Barack on Iraq

Dear Elephant-

With January 3rd fast approaching, let me give my official Donkey endorsement to the best candidate in the race. Mr. Barack Obama. Perhaps the best way to illustrate the many reasons I support Obama is to post the text of a speech he gave on going to war with Iraq. While we were not fortunate enough to have a leader of Obama's intellect, courage, and vision in the critical time following September 11th, we can now hope that through his candidacy we can get this country back on the right track.


Remarks of Illinois State Sen. Barack Obama Against Going to War with Iraq
| October 02, 2002


Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don't oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain. I don't oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the President today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings. You want a fight, President Bush?

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

Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil. Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not -- we will not -- travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.


Peace,

Donkey

Uh Oh, Clinton Mistress Likes Romney

CNN Reports:
LAS VEGAS (AP) — The one-time other woman in Hillary Clinton's life says she's considering casting her vote for the former first lady.

"I can't help but want to support my own gender, and she's as experienced as any of the others — except maybe Joe Biden," Gennifer Flowers said in a recent telephone interview from her home in Las Vegas.

Flowers said she is still undecided, supports abortion rights and has long wanted to see a woman in the White House.

"I would love to see a woman president, I just didn't think it would be her," Flowers said.

In the 1992 presidential race, the former television reporter claimed to have had a 12-year affair with then-candidate and Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton. Clinton initially denied the allegation, but later, during his deposition in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case, acknowledged a single sexual encounter with Flowers.

Today the media frenzy, the book tour and the Penthouse shoot is behind her. The defamation suit she once filed against Hillary Clinton was dismissed. The 57-year-old lounge singer says she plans to stay far away from presidential politics.

"I don't have any interest whatsoever in getting back out there and bashing Hillary Clinton," Flowers said.

That's not to say she isn't watching the race closely. Democratic Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, she said, is "smart, sexy and experienced." She liked Clinton's response to a question about immigration at a recent debate in Las Vegas ("I like the way she was so definite about it, the others are trying to play to the middle.")

Mitt Romney is also on the short list, though in general "the GOP has yet to start impressing me," said Flowers, a registered nonpartisan who has recently voted Republican.

Huckabee's Willie Horton

Apparently Huckabee pressured parole board members to free a convicted rapist, who after being released raped and murdered a woman in Kansas City. What's frightening is it's looking more and more like Huckabee wanted the criminal paroled for political and "religious" reasons. Here's the story.

Oh, and as for Willie Horton, he's the murderer who doomed Michael Dhukakis' presidential race against George Bush in 1988. If Huckabee somehow made it to the general elections, the dems would use this story to dash any hope he has for the presidency. Huckabee will lose his presidency bid for this gross error in judgment. I think you can mark my words on this one.

Another Rudy Scandal

Hey Elephant-

What do you think about the recent Rudy Shag Fund Scandal? When is this stuff going to start sticking to him? How can he still be the GOP front runner? Hopefully Democrats can do a better job than his current Republican rivals are at holding him accountable. This guy would be a mess as a President.

Donkey

Reply to City upon a Hill

Aw Donkey, protection, reformation, and deterrence; the post reminds me of late nights, pizza, and flow charts in the good ol' days studying criminal law. 

Instead of telling you why the death penalty protects society better than life in prison (no parol and no prison escapes from the death penalty; essentially, no chance of recidivism plaguing society again), why it reforms perpetrators better than life in prison (somebody facing death is forced to think long term--I mean, really long term), and why it deters murder more than life in prison (frankly, death scares most people more than blank prison walls), let me just say that the majority of your post fails to consider another equally important rationale for how we administer justice--proportionality.

In law, proportionality is what we refer to when we say, "Let the punishment fit the crime." So when you ask why immigrants shouldn't face the death penalty, my reply is that illegal immigration is not commensurate with the punishment of death. But death does fit the crime of death, especially since a murderer facing the death penalty often has killed many people or has committed the most egregious type of murder, like that of Baby Jane.

Returning to forgiveness, in my mind that argument just doesn't fly when we're talking about a justice system. As a society, we are not asked to forgive murderers. We are not asked to forget the grotesque circumstances surrounding a loved one's death at the hands of a murderer. We are not asked to turn the other cheek when our child washes ashore in a cardboard box in Galveston Bay. As I said in my last post, God intends that we as a society administer justice. And for many Americans, the proper combination of protectionism, reformation, deterrence, and proportionality only comes in the form of the death penalty when dealing with murder; that is, we "affirm the right to life by punishing those who violate it in the most strict form."

