were those orders to come from. There was no radio, no telegraph. For the commanders aboard the ships to order that they sail and disembark elsewhere, when their orders contained no such command, would likely have amounted to a court martial, and, at best, life-long disgrace.

              It was a different world. Kinda hard to imagine, while we sit at our keyboards and communicate world-wide ...

              Just how long, btw, did you think it took those ships to move?

     ... somebody really ought to register this domain name ...

              by wystler on Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 02:56:04 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Excuse ME, Mr. Smarty-pants, (0+ / 0-)

                But have you never heard of smoke signals?  Surely the commanders on the ground could've puffed out the words, "Land down the coast about twenty miles."

                I'm kidding, of course, but my point was - and is - that when Cornwallis surrendered, that didn't end the war, it only ended the seige.  The treaty of Paris ended the war.  The Brits had a lot more troops and material they could've thrown at us had they wanted to.  But they chose to quit because they recognized the futility of continuing to fight -- not because we had smashed their forces and they had no choice.  Because if we had, they would have surrendered unconditionally.  (See Japan, Germany.)  

                (Sorry, I'm being a smartass -- almost Friday.  No offense.)  

                •  general ignorance is srewing us! (0+ / 0-)

                  The treaty of Paris ended the war.
                  "The Brits had a lot more troops and material they could've thrown at us had they wanted to.  But they chose to quit because they recognized the futility of continuing to fight -- not because we had smashed their forces and they had no choice."

                  Once more, good for you!

                     God help the ignorance of so many Americans!--including "liberals" who are so easily duped!

                    It's so, so sad.

                  "All life is problem-solving." (book title) --Karl Popper

                  by proximity1 on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 05:41:56 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  as far as the Irani invasion scenario (0+ / 0-)

              the drumbeat for re-insertion of our military would come from many quarters ... i can't imagine it would secure massive backing from a popular standpoint, but the pressure from diverse interest groups would likely include American muslims, AIPAC, the Xian right, defense contractors, Saudi and other "friendly" Persian Gulf nations, and others ...

              When Vietnam fell, US was still stationed over the horizon (Phillipines and Japan), but there was no strategic threat beyond Indochina. Iraq's seriously different: Oil & Israel.

     ... somebody really ought to register this domain name ...

              by wystler on Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 03:02:55 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Cut and Run (19+ / 0-)

        The cut and run line seems to come straight out of Karl Rove's shop. To say we're we're cutting and running after we've been there for so long is ridiculous on its face. The truth is, the "war" is really over, and what remains now is civil strife and an occupation. And our continued presence only makes a horribly dangerous situation worse.

        To exit Iraq is not cut and run, it's smart and strategic -- smart because it will force the Iraqis to defend their own country and it's strategic because it will free up our resources for other missions, such as finding Osama Bin Laden.

        •  Osama (0+ / 0-)

          I agree that the "cut and run" line is a Rovian ploy and a false choice.  Mentioning Osama, the one who actually attacked the United States, and the administration's failure to catch him or "spend much time thinking about him" is to me a strong point to make.

        •  Smart and Strategic is excellent (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Terri, AndyT, sweetirish, Cory Bantic

          Very good language, very strong, and very correct.

          I've been following your career for several years now, and you've demonstrated consistent integrity and honesty. Thank you for your leadership on this and many other key issues, such as ANWR and NSA wiretapping.

          Sometimes, we citizens can get to feeling quite powerless, especially now with this White House. You are giving us a voice and acting in our interests - thank you!

          Every day's another chance to stick it to The Man. - dls.

          by The Raven on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 12:58:13 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  That's better (0+ / 0-)

          Saying that "the "war" is really over, and what remains now is civil strife and an occupation. And our continued presence only makes a horribly dangerous situation worse." is very direct and a good argument. I'd like to see arguments like that become the headline. Then you don't have to address the "war" question of "cutting and running" or "surrender" that the right is throwing at you.
          Could you consider changing your headline to read "let's end the occupation of Iraq." Or even put quotes on "war". I think that is a great way to change the nature of the debate. Obviously I've been listening to Tom Hartman on Air America.

        •  HERE is the real cut and run issue (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Talk about cutting and running.  We cut and run in Afghanistan before the job was finished, because of neo-con salivating over Iraq. And now the Taliban is growing ever stronger. The economy is run on opium.  Bin Laden is still uncaptured.  This is the real "cut and run" debate Americans want to have.

          Unless I'm wrong, which, you know, I'm not

          by Hkingsley on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 01:40:12 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Absolutely Rovian... (0+ / 0-)

          ...that's why "Cut the crap" works so well. It's a response to both the policy and the propaganda.

          "Smart and strategic" may describe what we're doing, but it just won't click with ordinary citizens. It sounds too high-falutin.

          Speak American: Cut the Crap! says it all.

          (btw, speaking American is not the same as speaking English. Anyone can speak American, amigo)

        •  Thank you, as always, Senator Boxer.... (0+ / 0-)

          for speaking sense on the Iraq occupation.  Appreciate all that you do, and enjoyed your speech in Vegas immensely. I will contact my congress folks re this. (And when your schedule allows (!)please do take another look at Lamont vs. Lieberman.  Lieberman's behavior and statements of the past 5 years have been really counterproductive, to put it mildly.  Whoever he once was or whatever he claims to stand for, he is no longer a force for the common good, and he seems to have sold out bigtime so as to maintain his own status and political power.)

          ...the White House will be adorned by a downright moron...H.L. Mencken

          by bibble on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 03:50:53 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Dear Barbara, (0+ / 0-)

          Our American citizens also, have to realize how much American tax-payer money is being stolen from our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the citizens by Bushco corrupt corporations.  Our soldier are not re-enlisting and the citizens are naturally becoming militant.  When my SSG son arrived in Afghanistan one year ago, they had to be very careful with small children running into the streets for snacks.  The children are now missing and the teenagers are throwing rocks! You can not imagine how much this hurts our soldiers and they want to know WHERE OUR CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT AND MEDIA OUTRAGE has been with KBR and other Bushco corporate corruption.  No one investigated the Bagram Air Force Base compromise this winter when it was clearly Bush/Cheney corporationa paid tons of our tax-payer money to provide all security.  I will give you congress critters and the media a clue, the security does not show up at base/camps! They do not provide the paid security, repair, equipment, supplies, edible food, or any other service that we pay a fortune of our tax payer money for!   WHERE IS OUR HONOR, INTEGRITY and OVERSIGHT?

      •  Cut The Crap. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Now that will resonate with Americans. Especially if followed up with what the administration promised (mushroom clouds) and what occurred (WMD? What WMD?).

        A simple list of lies (or half-truths) and truths. Put dollar figures on it and expand it out to include the per person cost for every man woman and child in America on a yearly basis.

        Cut The (blank), whether it's Crap, Corruption, Lies, Corporate pandering, Eavesdropping, IMHO works better than Had Enough? It doesn't ask the question, it denotes action. It demands. Cut the bull! Cut the crap! Vote Democrat!

        Oops, a bit off-topic, but this phrase is an all-around winner.  

        "As you get older, you get less willing to buy the latest version of reality." Leonard Cohen

        by mentaldebris on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 01:00:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Thank you Senator (14+ / 0-)

      As your constituent I continue to be so proud of you. What is it,though, with Diane Feinstein? It would be nice to have her on board but looks like her allegiance is to the war machine. BTW, I would call it "Stay the Stupidity" or "Stay the LIE". The Rethugs are masters at covering their incompetence and corruption and hypocrisy with slogans that resonate with the dummed down public. It is so sad to see this work and we need to be better at exposing it and countering it.

      I am pro-life. Bring our troops home ALIVE!

      by Doc Allen on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 09:42:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You're my Senator & you make me proud (13+ / 0-)

      I saw your address to yearly kos on C-SPAN - I'm glad you're with us on the issue of net neutrality, but I'm so overwhelmed by the daily horror of Iraq, that I believe that ending the occupation of that country must be our top priority.  Are approximately 13 'permanent' bases being built there for our military.  Is there no exit strategy because there is no intention to leave - ever?

      Thanks for your courage and your service.


    •  Reegarding: (6+ / 0-)

      Join the effort to end the war in Iraq -- urge your Senators to support the Kerry/Feingold/Boxer resolution today!

      Umm, okay.

      I urge you to support this amendment. Well, since you're here and all.

      And, I suppose, I'll have to write Feinstein again and try to get her up off her ass and do something for her state again. God, I'm getting sick of this. When are we getting public financing again?

      Electronic Darwinism
      "Lost-One, this is Lost-Three, are you lost too? Over." - Sharon Jumper

      by Moody Loner on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 10:04:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  we here in CA could get it this November, thanks (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        GayHillbilly, Moody Loner, Rico

        to the California Nurses Association's public financing ballot initiative, the Clean Money and Fair Elections Act of 2006: "Make Our Democracy Healthy Again!"

        it should formally qualify soon -- CNA turned in 3 times as many sigs as needed.

        thanks, Sen. Boxer. I'm sorry to see the rude comments by some (not all have been rude) of the Lamont supporters here today. I'm sure that when the Democratic voters in Connecticut have made their choice, you will be supporting their candidate for Senator, just like Ned Lamont has pledged to do.

    •  Barbara, use these for your fundraiser (6+ / 0-)

      The image below is our peace dove car magnets. I donate proceeds to charity but sales are almost nonexistent these days. If you love the powerful design and message please email me. I will give them to you at my cost so you can raise funds to help end the war.

      Keep up the good work,


      No act of peace is ever wasted. peacepositive always.

      by peacepositivemike on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 10:36:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Dear Senator Boxer, (5+ / 0-)

       Thank you for all your hard work!  My son is a SSG that just returned to the states last week, after one year in Afghanistan. He has 16 days of military school in Pennsylvania before he arrives in Florida though...  Our country people are not aware of how much of our tax-payer monies for security, rebuilding, supplies, equipment, food, and etc. for our troops and the people of Iraq and Afghanistan is totally stolen by Buchco corrupt corporations overseas.  Our soldiers wonder where is the media outrage and congressional investigations!!!  It is a huge issue that damages our troops and the people.  Our soldiers are not re-enlisting and the Afghani people are becoming militant, as they should be.  Not only does Bushco corporations cheat them, their own and neighboring governments cheat them too!  Where is our oversight and accountability? Where is our integrity and honesty?

    •  with all due respect, ma'am (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wystler, grayslady, jimreyn, grayscale


      Ever wish there were One Big Wiki-Style Clearinghouse for all the GOP Scandals? Well now there is.

      by thereisnospoon on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 12:13:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Absolutely, Senator Boxer (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        GayHillbilly, mjd in florida

        It's time for the Democrats to call the action in Iraq by its true name:  an occupation. The polls tell us that something like 75% of the Iraqis want us to leave now. They, too, know that we're just occupiers of their own country. Senator Boxer, it's imperative that Harry Reid rounds up the full Democratic caucus on this issue of withdrawal. I am convinced that the reason Karl Rove is telling Republicans to run on Iraq in the November elections is that he knows if the Democrats appear to be fragmented in their positions regarding withdrawal we'll look weak, powerless and confused. We can't afford to have that happen.

    •  Senator Boxer (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I watched the Frontline special yesterday about all the lies, deceptions that were used to justify the war. My question is this
      A while back Senator Reid force a closed door session in the Congress to force the Republicans to live up to their promise on the second phase examining the intelligence used to justify the war in Iraq. Why has this issue been forgotten. If it has not been forgotten what is the status. It seems that the only thing that can change the dynamics of the Iraq war debate is to change the players responsible yet they have not been held accountable and the Democrats have not been able to make the Republicans live up to their commitment. Should the Democrats shut the Senate down until the Republicans start living up to their word? Isn't that your only tool in this Senate environment?

    •  So, Barbara, are you going to support us OUT (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      for real, or are you going to support the "out of Iraq" like we did under Clinton and Bush I and Reagan, when we bombed, starved, and pushed war and weapons on them as our proxies by turns? Are you going to at least leave them alone and not interfere and not allow the CIA et al to fuck with them any more - at a bare minimum of decency - let alone pay war reparations and put the war criminals of our leadership and the UK's on trial as we deserve?

      It's time for the Iraqis to assume responsibility for their own country.

      Otherwise, this repeating of the right-wing claptrap "take responsibility for their lives" is as bad as when it's used on poor struggling folks like me and my friends, as an excuse to kick us to the curb again.

      You're disappointing me, still, with your falling back into Beltway pablum and safe positions. Not giving me much reason to give you mojo, let alone accept your choices to act or not act as you being wiser and all than me, giving you the benefit of the d. and all, I'm afraid.

      "Don't be a janitor on the Death Star!" - Grey Lady Bast (change @ for AT to email)

      by bellatrys on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 02:29:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  White Man's Burden Redux! (0+ / 0-)

        "It's time for the Iraqis to assume responsibility for their own country?"

        That is one of the most despicable lines being parroted by both sides of the aisle in this whole debacle.  Believe me, the Iraqi response could be none other than: "Thanks for messing up our country.  We'll be responsible for it the moment you leave.  Don't let the door hit you on your way out."  

        Even Iraqis who claim to be America's friends (overwhelmingly returned exiles) would state that the moment their sucker-punched "friends" leave the room.  One of the points that Frontline trumpeted last night is just how masterfully Chalabi played the Bush Administration.  

        As an Iraqi-American born and raised in New Orleans, this voter is not pleased.

        by naltikriti on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 10:03:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  So glad to see your name on this, Senator (14+ / 0-)

    I called my Senators yesterday.  It's a quagmire that we need to carefully extract ourselves from and then hopefully help those poor people rebuild.

    BTW, I read this morning that the Iraq government may ask us to leave.

  •  Sen. Boxer, (65+ / 0-)

    I love you, you're one of my favorite politicians, but please don't repeat the "mislead" meme...they didn't "mislead", they LIED.  We all know it and we've known it for quite some time.  I'm a nice lady, too, and I don't like being confrontational, but such niceties didn't get us very far in 2004.  

  •  Thank You! (21+ / 0-)

    And I agree that it's not always important that we agree ...

    But it is important to agree to keep talking.  No single person or party has a monopoly on "getting things right."

    But as long as we have a dialogue, I think we will end up on the right track.

    "Get your hands off our Internet" -- U.S. phone and cable companies, to bloggers and independent Internet content producers

    by bink on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 09:28:58 AM PDT

  •  This represents important movement (7+ / 0-)

    in an important direction.  The power of the truth is too great to ignore.  Let's stay on its side.  Thank you, Senator.

  •  thank you, senator (10+ / 0-)

    For backing the Kerry resolution.

    The war is wrong, and the people know it.

    They wait only for you to say so.

    Bless you for saying it.

  •  OK (4+ / 0-)
    and where's the senate coalition on impeachment proceedings, today?

    Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

    by MarketTrustee on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 09:30:57 AM PDT

  •  Thank You Senator Boxer (10+ / 0-)

    Thank you for your kind words to the Kos community. Also, much thanks for sending a written statement to our Darfur event at UC Santa Cruz. Please try to keep other Senators informed about the genocide in Sudan. Keep up the great work. I am proud to have you as a representative!

    Ok, you're right... Bush didn't win 2000. Bush/Cheney '08" -John McCain (DKos Poster, not Senator John McCain)

    by KDANTEATER on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 09:31:29 AM PDT

  •  PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE (44+ / 0-)

    Condemn Joe Lieberman for saying that anyone who opposes his election in the Democratic primary is a terrorist, a jihadist.

    Maybe you haven't kept up with Joe's exploits of late or maybe he's a buddy and you don't care, but for God's sakes somebody has got to stand up to his divisive rhetoric.

    "Conservatism makes no poetry, breathes no prayer, has no invention; it is all memory." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

    by reef the dog on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 09:34:01 AM PDT

    •  Seconded (7+ / 0-)

      I understand the reality of the boys' club in the Senate, and I wish it weren't that way, but everyone has a right to endorse Senator Lieberman if they so choose.

      However, I do think that ANY Democratic politician should absolutely condemn Senator Lieberman's use of the terms "crusade and jihad" to refer to this primary.

      Lieberman is using Rovian tactics of demonizing members of his own party, demonstrating his utter contempt not only for his fellow Democrats but for the democratic process in general.

      aka "Maura in CT", since I've had to relocate to CT this year...

      by Maura in VA on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 10:23:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  'friendship' (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      can be an enigma sometimes.

      Joe Lieberman has publicly "dissed" his fellow Democrats many times these last few dark years.  He's joined with the republicans in exchange for something (money, power, a cushy lobbyist job later on, who really knows?).  But for him to EVER go out onto the tv and condemn his "team" for getting things wrong, and especially on faux news, I would consider that his act of severing ties of friendship.

      I can understand that Barbara Boxer has gotten to know senator joe over the years and that they're "friends".  Perhaps she's loyal to him and unwilling, yet, to really see that he's changed and that he's chosen to compromise himself.  I don't know.  Ultimately, however, I think Boxer will do the right thing by us.  

      But for me to think that Ms. Boxer is friends with such a DINO is almost as difficult to think of Bill Maher being friends with Ann Coultergeist!

      It's an enigma to me...

  •  Senator (5+ / 0-)

    Although I was an opponent from before the initiation of the war in Iraq and although I'd like to see control of the country handed off to the Iraqis sooner rather than later, I have the following two problems with your Resolution:

    1. As a matter of principle, I don't believe that military decisions should be made by Congress.  I would very much like to see a resolution expressing a lack of confidence in the current civilian war leadership and give primacy to the military decision makers.  Specific dates of deployments, types of task forces to be set up, troop levels -- all those decisions belong to the military.
    1. In terms of political strategy, I don't think the Democrats are obligated to attempt to make any attempt to dictate a solution to the current disaster, nor do I think it's wise to.  Our goal should be to seek better leadership and perhaps some degree of involvement in policy making.  The Republicans understand that giving specifics only makes you a target for attack yourself.

    Is America finally suffering from Idiot Fatigue?

    by LarryInNYC on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 09:35:33 AM PDT

    •  I agree with your second, not the first. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      GayHillbilly, nehark, sweetirish

      Just because military decisions should be made by the President, it is Congress's job to hold him accountable.  Part of that accountability is to have some clarity around how we define the end point of our Iraq occupation.

      One of my reasons for protesting the war last year was that I felt we had to choose clear opposition (end it now) as opposed to nuance (let's figure out the best way).  This Administration and its supporters have little respect or appreciation for nuance.  These are the folks who sent John Bolton to the UN, for goodness sakes.  Nuance eludes them.

      You cannot get the American people motivated to demand a dialogue by trying to craft the nuanced counterpoint to the war.  Hence, "bring 'em home now" is the only answer.

      It's why I agree with you on your second point.  Since the Administration does not appear to be bound by details, why should we?

  •  Other diaries (21+ / 0-)

    There are a couple of good diaries about the frames you can use to deal with the "cut and run" meme today.  Please read them.


    • We are not at war.
    • Our occupation is fueling the insurgency, not fighting terrorism.
    • Iraq is a sovereign nation that has asked us for a timetable; we are obligated to give it to them.
    • Until we leave, the Iraqis will not stand up and take the reigns.

    Get in front of some cameras and say these things repeatedly.

    We're all just monkeys burning in hell.

    by smokeymonkey on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 09:36:02 AM PDT

  •  Can I suggest that Democrats (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    David Boyle, MamasGun, Overseas, mariva

    stand together as much as possible, and even get some of the Republicans that agree to stand with you ?

    So many times, it one, two, or three Senators or Congress people in are in the media spotlight; and the sniping and ad hom attacks from the RWNM immediately begins.  

    It's time that dozens, if not hundreds stand, and combined and united,  from both the House and Senate .. clearly shoulder to shoulder on Iraq, on the minimum wage issue, against the evisceration of our civil and privacy rights and destruction of our economy and ecology.

    There has to be a way to show unity of purpose, on a massive scale, especially to the media; and if there is anyone who can do it, to get this going, it's you.

    "Rovus vulgaris americanus"
    Chronic infection
    of Democracy.
    Cure: Pending
    -7.63, -9.59

    by shpilk on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 09:37:05 AM PDT

  •  Let's end the occupation of Iraq (12+ / 0-)

    I'm always happy you're not a part of the perpetual keep-the-powder-dry wing of the party and not part of the stay-the-undefined-course of the Senate.

    That country belongs to the Iraqis and only they can decide what their destiny should be--to continue fighting each other or to put aside their differences and end the violence.

    Clap louder! That'll help everything.

    by Viktor on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 09:37:17 AM PDT

  •  Bush's real plan (12+ / 0-)
    as you know Bush has said that leaving Iraq will be an issue for some future President, meaning he intends to stay. We are building permanent bases.

    Perhaps you've seen Josh Marshall's website yesterday, where he says:

    "President Bush thinks we should stay in Iraq forever, as far as the eye can see. He's said it himself. He says, 'Getting out of Iraq is up to presidents who come after me.' I don't agree. That's too long. I don't know if we'll be able to get our troops out of Iraq in 6 months or even a year. But I want to start working on getting them home as soon as I get into office. And staying in Iraq for at least three more years, like President Bush wants, is too long.

    My opponent is with President Bush on this. More of a blank check. I disagree.

    We've got too many challenges around the world to keep burning through money and our men and women in uniform just because President Bush can't admit that his policies aren't working."

    Who said that?

    Actually, no one has, as far as I know. But why can't someone?

    It is clear now, reading excerpts from Ron Suskind's new book that Bush ordered the torture of an al-qaeda bit player with mental illness because Bush did not want to "lose face." We can safely conclude Bush is willing to pay any price, as long as its restricted to the blood of our troops and of Iraqi innocents, so he can not be tagged the loser of his lunatic war.

    When can we expect the Democrats to point out that this man has no plan other than to make himself feel good about his place in history?

    Media has a monopoly on content. Bust the monopoly, good things happen.

    by Jim P on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 09:38:45 AM PDT

    •  Yes, please (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      David Boyle, MamasGun

      I was going to post a comment urging you to read Marshall's posts on this subject and share them with your colleagues.


      In terms of domestic politics, this isn't that complicated. President Bush wants to stay in Iraq for at least three more years. Members of his party in Congress agree with him. They don't have a plan. That's where to make this argument because very few people in this country think we should keep our troops there for another three years with our current policy.

      President Bush has said on the record repeatedly that he plans to keep our troops in Iraq for the remainder of his presidency. He wants them there for at least three more years. What happens after that he'll leave to future presidents. This isn't what Democrats claim. This is what he says. He doesn't say he's willing to keep them there to achieve this or that aim. He's committed to keeping them there.

      He doesn't have a plan for what to do in Iraq so he wants to keep troops there for the rest of his presidency. That's his plan: stay long enough that it becomes someone else's problem.

      And please continue to reclaim "cut and run": it was Bush who chose to cut and run from Afghanistan and the search for bin Laden.

  •  Thank you Sen. Boxer (9+ / 0-)

    I agree that this immoral war has to end. We need to get serious about a time table for withdrawal. The American people want this and the Congress should note just how unpopular this war really is.

    Bravo to you for your courage in opposing this war and in trying to get our troops home!

  •  Thank you Senator Boxer (13+ / 0-)

    I am proud to have you as my Senator.  I signed your resolution, but please refrain from calling the Iraq occupation a war.  The war ended in 2003, when George Bush said "Major combat operations have ended."  We are not at war.  We are occupying a sovereign country that most emphatically does not want us there.

    "Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans." J. Lennon

    by trashablanca on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 09:41:52 AM PDT

  •  Remember to use this phrase early and often: (27+ / 0-)

    "Americans should not be the occupiers of a sovereign nation".  

    However, if our real plan is to colonize Iraq, then that is an entirely different quagmire we must discuss immediately.  If I could address the Congress, I would ask them and the President to come clean one way or another on this question.  Unless we plan on staying for a very, very long time as occupiers, we should leave.  If we do not plan on being occupiers, then it is time to get out.  

    We have won our military war and now it is time for the Iraqis to resolve their internal politics with diplomatic help from the rest of the world where possible and applicable.

    Our own military leaders have almost without exception signaled that the military had done its best.  

    The challenges that Iraq faces are not challenges that our military can resolve because they are political and diplomatic challenges.  If we are not planning on annexing Iraq, then it is time to get out of their way and let them build their nation.

    Thank you Seantor Boxer for your committment to progress for the US and Iraq.