Perhaps we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

--Sir Elephant, the perhaps not-so-gifted Master of the Scientific Method

A City Upon A Hill

Sir Elephant-

I apologize if I misstated your previous argument. As to your brilliant hypothetical, I have no doubt that the death penalty deters murder, but does it deter more murder than life in prison? I am not convinced that the answer to that question is yes, even in your hypothetical. And statistical analysis on that very question is at best inconclusive. Moreover there are many other cases or hypotheticals where the answer is most likely no. Such as the story of Baby Jane.

Second, if in fact the death penalty does have a greater deterrent effect, shouldn't we apply that punishment to criminals convicted of other crimes? Child Molesters, rapists? What about non-sexual child abuse or kidnapping? Aren't we equally concerned with obtaining additional deterrence of those crimes? Now that I think about it, you have found the perfect Republican solution to the immigration problem. You should run on this Elephant, I really think you could win the nomination. If you think the Republican base gets excited about building a wall, wait until they hear this. After all, the immigrants are here ILLEGALLY.

But I digress. The reason why the death penalty is more vengeful and unforgiving than life in prison is because justice is the primary rationale for choosing to execute prisoners. As you state in your previous post, "that's the punishment that we as a society have determined that justice demands." But other punishments such as life in prison have different primary rationales behind them, such as protection, reformation, and deterrence. That is why the penalty of life in prison is not necessarily more vengeful than the penalty of 6 months in prison. We lock people away for life because they are dangerous, and because a penalty of 6 months in prison would not achieve the goals of protection and deterrence. But we execute people because they deserve it, not because life in prison does not deter murder or protect society from the murderer.

Now you can point to studies that may show the death penalty deters more murder, but at bottom that is not the reason why you or anyone else supports capital punishment. You support it because you feel justice demands it. You are outraged when you hear stories like that of Baby Jane. Those murderers do not deserve to live. I understand that position as I have often had similar feelings myself. But I do not see that position as consistent with the spirit of forgiveness. A spirit exemplified by the good people of this country, and a spirit that should be embodied in the policies of this great nation. We should set an example for the rest of the world. We should be "a city upon a hill" or "a model of christian charity." As Winthrop said in that famous speech, we should "love mercy." By doing so we light a higher path, affirming the morals and faith which make up the fabric of our country.

Peace, Love, & Life,

Donkey

Response to the Deterrent Effect of the Death Penalty

Donkey,

Evidently I need to reread my posts before publishing them. I didn't mean to imply the debate about the deterrent effects of the death penalty are no longer contested. The debate definitely continues. My point was that in the past several years more conclusive studies have emerged suggesting that the death penalty does in fact deter murder. And I don't think anybody reading those studies should be surprised that people criticize the studies' methodologies, as you pointed out. After all, there's a lot at stake here. But remember, for every person who criticizes the study, there's also somebody who supports it--often an academic just like the critics you pointed to.

But since we're on the subject of flawed studies, let me put forth one of my own. Let's say John Doe is premeditating the murder of his wife. According to Doe, she's a mean, nasty ol' lady and he's tired of her constant nagging. John Doe is a lawyer and he plans to commit the perfect crime (yes, we've heard this story before). He obviously understands the law, and he knows the repercussions of his pre-meditated actions. After all, they are PRE-MEDITATED; he has lots and lots of time to think about it. Can you tell me than under no circumstance will the thought of the death penalty deter Mr. Doe from preceding with his plan? Because if you can't, then there's a CHANCE that the death penalty may deter a murder. And in my mind, if there's a chance we can save one innocent child, one innocent mother, one innocent bystander, then that chance, combined with several other reasons (some of which we have already discussed), is enough for me to support the death penalty.

And quite frankly, I think there's much more than a chance that the death penalty deters murder; in fact, I think the death penalty does deter murder, just like a ticket deters speeding and the threat of jail time deters drug dealing, perhaps not in all instances but in many and that's all that matters.

--Sir Elephant, Master of the Scientific Method