    •  we've won - bring 'em home (6+ / 0-)

      we have 'mission accomplished' from (and i use this term loosely) the 'commander in chief'

      we've won - bring them home.

      iraq has been liberated and has their own govt.

      we've won - bring them home.

      no more bait and switch for greed over people.

      we've won - bring them home!

      "This is not about right or left, it's about right or wrong," -Cody Camacho

      by nymosyn on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 09:47:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Still you are assuming that the real objective (5+ / 0-)

        is ultimately to leave.  I am asking the President and Congress to tell us what they really want.  Isn't it striking that the President and his supporters have no clear definition of victory in Iraq?  It is either that they are frightfully stupid and short-sighted or that those permanent military bases indicate that their plan is to occupy Iraq indefinitely.  

        Switching the discussion on the war supporters right now rather than trying to debate "staying the course" when it is as yet undefined would be a very strategic way of talking the American public right now.  We were doing that for a while and that was how the support for the war began to crumble nation wide.  People realized that we were not there for any purpose that allowed them really justify the loss of lives and the expense to the nation.  

        My question about occupation is do we really want to be doing this indefinitely?  

        If leaving means that we have "cut and run", then what does "staying the course" really mean?  

        I suspect it means permanent occupation of a nation of 26 million people that we little in common with; a nation artificially carved out of a region with thousands of years of political and violent turmoil; and a nation whose culture is often antithetical to our own will not ultimately appeal to most Americans.

        I remember the adopted Vietnamese boy in my first grade class (during the Vietnam War) that no one would talk to.  I was the only person who gave him a valentines card.  It was awful.  I can't recount that story without wanting to cry.  The teacher wasn't even very nice to him.

        As this conflict gets uglier and more soldiers are killed, Americans will turn against the Iraqis themselves.  They will get angry and blame the people of Iraq - no matter how much it is our fault for starting the whole thing in the first place - Americans will begin to see each dead soldier and want Iraqi blood.

        We are not good at being occupiers for so many reasons, but one key reason is that we are not a nation that accepts or embraces other cultures.  We are still on that train headed for the worst of the train wreck.  We ain't seen nothin' yet folks.  This situation can and will get so much worse for all involved if we do not leave as soon as possible.  Of course, that means giving up exclusive rights to the Iraqi People's oil...

        •  please don't assume my assumption (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          i never stated my opinion of the real objective, nor do i feel the need.  really don't care what the objective is/was/could be.  that's a bridge to cross at a later time.  

          while i can see valid point to the articulation, the public (right, left, and independent) may not.

          the reason for us going in has changed so often that it makes my eyes blur from the spin.

          the public is distracted.  critical thinking has been replaced by everyday survival for most.  the debate has gone on long enough.  why instigate more spin for confusion?

          i don't want congress nor the president to tell me anything.  theres been enough of that bait and switch.

          it is up to us, the people, to tell congress and the president what we want.

          "This is not about right or left, it's about right or wrong," -Cody Camacho

          by nymosyn on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 10:40:40 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I didn't mean to offend - I was just stating (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            that I don't believe that it is clear that this administration wants to exit Iraq ever.  People assume that that is their goal because any normal person would be planning to get out.  They do not appear to be planning to get out and I think they need to be put on record one way or the other partly to refocus the debate that the Democrats have instigated and which has gone a bit south with the "cut and run" meme.  Americans don't like to think of themselves as cowards (no matter how cowardly we really are in the grand scheme).  The only way to counter that "coward" feeling is to make people think about what it would be like to stay in Iraq.  The only way to force this Congress and this President to get us out is to make it untenable with their consituents to support staying.  The only way to make it untenable is for Americans to understand just how much of a quagmire this situation is and to have them reject the patenetly false idea that staying would do anything noble or good at this point.  We need to refocus the debate about exiting Iraq so that it isn't as much about the exiting part and more about what nightmares will come with adhering to the President's plan to permanently occupy the country.  People have to be reminded that every school built in Iraq is a school that we don't get built here.  As a supporter of foreign aid, I am loathe to go there, but unfortunately at this point in history it is probably the most effective blanket argument against this war amongst the public.

            •  That's it, we'll bushwack 'em with 'framing' ... (0+ / 0-)


              who've already re-elected --er, submitted to Bush's having stolen two elections eventhough it's clear that our national policies now include

              • the deliberate use of torture,  
              • extra-territorial concentration camps,
              • wholesale warrantless wiretaps and surveillance of our own selves,
              • arrest and indefinite detention without trial,

              once they get wind of the fact that what's really being planned for Iraq is long-term occupation, why, then they're sure to rise up and throw the bums out!

              We can torutre; we can commit Haditha's of murder on the battlefield; we can round up innocent people and throw them in our Gulag in Guantanamo; but, dear!, oh!, dear!, occupy another nation, US!?!?

               I believe you've found the clincher to the Republican defeat, there, Sherlock!

              It's all over now but the victory dancing!


              "All life is problem-solving." (book title) --Karl Popper

              by proximity1 on Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 09:08:50 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  too many words (0+ / 0-)

      Is Iraq, as presently constituted, "a sovereign nation", complete with a legitimate government?

      No, I don't wanna see us stay, but your statement has too many words ... ... somebody really ought to register this domain name ...

      by wystler on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 01:07:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No having crafted sound bites for a long (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        time now, it is a perfectly fine amount of words - it just has to be delivered in a dramatic enough way to be picked up as a sound bite.  If you analyze most GOP speach patterns they only offer one talking point per appearance so as to increase the chances that it will be the "select" from each interview.  Democrats make the mistake of offering up five or six in one go (hoping to see what sticks) and the corporate media usually picks the weakest quote or the quote where they are repeating the GOP talking point which is the absolute worst.  The fact that Boxer has the phrase "cut and run" in this diary is in my experience a big mistake.  You never offer up your competition's negative tag line about you if you can avoid it.  

        Jack Murtha did the soundbite thing just right on MTP last weekend.  He spoke passionately and directly and the key quote about Rove "staying the course" was picked up everywhere.  

        Ideally, occupation question would be repeatedly woven into as many interviews / statements as possible so that those idiot news presenters would start asking, "But Mr. GOP Congressman, do we really want to be an indefinite occupying force in Iraq?"  His response would be of course pure bullshit, but having the question posed is the objective.

        Murtha made people question who Karl Rove was to be calling the shots on Iraq - he made people question "staying the course" and thus diffused the negative connotations of the phrase "cut and run".  As I recall, the statement about Rove had far more words.

        •  it's not the amount ... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          It's not the count/amount. It's the words "sovereign" and "nation" used in tandem.

          Together, they suggest that the Iraqi government, as constituted, is legitimate, and actually rules the nation we refer to as Iraq. Clearly, there is doubt about whether, in fact, the present government, with its appointed prime minister, is really legitimate, and whether their constitution has, in truth, proper legal foundation.

          I'm not worried about how this plays in Peoria, but in Kirkuk, Samarra and Al Basrah. It'd seem to require this edit:

          "Americans should not be the occupiers of a sovereign nation".

 ... somebody really ought to register this domain name ...

          by wystler on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 02:39:09 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Sure - that is fine however I think (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            that the more we allow people to conveniently forget that Iraq is technically a sovereign nation when the question of our role arises and conveniently remember it with pride when talking about purple fingers the more of an opportunity this administration has to manipulate people's perception of the situation.  I understand the playing in preoria issue you raise with regard to the word "sovereign" - but we should find another word rather than dropping the concept - because that is the issue UNLESS we intend to be occupiers if you see what I mean. We must define Iraq as an independent nation universally rather than sporatically as the administration does when it suits their purposes.

  •  according to the NYT today, (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    David Boyle, Overseas, mariva

    (all) democrats oppose the kerry-feingold bill on iraq. do you oppose it?

  •  Let's end the war... (7+ / 0-)

    ... on middle class America while we're at it.

    We shall fight them on the internets. We shall fight in the Starbucks, and in the streets, we shall fight them on the Hill. We shall never surrender!

    by bhlogger on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 09:45:12 AM PDT

  •  Thank YOU, Senator Boxer, for coming! (8+ / 0-)

    Your speech was one of the highlights of the event. I'm so proud that you're my senator.

    You look great in person, by the way.

    Mariva's Guide: A magablog of fun, useful, interesting stuff.

    by mariva on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 09:45:37 AM PDT

  •  Hi Sen. Boxer! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    David Boyle, mariva

    Ask them if the allies were also cowards when they "cut and ran" at Dunkirk.

  •  Thanks (5+ / 0-)

    Senator Boxer and of course Senators Feingold and Kerry. Did anyone else get e-mails from the organizations of all three people about this today? That's what I call spreading the word.

    I am all for ending the war in Iraq. I'm a pacifist for christ's sake. But, I am just worried that we haven't thought about what happens when we leave Iraq? We're going to have to help them rebuild the nation we destroyed. But can we do that without having a presence there? What do we do if the citizens cannot keep control of the nation? Do we sit back and  let people slaughter each other? I hope people have thought about these questions.

  •  Stay the Course is not a plan (12+ / 0-)

    Senator Boxer,

    My only quibble is that you refer to the admin's policy of "stay the course" as a plan.  It's not.  It's a platitude meant as tough talk like "bring it on" and "mission accomplished."  I think that you should emphasize that continuing the actions that have failed to bring stability to Iraq is not a plan and is a manifestation of moral and intellectual bankruptcy.  The GOP can't define victory in Iraq let alone have a plan for it.  Bringing our troops home in such a situation is common sense, particularly when the gov't there,  has asked for us to leave.

    •  I find the Bush Administration's (0+ / 0-)

      "course" is a series of corners which they are constantly turning. Thus, their "course" involves walking endlessly around the block, going nowhere.

      That doesn't sound like much of a "plan" to me.

      "As you get older, you get less willing to buy the latest version of reality." Leonard Cohen

      by mentaldebris on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 01:20:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  'I think you and I agree on 99% of the issues.' (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    David Boyle, mariva, trashablanca

    Don't worry, Senator Boxer, we don't come close to that kind of agreement on much around here. And most of us accept that.

    One where we're close, though? Joe Lieberman.

  •  Thank you, Senator (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    frisco, David Boyle, MamasGun, Black Max, tjb22

    It was great to hear you speak at YK.  Next year...we expect an ice sculpture from you!  (just kidding...seriously--no ice sculptures)

    Since we are shooting form the shoulder (or hip), today:

    'Let Iraqi's do it for themselves' is a weak message.  I respect Carl Levin, but it's a weak message.  Leadership is about doing, not letting others do.

    The trouble we have on this debate is in the form of a 'cut and run' attack from the Republicans.

    The solution is to talk about: 'Al Qaeda,' 'Getting back to work on national security' and a 'leaner and smarter' strategy.

    Frameshop:  3 Ways To Gut 'Cut and Run'

  •  Vietnam all over again. (6+ / 0-)

    What can we say today to those knew that war was a mistake, but didn't have the courage of their convictions?

    We said then, and we say today:

    Bring our troops home now -- alive.

    Thank you for being my Senator.

  •  Senator, (5+ / 0-)

    The Democrats' performance during the floor debate over the Republican sham resolution last week was commendable.

    Congressional Democrats get a lot of criticism, deserved and undeserved, but it seems as if you are finding your collective voices about the Iraqi war.  You've always had my support because we share the same values, but on this issue the Dems are sounding like a party I am proud to get behind!

    "In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell

    by Five of Diamonds on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 09:57:37 AM PDT

  •  Support Democrats (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    David Boyle, Joelarama

    I greatly enjoyed your speech and your ability to take great questions from the audience (and cut them short when they started to ramble!).

    All I or anyone here would reasonably expect you to say is that you don't support Lieberman leaving the Democratic Party and you wouldn't support him if he did.

    What do you say?

  •  $$$$ spent on Iraq need to be mentioned more (6+ / 0-)

    by the Democrats.  Why, because that issue is important to all liberals and conservatives. Also, the slogan "Had enough" says it all and should be used.  The message must be simple, and not so confused, otherwise the media will just continue to pound the Democrats with the Republican talking point,"Democrats don't have a plan", or "who knows what their plan is?" It is extremely frustrating for us watching from the sidelines as 2006 appears to be going the way 2002 and 2004 went.  It is starting to be embarassing that we are not beating these very corrupt and inept people who by all measures are the worst we have every had. Thanks for all that you do.  

  •  Senator Boxer (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OLinda, David Boyle, sweetirish, tjb22

    Thanks for your support.

    There are some things that bother me though, I don't see much in the news about this and I don't hear much from our representatives either.

    Why are we spending millions of dollars for permanent bases in Iraq.  Why are we spending millions of dollars to construct the world's largest embassy.  

    This hasn't gotten the publicity it deserves.  What is the purpose of these sites if not to maintain a permanent presence in Iraq.  

    I wish you could talk about this and maybe provide your thoughts on this subject here in the comments.

    Thank you.

    The government should not be in the business of saving souls.

    by LynChi on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 10:02:37 AM PDT

  •  A fake split (6+ / 0-)

    I think setting a deadline is a good idea, but the idea that there's a major split within the Democratic party because of this issue is odd.

    Almost every Democrat wants out. Chances are that no Democrat really wants to get everyone out instantly IF it seems as if our guys are genuinely preventing genocide. But it seems as if, in reality, our presence is causing violence rather than suppressing it.

    Easy compromise:

    • We point out that our forces have actually, as Bush said, achieved their original goal of arresting Saddam Hussein and loosening the Baathist Party group on the country.
    • We point out that there's no evidence our troops are now helping ordinary Iraqis.
    • We set a deadline for departure. But we acknowledge that we will make allowances for events in the real world and do what we can (maybe through protection of special refugee zones along with huge supplies of refugee green cards) to help Iraqis who have worked with Coalition forces and are at risk of being slaughtered if we pull out.

    The real questions is, Why wouldn't Bush agree to this compromise proposal? I think the only reason is that we're really in Iraq to keep Iraq's oil. If we're still in Iraq just to Iraq's oil, let's have a national debate about that question.

  •  I have already contacted my senator - You (6+ / 0-)

    Sen. Boxer

    As a CA voter I have been writing you and Sen. Feinstein on the Iraq issue since 2002 and have been quite frustrated that Dem leaders have not got in front of this issue in a more aggressive manner.

    I am glad that you are now co-sponsoring this resolution for a change in the failed Bush strategy. Does Sen. Feinstein support this resolution?

    From a political stand point my question is why doesn't the Dem elected leadership in the Senate & House point out in a more direct manner that Bush, Cheney and Rove have no credibility on Iraq? They lied, fabricated pre-war intelligence and then horribly mismanaged the occupation that created a civil war in Iraq and as a result our forces are caught in a quagmire.

    This Nov, voters like me are less interested in policy minutiae and more interested in supporting candidates with courage of conviction and the fortitude to fight the Republican abuse of power.

    Will Dem senators assure voters like me that if elected with a majority this Nov, you will get to the bottom of the decision making that has created one of the biggest strategic blunders in our country's history? Voters like me want to know how the system failed us ? who made what decisions ? who acquiesced when they knew better?

    Can you make such a pledge?

  •  I know it's OT (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    peace voter, Pithy Cherub

    And I thank you very much for your views on Iraq.

    Senator, you have a vote in the Commerce Committee tomorrow that is crucially important to the future of this medium, and by extension the future of a vibrant democracy in this country.  I urge you and all of your colleagues to support the Dorgan-Snowe Amendment, known as the Internet Freedom Preservation Act or more colloquially as "Net Neutrality."  We cannot have a two-tiered structure for online communication in this country, where the telcos set themselves up as gatekeepers.  It will destroy innovation and really harm free speech as well as free competition online.

    Will you support this amendment?  I'll be calling your office later today as well.

    D-Day, the newest blog on the internet (at the moment of its launch)

    by dday on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 10:09:01 AM PDT

  •  cut & run (4+ / 0-)

    I propose as the Dems counteracting slogan:

    stay & die.

    •  I gave my shout down the well... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Caldonia, sweetirish
      John Cornyn and Granger are my two Senators.  I know how Cornyn and Granger think - they're party line toers, but the trick is to show these mouthpieces that their goals are the same as ours.  Here's the appeal I wrote to Cornyn:

      Senator Cornyn,

      I'm e-mailing you to request that you support the plan formed by Feingold, Kerry, and Boxer to redeploy our troops from Iraq.  A free and democratic Iraq is a worthwhile goal, but it adds another front to a war that we must win at all costs.  The war against terrorism must be expanded to all countries that support it, instead of concentrating our efforts in Iraq.  The idea that we can wage war in Iraq and keep the terrorists from striking the U.S is a fallacy.  Look at North Korea's ambitions with their recently fueled missile, and how it's thrown us into a panic.  We need to redeploy the troops to areas where they can fight terrorism more effectively, and let the Iraqi people rebuild their nation.  Iraq is a fledgling nation, and now it's time to learn how to fly.

      Thank you for your time.

      "I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more freedom and democracy - but that could change." - George W. Bush

      by Jensequitur on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 11:22:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Kerry has already beat you to it (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      beemer, grayscale

      with "lie and die."  No disrespect to you, but I like his better.

  •  Counter the split party talk forcefully (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NearlyNormal, Tailspinterry

    I'd like to see democrats sharply counter the constant media shots about being split and frame movement vs. inertia as positive.  Which it is!!!

    I think split party criticism should be forcefully responded to and defined as it is.  This is a party with the guts to debate an issue and also outline the elements of agreement.  By contrast that republicans are too fearful go beyond the platitudes outlined by Karl Rove or provide any oversight on any number of messes that have been created.

    •  Indeed (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      CNN was having a panic attack this morning because "Democrats are divided," etc., etc., etc.  Lively debate is healthy and positive.

      "Get your hands off our Internet" -- U.S. phone and cable companies, to bloggers and independent Internet content producers

      by bink on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 10:33:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Senator Boxer (8+ / 0-)

    I'd like to share a few points that I wish someone would make on the Senate floor.

    The Republicans like to compare the Iraq War to World War II. The next time they bring this up, please mention the following. . .

    The United States declared war on Japan on December 8, 1941. Japan eventually surrendered on August 15, 1945. Our involvement in World War II lasted 1,345 days.

    The United States invaded Iraq on March 20, 2003. Today is June 21, 2006. By my calculations, this war has lasted (roughly) 1,188 days -- or 157 fewer days than all of World War II.

    Ironically, the 1,346th day of the Iraq War -- making it longer than World War II -- will occur around Thanksgiving weekend later in the year. I'm sure the event will be marked in Iraq via delivery of another plastic turkey.

    In the "old" timeframe, we were able to mobilize the entire domestic infrastructure for war purposes, defeat Germany, Italy and Japan, and liberate all of Europe.

    In the "new" timeframe, George W. Bush can't even win in Iraq.

    Double-check my math, then please ask a few Republican Senators to share their thoughts on this. I would be interested to hear what they have to say.

    Thank you for speaking the truth and doing the right thing. You are everything a United States Senator should be.

    The Republican Party: Keeping America Fact-Free Since 2001

    by IndyScott on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 10:11:51 AM PDT

    •  This is excellent. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Boxer's people reading this thread, take note.

    •  Why would they compare it to WWII? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      We attacked the country that attacked us in WWII.

      With Iraq we attacked and occupied country that did nothing to us. It'd be like us attacking and occupying Mexico after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.

      That's without a doubt the stupidest analogy I've heard today.

      A word after a word after a word is power. -- Margaret Atwood

      by tmo on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 12:44:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  no matter (0+ / 0-)

        the GOP has used the analogy time and again, most recently (near as I can tell) on the verbal assault directed at Murtha on the House floor ... ... somebody really ought to register this domain name ...

        by wystler on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 01:11:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  furthermore (0+ / 0-)

          if Commander Bunnypants were in the hot seat during WWII, i'd have hated to be one of the guys in the landing crafts storming beaches in Sicily, Anzio, Normandy or any of a number of Pacific islands ...

 ... somebody really ought to register this domain name ...

          by wystler on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 01:13:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  If the Governments' boot is on MY NECK - (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Black Max, grayscale, trashablanca

    it doesn't matter if it is a RIGHT or LEFT boot!

    Is is NOT what you say - but HOW you say it that gets votes these days.

    What about highlighting what the PIGS at the CONGRESSIONAL TROUGH are actually doing to dismantel our Constitution, Liberties, bankrupting our Nation to fleece the CITIZENS by giving our tax $ to the 2% richest elite.  What about the controlled propoganda by the media/govt cabal, owned by these same elite - we are fast sliding into a FASCIST STATE?

    Support public financing - show the people by your actions that you GET IT!HAD ENOUGH?


    “Let's face the reality: If ripping off the public trust; if distributing tax breaks to the wealthy at the expense of the poor; if driving the country into deficits deliberately to starve social benefits; if requiring states to balance their budgets on the backs of the poor; if squeezing the wages of workers until the labor force resembles a nation of serfs -- if this isn't class war, what is?

    It's un-American. It's unpatriotic. And it's wrong.” Bill Moyers

  •  Senator Boxer (4+ / 0-)

    I am proud to have you as one of my Senators. I consider you a true Democrat and a Patriot.

    Shouldn't someone fly the  test balloon of calling our men and women in arms in Iraq an "Occupation" as opposed to a "War?"

    Thanks for taking notice of the blogosphere and visiting here. Now I don't have to write you to specifically mention that Net Neutrality is a big deal to at least one of your constituents.

    Thank you Lord, for this generous rain and abundant lightning. -8.88 -5.08

    by SecondComing on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 10:14:06 AM PDT

  •  Senator Boxer - I hope you read down this far (7+ / 0-)

    Many here have already made the comment that it is no longer to our advantage, or better yet, the truth, to call this a war.  It is an occupation.

    Soldiers are termed now as being kidnapped, and are not being labled as captured.  There is a subtle difference, but I think everyone would agree (Dem or Repub, subconsciously or not) that the term kidnap does not apply to a war.

    Please read Thom Hartmann's piece Reclaim the Issues - "Occupation, Not War".

    I hope you'll direct Senator Reid, and your other colleagues to this article as well.

  •  Nice to see you (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Black Max, trashablanca
    But may one make a suggestion that you stop saying "End the War in Iraq" and find a way to say something like, "Let's move on in the War on Terror and find the leaders of the Terrorists, not just their lieutenants."
    Too long to say? Hmn have to come up with ten cent words and three word slogans then.
    But you get the idea ma'am.

    A vote for GOP is a vote for WW3

    by RElland on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 10:17:19 AM PDT

  •  We DID End the War--Commander in Chief Said So (5+ / 0-)

    Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.

    It's an occupation. Agreed, let's end the occupation.

    Also--there's no such thing as "losing" an occupation. We can come or go.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy....--ML King, "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 10:17:34 AM PDT

  •  Thanks for participating! As a CA (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    trashablanca, Tailspinterry

    constituent, please help me to figure out how to get the senior senator from California on the same page in bringing this debacle to an end, now.  This is made more difficult as you both voted very differently on October 10, 2002. It seems as if that vote and accepting the responsibility for it have caused many that voted for it to have a cognitive dissonance regarding doing the right thing now and that is declare a military victory and leave with all due deliberate speed this year.  It is up to the Iraqis to decide on when to declare the political victory.  

    It is heartening to know you hear us and trust us enough to openly disagree.  It is an exchange that benefits us all.  

    Every time history repeats itself the price goes up - Anon.

    by Pithy Cherub on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 10:18:22 AM PDT

  •  I think President Bush wants the oil (4+ / 0-)

    I noticed that President Bush put his hand behind his back and crossed his fingers again while he signed the law against permanent American bases in Iraq.

    There will be no significant withdrawal from Iraq until the oil is flowing good and the Iraqi government can keep the oil flowing where Democracy according to President Bush is not about free elections and rather is about corporations being free to do business.

    Iraq has had several elections and so that country already is a Democracy.

    We invaded and removed Saddam not when he gassed the Kurds, or when he invaded Kuwait, but rather when he challenged American hegemony in currency and he threatened to only sell oil for euros.

    While I am ranting, it is curious that a lack of government regulation of citizen behavior is called anarchy and it is a bad thing while a lack of government regulation of corporate behavior is called a free market and it is a good thing.

    Thanks and good luck in your efforts.

  •  Even the Iraqi government. . . (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    peace voter, trashablanca, Russgirl

    . . .wants us to have a plan to leave.

    Here's the piece from yesterday's Washington Post, by Iraq's National Security Advisor: The Way Out of Iraq: A Road Map, By Mowaffak al-Rubaie
    Tuesday, June 20, 2006

    So, what are we waiting for?

    When only the government lacks virtue, there remains a resource in the people's virtue; but when the people itself is corrupted, liberty is already lost.

    by Robespierrette on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 10:22:07 AM PDT

  •  war vs occupation (9+ / 0-) you listen to Thom Hartmann's show?  He's been saying that unless Dems stop calling this mess a war and start calling it an occupation, we're going to be in trouble over national security again in November.  Reason for using occupation rather than war...wasn't the war over once Dubya declared "Major combat operations have ended" on the Abraham Lincoln in May 2003? (I won't discuss that ridiculous flight suit he was wearing and the mission accomplished banner)

    We've occupied Iraq, and occupied it with a rapaciousness that is breathtaking, since then.  We've botched it badly, and ignored good plans.  Isn't it time to redeploy outside of Iraq now?  And...couldn't we have gotten al-Zarqawi with a surgical strike without the occupation?  Let alone the fact that al-Zarqawi is a construction of the Bush admin. in the sense that they decided 3 different times NOT to get him so that they'd not hurt their case for the invasion?

    "It's time for America to get REAL." -- Matt O. []

    by billlaurelMD on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 10:22:12 AM PDT

  •  Thank you Sen. Boxer (4+ / 0-)

    our government paralyzed over a failed policy

    I really like how you phrased that. That's exactly what it is. This "stay the course" is really "stand still," "no change," and hope some miracle happens. They are paralyzed.

    It's not a bad soundbite either. I'd like to hear it said more. Bush is (or Republicans are) paralyzed over a failed policy.

    Crash the Gate!
    Please contribute to Kossack Brian Keeler for NY State Senate. Be the change!

    by OLinda on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 10:23:53 AM PDT

  •  Senator (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    peace voter, trashablanca

    It's good that you and a handful of other Senators have the courage to put forth a rational redeployment plan.

    As a Californian, I can't adequately tell you how much I appreciate your efforts to hold this administration accountable and to support and to act on so many positive, progressive alternatives to the horror show our nation has endured, and has forced on others, for lo these many years.

    As a Californian, too, I would really like to see Senator Feinstein move from her increasingly fringe position toward your own position on Iraq and other issues.

    Her constituents let her know all the time, but we can't be sure she's actually listening.

    Maybe you could intervene? ;)



  •  sent the email (0+ / 0-)

    After you submit the email you have an option to print the letters. I have only seen that a few times, and I really like that feature.

    Unfortunately, I'm at work and can't/shouldn't so I didn't. I don't think it will let me do it again when I get home.

    Everyone, you can easily print up the letters and mail them in addition to the email and I think the more the better.

    Crash the Gate!
    Please contribute to Kossack Brian Keeler for NY State Senate. Be the change!

    by OLinda on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 10:31:17 AM PDT

  •  So great having you at YearlyKos, too! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    frisco, peace voter

    Senator Boxer, I can't thank you enough for your work speaking out against sending our troops back into combat who have been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. They should not be sent back into the combat zone, medicated, and expected to push through their PTSD.

    I have been covering this issue for the past 10 months exclusively, and have covered your work in a number of commentaries and diaries both here and at my online journal, for example:

    Alongside supporting the Kerry/Feingold/Boxer bill I've also just this week asked people to contact their senators re: the following:

    Urge the Senate to adopt an amendment sponsored by Senators Barbara Boxer and Joe Lieberman requiring a credentialed mental health professional to sign off before a service member diagnosed as having a duty-limiting (or serious) mental health condition can be ordered into a war zone.

    Is this amendement still up for a vote at the present time? Should we still be sending faxes in support?

    Finally, I've been blessed with the opportunity of writing a book this summer, entitled Moving a Nation to Care: Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and America's Returning Troops. It will focus on bringinging into view the stories of our returning OEF/OIF veterans coping with PTSD, and also aims to be a call-to-arms to engage the public's help and interest on this issue.

    I already had plans to write your office this week, hoping that you would honor me with either a book blurb or even consider writing the forward if you would so humble me since you have been so vocal on this issue.

    Either way, thank you, again, for your work on this issue and for coming out to speak with us at YearlyKos. You were inspiring, as always!

  •  Thank you Senator Barbara! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OLinda, Joelarama

    Keep up the good fight!

    We're taking Texas back! Come visit us at TexasKos.Com.

    by txbirdman on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 10:34:51 AM PDT


    You can start digging us out of the mess in Iraq by calling it what it is -- an unnecessary, extended occupation by the US military of a sovereign nation.  The war ended when Saddam was overthrown.  The need for an occupation ended when a civil government was instituted.

    It's time for the Iraqis to sort out their own internal differences, and it's past time for our troops to leave.  If we are needed to help protect Iraq from foreign forces, we can sit outside their borders and the Iraqi government can ask for our help as needed, if it suits our purposes... but the time for occupation ended long ago.  

    So long as we continue to call the mess in Iraq a war,  we remain open to being blamed for losing a war.  

    Our military has won the war.  There is no "winning" an unnecessary occupation.  Democrats must enforce discipline on this language, or the Republicans will frame themselves into another swiftboating win in November.

    No Democrat should ever call the present occupation of Iraq a "war" ever again.

    "You have to keep your knee on [Bush's] windpipe until the danger is past." -- Garry Trudeau

    by tbetz on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 10:35:50 AM PDT

  •  Message to Barbara Boxer: Please Read! (9+ / 0-)

    John Kerry said one excellant line in a Radio Interview (Dom Imus) the other day. When the subject of "cut and run" came up Kerry responded with saying that their policy is the "lie and die" foreign policy.   That was excellant!

    Now the question is:
    Why isn't the whole Democratic Party going out and
    branding & bumper-stickering  the George W. Bush/GOP
    "Lie and Die" Foreign Policy -- which is not making us safer
    and is a catastrophic failure.


    Kerry, Murtha, Dean all seem to "get it".  But Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, the DSCC, the DCCC, the DLC, James Carville (now financially supporting Scooter Libby) -- and the rest of the pack still just doesn't have a clue.

    F R A M E   T H E   I S S U E -!

    Take control of the language of Politics.

    The Message:
    Do you want more of this failed "Lie and Die" Foreign Policy?   or do you want to see a change in direction and real results -- like getting Osama Bin Laden, securing our Ports, Energy Independence, and bringing our boys home?

    If you get out ahead of Karl Rove and frame the issue that way,
    then 70% of the entire Country is going to then vote for the second choice!

    •  'lie & die' / 'stay & slay' (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      boofdah, Tux the Penguin

      either way
      let's call it what it is

      it's not a 'war'

      it's an occupation

      when we call it a war, were playing into the chicken hawk, war promoters' hands.


    •  Carville is doing what?!? (0+ / 0-)

      Got a link?

      •  Mary Matalin (0+ / 0-)

        is having a fundraiser for Libby at her home.

        •  but, outside of the fact ... (0+ / 0-)

          ... that she's his spouse, he had NOTHING to do with the fundraiser. I'm not fond of his wife, and ain't quite sure how he reconciles his politics with his marriage, but GMLOD's statement is false.

 ... somebody really ought to register this domain name ...

          by wystler on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 01:15:52 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The Statement is True. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Black Max

            James Carville hosted, at his own private residence, a fundraiser on behalf of I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby.

            That is a fact.

            Now, Mary Matalin (the-bitch), may have been the one taking the initiative here to set it all up, but that does in no way just excuse James Carville from using his own house as the receptacle and platform for sponsering the formal Defense of Libby - Dick Cheney's right-hand man.

            If Carville is going to just turn-over his own house to the Bush White House operations & agenda, then is he not complicit here?

            He could have said, "Mary if that's what you need to do, go get a Hotel or a golf course or the RNC headquarters or a shooting range or whatever."  But Carville did not do this.

            Instead, James Carville welcomed in the Bush White House right into his own home to help get Libby out of jail and obstruct any further accountibility over the Plame-Wilson-BrewsterJennings ****s.

            That makes the statement accurate.

    •  Snappy slogans! so THAT's what's been ..._wrong_! (0+ / 0-)

      Let's see,


      why are we still in a bloody and useless war after three years?


      Because we lack the correct snappy slogans by which to defeat the opponents' snappy slogans?

      If only it were that simple.  If only people's errors were that obvious and correctable.

       Of course, there's no convincing you otherwise since, once the "corner is turned" there'll be no shortage (LOL!) of ready examples for you to point out as the cinch-slogans which "proved" your view was correct.

      Happy hunting.  And remember: reasoned argument is fucked; convincing people as though they can actually follow an argument (hint: as I'm doing here, with you!, lacking a sure-fire single-line snappy slogan with which to bowl you over!)--that's for chumps and losers.  

      THE ONLY WAY TO WIN IS TO FIND & USE the MISSING MAGIC SLOGAN because we're idiots, we can't reason or respond to such.

      Let's be ingenious and novel! Let's do it the easy, slogan-based way!  Thinking is hard.  And we don't like hard things.

      "All life is problem-solving." (book title) --Karl Popper

      by proximity1 on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 12:27:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You just don't get it! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        It is fine to dismiss away slogans, marketing, the branding of political themes as "simple" and "not thinking"  -- but the true simple fact is that Elections are decided in mass by largely superficial impressions & perceptions about both the candidates and the Parties as a whole.

        The GOP has won election after election after election by burning into the minds of people the following impressions:

        1. We're for low taxes.
        1. We're for "law and order".
        1. We're for small government.
        1. We're strong on National Defense.
        1. We're for "family values".
        1. We love America.
        1. Democrats are against all those things.

        Now, leave aside for now the fact that all of these GOP slogans (above) are Orwellian falsehoods and not true in terms of their actual policies  -- the fact is that these simple cut-to-the-chase-messages are very, very effective in framing for people, who only superficially follow the news,  why they should be voting for the GOP.  It's worked well for them for over 30 years.

        Right now, you have Karl Rove out there playing up the whole "Cut & Run", "Retreat & Defeat" themes.  I suppose that in your bizarre mind Karl Rove doesn't know what he is doing and that these "slogans" are somehow bad for the GOP. But as we have seen in 2002 and 2004 they are effective.  So, if we to do things your way or if the Democratic Party stays passive and fails to directly counter this type of attack -- then they will be defeated once again.

        The Democrats do need to frame the issue and start taking control of political language.

        That may seem "simple" to you, but the fact is that:  a) it works, b) long campaign speechs or 10-point-policy laundry lists are not effective with "John Q. Public" drinking beer on his couch.

        When 40% of the entire American voting population still believes in "Adam & Eve" and "Noah's Ark" and another 40% still believe that Saddam Hussein did 9-11 -- you do need a simple & effective communication mechanism to reach into people and summarize & illustrate for them just:  a) why their living conditions suck,  b) what is the truth is,  and c) why they need to vote differently.

        Too bad you don't work for the White-House/RNC/GOP/instead of Karl Rove.
        Then Democrats would have little to worry about.

        But they do and they will now need to fight back and frame the Iraq issue in clear, direct, understandable terms or just get rolled-over once again.

        •  works, saves time, saves thought, tastes better, (0+ / 0-)

          ...less filling.

          "a) it works,

          So does shooting yourself in the head.  In the long run, as Keynes said, we're all dead.  The short way to get there is to shoot yourself in the head, and it works!

          But, what you've really done here is make a claim that "it works"--that is, you've claimed that it is in fact these snappy "issue-framing" techniques which are a) what the Republicans are deliberately using and, b) which are to an important degree, or even to a determining degree, the key to their strategy or to the fact that they've won elections.

          But apart from asserting this relationship, you haven't shown why I should believe it's more than the latest "One-Minute-Manager style bullshit of the moment.

          b) long campaign speechs or 10-point-policy laundry lists are not effective with "John Q. Public" drinking beer on his couch."

          and that is where you'd happily leave him.

          Expect more wars; soon.  You'll deserve them, too.

          "I suppose that in your bizarre mind Karl Rove doesn't know what he is doing and that these "slogans" are somehow bad for the GOP."

          On the contrary, I have an idea that Rove does know what he's doing--the same idea tells me your notions are a crock of shit.  Suppose we ask Rove whether your theory about how he is doing it is correct?

          The slogans, while perhaps effective, are not, I suspect, the real key to his strategies.  IOW, he could do the same with other slogans or even no slogans at all.

          In coming campaigns, I predict Rove's successors may use no text at all; music and images only.

          I suppose you'd follow them down that path, too; as long as it "works",  you'd do anything, wouldn't you?!

          "All life is problem-solving." (book title) --Karl Popper

          by proximity1 on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 01:50:09 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Personal attacks aside ... (0+ / 0-)

            Personal attacks aside, you yourself have come up with absolutely nothing here to address and counter the manner in which Karl Rove and the White House are framing the whole Iraq issue and controlling the political debate and language about it.

            > The slogans, while perhaps effective, are not, I suspect,
            > the real key to his strategies.

            Well that's a false argument. I never said, at anytime, that "slogans" by themselves are the sole totality of an effective political campaign.

            However, the Democratic Party is in a unique predicament because it has long had a serious image problem.  Nobody knows just what the heck they stand for -- especially on foreign policy matters.  So it follows that they need to get their hands around this problem and begin to create clear, direct, understandable messages.

            I don't know why you would have a problem with that (?) unless you are just some GOP Troll seeking to flame people --  but in any case you yourself offered nothing constructive here to deal with themes that Karl Rove and the White House are trying to sell to the public.

            >>> long campaign speechs or 10-point-policy laundry lists
            >>> are not effective with "John Q. Public" drinking beer on his couch."

            > and that is where you'd happily leave him.

            No,  these people need to be reached and the only way that is going to happen is with clear, unambiguous, uncomplicated, direct messages that tell the truth about Iraq.

            > I suppose you'd follow them down that path, too;
            > as long as it "works",  you'd do anything,  wouldn't you?!

            We are talking about trying to win an election.  That is the goal.  
            Just what goal do you have?  
            Your mindless trash-talking isn't about anything or any strategy here at all - it is just a personal attack.  

            Your advice to the Democrats is then to have them do nothing here and permit the Iraq issue to be framed as "Cut and Run" & "Retreat and Defeat".

            If you think that is somehow going to help the Democrats Sparky  .. then I think you need to eat a little more Protein in your damn diet!

            Get a clue!

            •  more assertions from you, ZERO in support for ... (0+ / 0-)

              ...for those assertions.

              That makes this charge:

              "Personal attacks aside, you yourself have come up with absolutely nothing here to address and counter the manner in which Karl Rove and the White House are framing the whole Iraq issue and controlling the political debate and language about it."

              very, very hypocritical.  I asked you to provide something in the way of reasons and evidence for them to back up your repeated claims.

              Instead of offering any, you accuse me of being light on details.

              On what evidence other than your sole assumption that in having lost elections, the reasons for the losses are as you claim them to be (in other words, "trust me; take my word for what I'm saying.") do you base the following assertions of yours? :

              • ...Karl Rove and the White House are framing the whole Iraq issue and controlling the political debate and language about it.
              • the Democratic Party is in a unique predicament because it has long had a serious image problem.
              •  Nobody knows just what the heck they stand for -- especially on foreign policy matters.
              •  these people need to be reached and the only way that is going to happen is with clear, unambiguous, uncomplicated, direct messages (*)

              [ (*) NOTE: there's a change! Earlier I was attacking and you were defending pure sloganeering. Interesting.  Now that the strategy is one of
              " ... clear, unambiguous, uncomplicated, direct messages...", it does indeed make better sense.  But your posts were about the search for and the use of counter-slogans to "frame the debate", rather than the now-more-developed " ... clear, unambiguous, uncomplicated, direct messages...".
              Good for you for moving the goal-post closer! ]

              We are talking about trying to win an election.  That is the goal.  

              Well, if that's "the goal", your slogan-search-- even supposing you found the golden, ideal, magic slogan to rouse Joe Six-pack off the couch, it shouldn't help you much with " the goal".

              The Republicans have also relied heavily on sheer election fraud in the last two federal elections.
              IOW, they win elections the old fashioned way, they steal them.

               What's the magic slogan for that problem?

              And who is or who are "the Democrats Sparky"?

              I can give you a no-fail strategy for winning the next election--and several following it:

              you do what the Republicans are doing!

               You lie,

               You cheat,

               You commit wholesale election fraud incuding

                  stuffing ballot boxes,

                  rigging electronic voting machines,

                  purging your rival's electors from the voter

                  bullying and threatening voters at the poll
                  entry so that they're too intimidated to vote,

                  fabricating illegally the House and Senate
                  district lines to favor your party's

               and, last but not least, you avoid nominating erudite urbane Easterners such as John Kerry, or even Al Gore;

               Instead, you offer an affable, folksy, plain-spoken or even dopey-and-ill-spoken fellow whose tastes and interests don't rival those of Joe Six-pack, sitting on the couch,

               You position this folksy guy--who can never the less be a multi-millionaire and a puppet of the plutocrat class, in addition to being a nominal Harvard and Yale graduate, by the way--you position him at the Nascar track, the county fair, saying as little of substabnce as possible, offering only vacuous but emotionally charged terms which evoke positive conotations in the audience when he refers to himself, and negative conotations when he refers to the opponent.

              In doing all of the above, you flagrantly prostitute yourself and, with you, the candidate, by pandering to the every whim of the most wealthy 2%, promising to deliver, upon being elected, whatever is on their Christmas-wish lists, in return for, of course, many, many billions of dollars in campaign contributions.

              If you follow these simple strategic guidelines, you'll have Karl Rove and Grover Norquist sweating bullets.

                You'll also sell the nation and the American people even further down the river, but then: the goal, as you've insisted, is winning the election.

              So, then, what do you care about selling the nation out, anyway?  You'll win your election or come very, very, very, very close.

              "All life is problem-solving." (book title) --Karl Popper

              by proximity1 on Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 07:15:20 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Troll (0+ / 0-)

                Note to Troll:  10 people recommended my original comments (addressed to Barbara Boxer) and I got an additional recommendation for my:  "you just don't get it"
                reply back to your meaningless personal attacks.

                On the other hand, Nobody (-0-) recommended any of your childish
                strategy-free personal attacks on me.

                You're all alone here ...
                Give it up and go back to your right-wing blog site where you belong!

                •  LOL! (0+ / 0-)

                  Wow, you mean ten people actually agree with you?

                   And that is supposed to serve as supporting evidence for your assertions?  How?

                   In fact, I'm not very surprised you still don't offer anything better than, 'take my word for what I say.'  To be fair, you aren't offering to support your assertions only because you really don't know of anything solid to offer in their support.

                  Rather than admit that--which goes completely against the prevailing ethic of the day--you'd rather point lamely to the fact that ten people subscribe to your post.

                  I'd have accepted that as probably given even before the fact.  Moreover, there are, I'm confident, many, many hundreds of thousands just as confused as you are.  

                   Do you take comfort in that?  Doesn't trouble you even a little that you're unable to reasonably defend the assertions you're so insistently making?

                   If you can't face up to that deficiency, how are you and your thousands of supporters going to set the country back on course?

                  "On the other hand, Nobody (-0-) recommended any of your childish strategy-free personal attacks on me."

                   Which proves exactly nothing, just as would be true if ten or a thousand did signify their agreement with a little "approval" click of the mouse.

                  "All life is problem-solving." (book title) --Karl Popper

                  by proximity1 on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 08:26:40 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

  •  Congress must stand up (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    peace voter, Black Max, trashablanca

    I applaud you Senator Boxer.  It is time for Congress to stand up.  Many there will not do the right thing in fear of how it might affect their re-election.  That time is past...our military is willing to risk their lives Senators and Congressman must be willing to risk their political futures.  You are doing this some others are.  America needs to move forward on so many fronts..I think the people are ready they need inspirational leadership.

    •  Hi mojavefog. Where are you from? (0+ / 0-)

      I live about 8mi south of Apple Valley in the foothills.  I have found no Dem or Move on organizations anywhere near me.  I am thinking of starting up one, but my home is off dirt roads in the boonies and is hard to find.  Any thoughts?

      "Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans." J. Lennon

      by trashablanca on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 10:46:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Apple Valley (0+ / 0-)

        Well I live in the Bay area...fog....and love the Mojave desert where I have spent a lot of time..thus mojavefog.

        I'd place an ad in the local Apple Valley paper and see if you can find some kindred spirits.  Maybe someone else has a better place to meet and you can start a local Democratic club.  Or look for the county Democratic organization and get involved with banking etc.

        I remember camping near Giant Rock airport and having many interesting conversations with folks attending the UFO convention.  Many had been on spaceships...clearly aliens have invaded the minds of the Republicans this must account for their lunacy.  Almost stepped on a rattlesnake out there..never knew I could jump that high.

      •  Zip code please (n/t) (0+ / 0-)

        A word after a word after a word is power. -- Margaret Atwood

        by tmo on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 12:47:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  92308 n/t (0+ / 0-)

          "Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans." J. Lennon

          by trashablanca on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 01:26:31 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Nearest group is San Bernardino (0+ / 0-)

            If you don't mind me saying so - yikes that's way the hell out there! The nearest thing I could find at DFA Link was the East Valley Democratic Club, which holds monthly DFA Meet-ups at a restaurant in San Bernardino. Is that too far away? They've got an EV Dems Yahoo group too. If you're more interested in starting your own group, they may be able to help with that.

            I've heard that the progressive group Drinking Liberally is a terrific organization and is very helpful for people looking to start new chapters, but I don't have any personal experience with them.

            There's also Take Back Red California, which hooks up coastal Dems with red-county Dems to help revitalize the Democratic Party all over the state, in a "52-county" strategy straight from Howard Dean's playbook. I know some of the people involved and can tell you they're extremely dedicated and hard-working, but haven't worked with the group itself.

            A word after a word after a word is power. -- Margaret Atwood

            by tmo on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 10:26:44 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Lieberman or not (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tmo, mentaldebris, peace voter

    You are still looking good to me as our next VP candidate

    by naufragus on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 10:53:29 AM PDT

  •  Every speech I've seen you make (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    has been right on.  I'm glad you are my Senator.  I have written to you on the Lieberman issue as well and hope that you change your stance on that.

    I just saw Hillary on C-Span, I didn't know that she co-sponsored the Bill.  Did you have anything to do with getting her on our side?  I could not support her until now, and that's how many of us feel around here.

  •  War? (6+ / 0-)


    It's long past time for Democrats to stop calling this "the war in Iraq."  According to the Bush administration there hasn't been a war in Iraq since a cod piece last walked onto an aircraft carrier off of San Diego.  Democrats need to start framing things in their most accurate light.

    It is time to end the OCCUPATION of Iraq!

    Certainty generally is illusion, and repose is not the destiny of man. - OWH

    by blockbuster on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 10:58:53 AM PDT

  •  Creating a Hard Timeline (0+ / 0-)

    for withdrawal seems to give lots of effective PR Ammo to the Hawks and consequently is likely to get little traction in Congress or with public support, just say'n...

  •  Don't buy the 'pulling out early' bullshit... (4+ / 0-)

    Don't let the bastards manipulate you or your colleagues with that 'early out' cut-n-run bs...Headlines constantly read: "Democrats push for early withdrawal from Iraq'...the hell they are!  We're three and a half years into this clusterfuck of a war...2,500+ US soldiers are dead...100,000+ Iraqi Civilians are dead...400,000,000,000+dollars are wasted.  This isn't early, it's too friggin' late.

    Once in a while you get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right.

    by darthstar on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 11:05:33 AM PDT

  •  The only cutting and running (5+ / 0-)

    is being done by those who refuse to discuss this issue openly and honestly. The president and his allies in Congress have decided to cut and run from their sworn duty to serve the people of this country and to protect the Constitution. Unless we have a meaningful discussion of our goals in Iraq and a strategy to accomplish those goals and leave, we will be in this predictament forever. We never had a honest debate before we invaded Iraq and we have been dodging the issue ever since. The American people, the Iraqi people, and the world want this issue resolved. The President does not even want to discuss it.

  •  Link to Correction (3+ / 0-)
    Reclaim the Issues -
    "Occupation, Not War"

    Reclaim the Issues -
    "Occupation, Not War"

    Every time the media - or a Democrat - uses the phrase "War in Iraq" they are promoting one of Karl Rove's most potent Republican Party frames. ...continued

    •  Very good point. (0+ / 0-)

      It's no longer a war of Americans vs. Iraqis.  It's now the occupation of a foreigh country going through a vicious civil war.

      Kerry's given us a nice rejoinder to "cut and run:" "lie and die."  I hate that we have to wage war with sound bites, but that's the way the system works.  We need to fill the media with "lie and die" to drown out the cowards' nasty little accusations of "cut and run."

      And I know it's not the political thing to do, but I would love to see someone like Murtha or Kerry just bitchslap one of those chickenhawks who throw their accusations about Democrats being too cowardly, or too traitorous, to "stay the course" in Iraq.  I certainly don't think it's too far off the mark to have someone like Kerry or Murtha invite one of those mouthy little yellowbellies to "get up in my face and say that."

  •  Thank you Senator Boxer (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Caldonia, The Raven

    Petition signed and sent, and my Republican Senators called to boot their backsides to support the Dems!

  •  Where is this resolution anyway? (0+ / 0-)

    I wonder how many people have read this Kerry/Feingold/Boxer resolution? I have been trying to google it but have been unable to find it so far.

    One would think that Boxer's website would have obvious links to it... but no.

    That the war has caused "the deaths of more than 2,500 American troops, more than 18,000 wounded, and the deaths of more than 40,000 Iraqis" in and of itself is NOT a good enough argument to withdraw.

    The argument that "people die" is simply NOT a good enough argument to stop a war.

    The Iraqi war was and is wrong -- legally and ethically. It is not a just war.

    But the consequences of the war are not the reasons to use to make the case for stopping the wat.

    by feedthemtothelions on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 11:41:32 AM PDT

  •  The Royal 'We' (0+ / 0-)

    I wish Democrats would call Republicans on their use of the first person plural, when they're talking about the fighting and dying in Iraq.

    We're not going to cut and run!

    "We" are not doing a damned thing. A small percentage of Americans is doing the fighting and suffering and dying. Many of the 'we'-sayers on the Republican side are chickenhawks. And in any case, I don't think a single one of them has any family members fighting in Iraq.

    So cut out the 'we' and start talking distinguishing between 'I' and 'they'.

  •  With all due respect, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Senator Boxer, how can you endorse a candidate that has the "stay the course" mentality on the Iraq issue, instead of a primary challenger who supports your own views?

    I don't understand how you can support someone just because they are a long standing member of the party "in name only" and not consider supporting a Democratic challenger who would be an additional vote in lock-step with the party's progressive ideas?

    The Dems biggest mistake has always been their inability to speak with one voice.  This is just another example of why!

    I wholeheartedly support your resolution to end this senseless war....and I've already contacted my congressmen to ask them to do the same.  The future-Senator Lamont would also endorse your's shame that you cannot count on Lieberman's endorsement or vote.

    Lieberman thinks you should keep quiet and support the war, for the sake of national interest.  As he said "Well, dammit, I wasn't thinking about Democratic unity. It was a moment to put the national interest above partisan interest."

    Shame that such a long time senator doesn't realize that unity is the only avenue to getting anything done, which IS the national interest.

    Good luck on your resolution.

    "Reality proper has a way of insisting itself upon you." ~Al Gore

    by Troubled on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 12:05:03 PM PDT

  •  hurray for Gina (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tmo, Caldonia

    And hurray for you for coming to the ykos. Thanks!!

  •  I have a serious question (0+ / 0-)

    I was against launching the war in Iraq.  It was moronic and a gross strategic and moral error.

    But what if this deadline means we leave Iraq before the Iraqis are ready to stand up for their own security, and Iraq even more seriously collapses (becomes a "failed state") ala Afghanistan, which permits AQ to thrive?

    •  Al Qaeda (10+ / 0-)

      No nation can survive if it cannot win the support of its people. We have trained more than 200,000 Iraqi troops to secure their nation. Our soldiers have made it possible for three elections to take place in Iraq.

      American generals have told me our long term presence is fueling the insurgency and 87% of the Iraqi people want us to leave on a specific timetable. It is important to note that Al Qaeda represents just 10% of the insurgency, and many doubt they would have a purpose if the United States were to leave. If they were to continue, there is no reason why an "over the horizon" force cannot conduct specialized targeted missions against Al Qaeda. That is what we should have been doing after 9/11, instead of invading Iraq where there was absolutely not 1 Al Qaeda cell.

      •  Thank you Senator (0+ / 0-)

        For your prompt and courteous reply.

        And I completely agree with your last sentence!

        I would be interested to hear more detail about this "over the horizon" force, as it sounds like a viable solution to the problem of allowing Iraq to become an AQ base for training, etc.  (A problem created by the Bush Administration, I agree, but nonetheless is a problem that must be addressed).

  •  Barbara Boxer YOU are my Senator (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    grayscale, Joelarama

    Thank you for attending yearlykos and posting on this site.  Many commenters have expressed my shared opinions concerning Iraq and I trust you to do all in your power to find a solution and make it happen.  One issue that really bothers me is how the Republicans phrase the "stay the course" theme as though we are WANTED in Iraq.  Look at the statistics as to how many Iraqis want us to leave and how many believe its okay to kill American soldiers as John Murtha always states.  We are not wanted there, we were not invited there, we were lied to over and over again, and are still being lied to. So many innocent people have been killed, maimed and scarred for life as a result.  It makes me ill, just ill to know our country is responsible for this.  And its frustrating that people still believe the "stay the course" rhetoric.  Its BS, total BS.  Confront the Republicans with the truth and please get us out of this mess.

  •  Barbara (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raatz, mrblifil

    I understand why you would support Lieberman in the primary, but we cannot tolerate even the suggestion that it's ok to ignore the voters of the aug 8th primary and run as an independant, will you pledge to support our nominee for senate in Connecticut.

    this is your mission: TERMINATE the Bush presidency

    by nevadadem on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 12:25:06 PM PDT

  •  Why do we even think that Senator boxer (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mrblifil, Dauphin

    Will read our comments about her cluelessness about Joementium and how it undercuts her correct opposition to the disaster which is the Iraq occupation... and/or give our comments any serious consideration?

    Not trying to sound defeatist or apathetic, but let's get real here.


    Mitch Gore

    Republicans believe in training Al Queda, but not in training American workers.

    by Lestatdelc on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 12:35:47 PM PDT

  •  It's now an occupation, it's not a war anymore (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    paige, JohnB47, Joelarama

    for us.  For the Iraqis it's a civil war and we're caught in the middle, with our soldiers providing inviting targets for both sides.  

    As for the Iraqi government, if they truly so have about 300,000 soldiers and police then they are fully capable of securing their own country.  We don't need to be there anymore (not that we should have been there in the 1st place since there were no WMD's).    

    Don't be so afraid of dying that you forget to live.

    by LionelEHutz on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 12:41:46 PM PDT

  •  WMD in Iraq (0+ / 0-)

    Before jumping to conclusions on this go to The NY Times will have a feature article pertaining to my website...

  •  IM PROUD OF MY SENATOR (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    for those outside of california you may not be aware that we have our own bible-whitetrash belt ,the high deserts and the san joaquin valley.In my home town of fresno she is the devil.I argue on a weekly basis, there arnt any facts shes just evil.IM PROUD OF MY SENATOR

  •  Great seeing you, too. Now, where's my sushi? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    claude, opendna

    Senator, you must realize by now, now that we've had a chance to flex our muscles out in Vegas and now that we truly realize what power and influence we wield, that plain speaking common sense approaches are no longer enough to gain our support.  We want chocolate fountains, ice sculptures, free rides in overpriced hotels, and -- yes -- free all-we-can-eat sushi.  Yup, we're liking this political capital thing and we intend for people to spend it (on us).  Kind of like our own K Street thing... maybe a Geary Street Project?  

    Kidding aside, I listened carefully to your address to us in Las Vegas and you're right, I did not agree with each and every single thing you said.  But I voted twice for the last Democrat to hold the presidency and I agreed with him even less often than I do with you.  Your hat would be an exciting bit of haberdashery if it were tossed into the ring sometime before, say, Spring of '08, you know.  Oh, and a few morsels of spicy yellowtail atop some sticky rice wrapped in nori couldn't hurt, either.  

    On second thought, skip the dead raw fish.  I could easily learn to like being fed some plainly spoken honesty backed by accountability and a willingness to govern on behalf of all the citizens.  It's been so long since we've had such a menu from our government that it's starting to sound pretty damned tasty and exotic.

    The most un-American thing you can say is, "You can't say that." -G. Keillo

    by Eddie Haskell on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 01:23:35 PM PDT

  •  Thanks for your participation at YKos! (0+ / 0-)

    and for your leadership to end the occupation.

    "YeeHaw!" is not a foreign policy.

    by annefrank on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 01:24:51 PM PDT

  •  Please do real work to end the war (0+ / 0-)

    Withdraw your support of Joe Lieberman. supporting him is tanamount to supporting the war.

  •  The Lieberman issue notwithstanding (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    as a Californian, born and raised, I'm quite proud to have Barbara as my senator.  Nothing seems to anger the Right as much as the fact that she gets re-elected time and time again, as an unabashed progressive.  Unlike some other senators from this state I could mention, we can usually rely on Senator Boxer to do the right thing.  Keep fighting the good fight, Senator.

  •  Make sure the oil companies don't profit (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    We also need to make sure that Iraqi's get Iraq's oil money.  American Oil companies shouldn't be allowed to make one dollar.  Karl Rove hates the idea of public sharing and Oil companies won't allow midwest farmers to make money off of ethanol even if it ends the world's tension over oil and stops global warming.  They will never lead us out of war.

  •  Russ on C-Span 2 (0+ / 0-)

    introducing Kerry/Feingold Amendment right now!

  •  Kerry/Feingold/Boxer Amendment (0+ / 0-)

    being debated NOW on the Senate Floor - C-Span2.  Russ and J Kerry were KICK-ASS good.  Those gentlemen make me proud!  Now, suck-ass Lieberman goin' on-and-on about the "evil leaders", "war is hell", blah...blah...blah.  Repub talking head for sure.  Disappear Joe!  Hit the road!  At the very least, change your party affiliation.

  •  They are building permanent bases in Iraq... (0+ / 0-)

    ...according to another thread going on right now right now, and that is because they can use Iran as a pretext to stay in Iraq forever.  So how can we get out of Iraq?

    And I've heard Gore say it is far too volatile right now.  We can't leave the Iraqi's like that.

  •  Thanks Senator Boxer. I appreciate your work (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    here and in support of the Senator Russ Feingold Motion of Censure as well.

  •  Dear Senator Boxer (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    In your post, you said the following:

    I know a few folks were disappointed because out of all of the issues we agree on, there were a couple of areas where I expressed different views. Please know that I'm known in my state as someone who speaks straight from the shoulder even though I may not be saying everything an audience wants to hear. I do it out of respect for my listeners and for myself.

    Thank you for that.  One of the most significant obstacles to democracy in our country is the corruption of our elected officials.  To my understanding there are very, very few in our federal government who are loyal to their own beliefs, rather than to the beliefs of their funders.  I believe that you are one of these few.  I am proud to have voted for you, and proud to have you represent me, even though we may disagree on some issues.  

    Best wishes

    "Leave the gun ... take the cannoli." -8.38, -7.69

    by Balam on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 03:49:46 PM PDT

  •  My question? (0+ / 0-)

    Why is there NOT an Open Thread on this most critical Amendment?  Wake-up DKos!

  •  Thank you Senator (0+ / 0-)

    I wish you were still my Senator!  

    I wish folks would stick to the diary topic, your resolution...oh well.

    Keep up the fight, your the best!

  •  Barbara Boxer has supernatural powers (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:


    Not too long ago I went to dinner with a friend of mine and a bunch of his friends who were visiting from D.C.  They guy sitting next to me was a staffer for a Republican House member (he didn't tell me which one).  He spent the entire first half of the dinner whinging on about how "crazy" Howard Dean is, and how Democrats are all worthless.  I told him that Barbara Boxer was my hero for having the guts to stand up and call foul after the 2004 election.  He looked down at his plate, took his blackberry out of his pocket and started checking his email.  He didn't look at me again or say another word to me for the rest of the evening.  

    Not.  One.  Word.  

    I was immensely pleased.  Even the invocation of the Senator's name is enough to keep idiots like him clear of our personal space!

    "Leave the gun ... take the cannoli." -8.38, -7.69

    by Balam on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 04:27:07 PM PDT

  •  IE your speech on the Kerry Amend. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sassy725, OWTH

    Dear Ms. Boxer, I just listened to your speech on the floor and I thought you did a wonderful job! I'm very proud of the Democrats from my home state of Ca. Thanks for standing up for what we believe in, and doing it so well.

    -8.63 -7.28 He was carrying a skateboard on his back, a red rose in his fist, and the war.

    by OneCrankyDom on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 04:30:37 PM PDT

  •  Senator: It's an OCCUPATION not a WAR (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    With all due respect, Senator --and I have great respect for you & your views-- debating the so-called "war" in Iraq is a formula for failure.

    President Bush unilaterally stopped weapons inspections and invaded Iraq to find and destroy Saddam's alleged WMDs.

    Coalition troops achieved total victory over Saddam's military in about three weeks. His regime collapsed, we captured or killed all of his leaders (including Saddam himself), disbanded the Iraqi army, de-Baathified all public institutions and oversaw two elections.

    The "Iraq war" is over and we won.

    We are now maintaining a post-war military occupation and reconstruction amid a low-grade civil conflict between Iraqis.

    You'll never rally Americans around "ending the war in Iraq" because there is no war in Iraq --we already won it.

    You can surely rally Americans around turning over control of the occupation to Iraqis, becuause Americans don't want to expend anymore lives and resources occupying Iraq when it's been clear for over two years that Saddam is out of power and there are no WMDs there.

  •  Right position, wrong tact (0+ / 0-)

    Instead of attacking Barbara Boxer for endorsing Lieberman in his re-election bid, the more effective way to address your Joe Lieberman concerns in regards to Senator Boxer is to take HER issue of redeploying troops out of Iraq and to ask her if she feels/knows that Lieberman will be casting his vote FOR her proposed legislation. If the answer is NO (which it probably is, considering the hawkish Lieberman), one could then ask why Ms. Boxer would support the re-election of somebody who isn't going to support her or her issues. Another tact that might work is to NEUTRALLY ask her why she has endorsed Lieberman rather than the tone of 'how dare you!' that such posts have included. It is better to be inquisitive rather than accusative if you really want to find out from somebody why they have done a certain action or support a certain viewpoint/person. If Senator Boxer IS endorsing Joe Lieberman, then perhaps she should find the time to share why she feels he should remain in the Senate. As a voter in California, I for one would like her to answer the question more thoroughly, if only to share with us her stance and thought process on such an issue as hawkish Democrats like Lieberman. Still, I think her stance on the Iraq War is what's worthy of discussion and examination here, NOT her endorsement of one of her fellow Senators. I mainly vote independently, but I will be voting for Barbara Boxer next time I get a chance, as I am VERY pleased to see her taking such a strong stance on putting an end to the Iraq war.

  •  Now, to bring you all some company in DC... (0+ / 0-)

    Thanks for your amendment today.  How would you like some company in the halls of power?  Please support the candidates on the peaceteam and help us send them where they can do some good!  (Get our Troops out of Iraq Now)

    Please support Jeff Latas for Congress in AZ CD8.

    by revgerry on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 05:09:19 PM PDT

  •  Sen. Boxer please read! (0+ / 0-)

    I'm from CA and I've voted for you many times, but I have increased my admiration for you in the past few years.  

    You showed great courage to be the only Dem to challenge the vote certification in Ohio (when only you and the Green Party took the vote fraud on). Millions of us applauded you.

    You showed great courage when you stood alongside Russ Feingold and voted for his censure resolution.  I know everyone at Kos applauded you.  And I'm sure millions more.

    And more recently you were one of ONLY six to vote against the recent "non-binding" stunt pulled by the Republicans regarding staying the course in Iraq. Again, millions applauded you.

    But, where, exactly, are the all Democrats??????

    Why are can't they unite? I'm ashamed when I see them help the Republicans to sell us down the river. Many Democrats I know have stopped sending any money, and are changing to Independent or Green.  It's killing us.

    Why do they continue to side with the very people who are destroying our beloved country?  Don't they realize these bullies take their votes as WEAKNESS and laugh all the way to the bank?  Don't they realize that one day soon, the swiftboaters will come for them?  Don't they realize if EVERYONE would stand up, the Republican shams would be exposed for what they are?  

    Millions of us need you.  Right. Now.

    Oh, and can you please talk to Hillary?  What the heck was she trying to say today?????

    Keep up your good work.  We applaud you.

    Illegitimi non carborundum

    by truebeliever on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 05:14:38 PM PDT

  •  Thank You Senator (0+ / 0-)

    I hope you will join us at our conference next year as well :)

    YearlyKos mmmmhmmm.

    by gina on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 05:21:28 PM PDT

  •  Watching/listening to C-Span and you did quite (0+ / 0-)

    well. I am so glad you led off with the report of the two soldiers from your state that were killed by Iraqis who were being trained by the soldiers killed. This is most likely not a rare happening. However, this happened more than a year - two years ago? and certainly is more evidence that we should withdraw.

    I signed your petition yesterday and also called my two Republican senators.


  •  Thank You Senator Boxer! (0+ / 0-)

    I listened to your speech on the floor of the senate today. You make me proud, Your speech shows just how passionately you understand how WE the people feel. Please continue to do the job your constituents sent you to Washington to do. I just wish I was one of them.

  •  Cut and run is done by criminals. (0+ / 0-)

    We are not the criminals, they are. That's why they don't want to 'cut and run', that'd show their hand, and where it's been. In the cookie jar, no doubt. Also they'd lose all those gravy contracts.
    I hope you mean it Senator. With the advance of the inheritance bill, its time to see what kind of hornets nest you can stir up.

  •  Loved you on CNN tonight, Senator Boxer... (0+ / 0-)

    I wish politicians (whether Democratic or Republican) would have more group forums on major networks in order to discuss the issues important to Americans today.

    •  I second that (0+ / 0-)

      Not sure if you're still reading this or not..2 suggestions - this was a pretty big hit, can you take this 'show' on the road - I think if you could do say 1/2 dozend road show versions of this across the country, you might get good coverage.

      also, maybe next time more notice would be great - possibly the DNC and your various PACs gould do an email blast out to your members.

      •  whoops one more thing (0+ / 0-)

        even though there is not clear consensus within the dems on the Kerry/Feingold/Boxer resolution and other plans that are being put forward - at least the dems HAVE ideas about trying to solve this mess - the repubs don't even want to try.

  •  Dear Senator Boxer, (0+ / 0-)

    I think if you really knew why we don't support Lieberman, you would not support him either.  I think your mischaracterization of us was the issue, not the difference of opinion.

    I greatly appreciate you, Feingold, Harkin, Kennedy, Kerry and Wyden? for your support of the netroots.  Last night on Lou Dobbs, some winger was ranting about us pulling you to the wacko left.  Dobbs nailed him.  He said why is it "good" for the Republicans to work with their base and "bad" for the Democrats to do the same???  It is a question I wish you would ask the DLC Dems.  After Lieberman, they are target #2 in my book.  Populism is the key to winning!!  Tester and Bilbray won on it, and Busby lost because of it.  Populist issues are:
    *public financing of campaign and free air time.  People are sick of the corruption and the influence money is buying.
    *Abortions need to be legal and rare.  Abortions are not good, but sometimes they are necessary.
    *Fair taxes...but we want taxes to do the work of the common good.  If we have public financing of campaigns, maybe you electeds will quit wasting the money we give.
    *Get out of Iraq - NOW...
    *Repair the deficit
    *Universal Health easy, expand medicare to cover everyone.
    *Enough freakin NAFTA, CAFTA - you are destroying the middle class and no one gives a shit.
    *Stop the insane, unwinnable, and expensive war on drugs - learn from other countries and use the best models.
    *Oppose ILLEGAL immigration - loud and strong.  Go after employers and landlords who are exploiting these people.  Get Mexico to step up to their own problems or smack em. Welcome LEGAL immigrants and do what needs to be done to repair the system so immigrants who are trying to get in "legally" can.

    The Dems who don't step up are a waste.  I give to individuals and to the DNC.  I won't give a nickel to the DLC, DCCC, or DSCC.  

    ....although the future is unknown, it will not be unblogged. David D. Perlmutter

    by dkmich on Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 03:37:46 AM PDT

    •  You guys need to go on Lou Dobbs and other 'real' (0+ / 0-)

      shows where libertarians and independents gather.  There is common ground and lots of it.

      ....although the future is unknown, it will not be unblogged. David D. Perlmutter

      by dkmich on Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 03:39:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Meteor Blades, pontificator, Malacandra, reef the dog, bink, Kestrel, Alumbrados, Ed in Montana, Terri, tmo, CJB, Hubris Sonic, Night Owl, Cowalker, Dr Van Nostrand, alyosha, teacherken, natasha, Todd Beeton, Hornito, Tulip, el ganador, greendem, MattBellamy, Delaware Dem, Nina Katarina, Gooserock, Pandora, Unstable Isotope, whataboutbob, dday, Robespierrette, Sprinkles, Shockwave, Del C, wu ming, OLinda, JaneKnowles, GayHillbilly, Kevin in Long Beach, x, frisco, velvetdays, ilona, shpilk, Carnacki, Walt starr, cvannatta, memberofthejury, km4, PaintyKat, bronte17, super simian, anotherCt Dem, Doc Allen, bhlogger, Baldwiny, peace voter, Pithy Cherub, AndyT, roses, michelle, javelina, sgilman, drsmith131, L0kI, cognitive dissonance, standingup, bincbom, Fe, oortog, MJB, Spindizzy, David Boyle, sele, nitetalker, Tomtech, hopesprings, danthrax, sockpuppet, NewDirection, missliberties, bogdanmi, MKS, YellowDogBlue, TXsharon, HeedTheMessenger, Rico, Daniel Donner, Caldonia, Jill Lehnert, Black Maned Pensator, DeanFan84, attydave, applegal, Eddie Haskell, 4jkb4ia, CAKE, inclusiveheart, TheJohnny, GenXWho, bwintx, Levity, txbirdman, ybruti, mattes, mungley, NapaJulie, SanDiegoDem, Marianne Benz, Steven D, DarkSyde, BigBite, KingPing, iliketodrum, goldberry, Gowrie Gal, rapala, Oleboy, vcmvo2, jonathan94002, Desert Rose, historys mysteries, Bluesee, whodat527, Treg, Doolittle Sothere, CTBlogger, Rick Oliver, ichibon, jfdunphy, Elise, Alegre, LarisaW, ek hornbeck, PBen, Webster, Luetta, station wagon, juliesie, stagemom, amRadioHed, boofdah, NeuvoLiberal, LNK, truebeliever, Karmafish, jimreyn, calderonn, Overseas, annefrank, QuickSilver, another American, libbie, lasky57, Sharon Jumper, dspivak, Cannabis, wiscmass, sbdenmon, Shaking the Tree, deepsouthdoug, Cory Bantic, Unduna, Spathiphyllum, proudprogressiveCA, Indiana Bob, soyinkafan, missouri reader, mariva, Alkibiadesdog, ThaliaR, esquimaux, zot23, mrd in nyc, trashablanca, Liberal Protestant, MissInformation, Nightprowlkitty, Keone Michaels, ama, BlueInARedState, sfsalty, dorothy in oz, Gorette, martyc35, smokeymonkey, theadmiral, buhdydharma, compbear, Jordan LFW, Wary, carolita, KDANTEATER, Lolligolli, jlove1982, ormondotvos, TalkieToaster, global citizen, willy mugobeer, imabluemerkin, Iranaqamuk, CTLiberal, Wbythebay, middleagedhousewife, TayTay, Wage Warrior II, Mad 60, Jiminy Cricket, va dare, fiddlingnero, blueness, pissedpatriot, Lew2006, mariachi mama, AndrewOG, Joelarama, AmericanRiverCanyon, dpinzow, Feeling Blue, Balam, Cat Whisperer, DeannaHawk

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site