U.S. Sends Envoy to Hiroshima for First Time

by: Mike Collins

Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 14:54:08 PM MDT

As if fire bombing Tokyo wasn't enough, to paraphrase McNamara regarding his and LeMay's part in the bombing campaigns (In Europe and Japan), "If we had not won the war we would have been found guilty of war crimes."  Same holds true for Vietnam, where the casualties for the US Marines were the worst of any war in its history.  The tally for the Vietnamese was over 3 million, mostly civilians.

Published on Thursday, March 10, 2005 by CommonDreams.org  
Firebombing Tokyo: Legacies of War and Memory  
by John Nelson

One of the most devastating attacks ever directed at civilians by the U.S. government--an event few remember-- occurred sixty years ago this week. On the nights of March 9th and 10th, 1945, some 334 B-29 bombers dropped 1,665 tons of napalm-filled bombs on the densely-populated city of Tokyo. Over 100,000 people were killed in the ensuing firestorm--more casualties than in the atomic bombs dropped on either Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Sixteen square miles of urban neighborhoods--constructed of wood and populated largely by civilians--were completely incinerated, leaving homeless nearly 1.15 million survivors. As justification for this attack, historians cite the military's strategy to destroy civilian morale as well as household manufacturing units supporting Japan's war effort.

http://www.commondreams.org/vi...

Bill Clinton Loves Him Some Andrew Romanoff

by: Colorado Pols

Tue Jun 29, 2010 at 13:48:56 PM MDT

This is easily Romanoff's most significant endorsement (no offense, Dennis Apuan), and now he has a Democratic President to match Barack Obama's support of incumbent Sen. Michael Bennet. So the big question: Who has Jimmy Carter?

SB 191 moves to the House - and Progressives should support it

by: lauriehzeller

Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 07:07:45 AM MDT

The Colorado Senate voted  tonight on SB 191, Senator Michael Johnston's bill to reform teacher tenure, end forced placement and provide a measured, nuanced approach to measuring the effectiveness of teachers and principals, framing the work of the Governor's Council on Education Effectiveness.  

As a member of ProgressNow, I received an email an hour after the Senate vote, urging me to oppose it. ProgressNow got it wrong on the facts - The bill doesn't develop or implement a teacher evaluation system system. It makes recommendations about the measurement of teacher effectiveness, which will be considered over several years by the council appointed by the Governor - which includes teachers.

Brooking on the VAT: The VAT is a Revenue Machine

by: CoalCreekWildfire

Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 09:25:24 AM MDT

"We will get a VAT when Democrats realize [it is] a revenue machine... three cheers for Paul Volcker!"

"Federal government spending was 26% of GDP and revenue 15%..."

We must overhaul the tax system to increase transparency, reduce fraud and waste, maintain progressivity, and eliminate the bias towards bigger families.

Obama Will Stump for Bennet

by: Colorado Pols

Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 13:07:56 PM MST

The White House has confirmed that President Barack Obama will visit Colorado in February to attend an event with U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet.

White House spokesman Adam Abrams said Thursday that the details are still being worked out.

Craig Hughes, Bennet's campaign manager, says Obama will be in Colorado to campaign for the senator, who is running for election. A date hasn't been set.

The Biggest Threat to the Middle Class

by: Vincent Lynn

Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 10:40:27 AM MST

High Taxes?  No.  Rush Limbaugh?  Nope.  Rising health care costs?  Not even close.  Terrorism?  C'mon, be serious.  Ok, so what is it?  Fox News.  Seriously.

Ok, this may sound ridiculous at first but hear me out.  Fox News is the leader in cable news and cable tv ratings...by a long shot Cable Ratings 1/25.  Fox has more viewers than CNN, HLN, and MSNBC combined.  Why is this a threat to the middle class?  Fox continually lacks journalistic standards like reporting the truth, researching stories, and with almost every story they contradict their slogan of "We report. You decide."  For those on the left, I'm preaching to the choir.  For those on the right, you think I'm drunk on liberal Kool-aid.  For those in the apathetic majority, you aren't reading this because it's on a political blog and you are (a)pathetic.  However, this apathetic majority also makes up the majority of the middle class and voting bloc.  

I think that people of all political stripes would agree that Fox is at the very least conservative leaning and has a history of not-so high journalistic standards.  The problem this presents for the middle class is that, based on the ratings, 5 times as many people are getting their news from Fox News and their conservative opinion shows.  Sure, there are a lot of the hardcore conservatives that make up that audience, but by the numbers the apathetic majority is much more likely to get their news from Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, or Sean Hannity.  This presents a problem because these folks have shown time and time again that they have no problem bending, stretching, or flat out disregarding the truth when it comes to reporting (See Death Panels, Birth Certificates, et al).  

Republicans may argue that the MSM does the same thing for the left and that their audience is much larger than Fox.  MSNBC would fit that criteria, but their audience isn't even a 1/3 of Fox News. The big 3 may have left leaning anchors, but their stories are generally centrist/right according to most media watch groups.  

Democrats need to combat this stranglehold that Fox News has on the news media or risk losing the middle class on issues that are core to their success (ARRA, Health Reform, Middle Class Tax cuts, Alternative Energy).  If you only listen to 10 minutes of news/politics a day and you hear that Obamacare is going to create death panels, raise your taxes, and take you away from your doctor it is no wonder why you would have a negative opinion about what Democrats are trying to do.  

Democrats can keep coming up with great ideas to help the struggling middle class, but until they develop a way to counter the right wing media reach into the middle class, they will never succeed in the court of public opinion.

Stop Messing Around in Our State

by: Pam Bennett

Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 07:01:35 AM MST

So far Obama has gotten his choice of a Senator, but he has not stopped there.  With Ritter heading to the "Former Gov's" portrait and plaque lounge we have a lot of drama and fun of speculating who from a good half dozen qualified Democratic Party members will pick up the tee and plant it in the box for the next hole (See I can do sports talk too).  But right from the start we have been smothered with ". . . the White House would like . . ." talk.

First we have the White House stepping in to take our elected Senator from us.  It was K. Salazar whom the White House took for Interior Sec. A great move, Ken Salazar will be one of the best of the Interior Secretary's  .   Which set up Bennet becoming the appointed Senator replacing Salazar. I would rather be a Senator than an Education Sec. any day myself (that is spelled Bennett).  It is a guaranteed lifelong job, unless someone who has faced election and public office and was the Speaker of the House, such as Romanoff, decides to let the good voters of Colorado have a choice.  That really upset the White House and the 100 most powerful men in the country.  

Afghan Strategy Flawed?

by: Thorntondem

Sun Dec 06, 2009 at 09:45:53 AM MST

Listening to the President several days ago, it sounds like the reason why we are sending more troops is to defeat AlQaeda. That sounds like a reasonable objective. Afterall, these extremists are the one's who caused nearly 3,000 innocent lives lost on September 11th. However, the AlQaeda are now in Pakistan. Aren't they? How will sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan assist in that objective? Seems to me, if you send more troops to Afghanistan the AlQaeda will move deeper into Pakistan. If we are sincerely going over there to get the AlQaeda and the Taliban that support those terrorists then shouldn't we be sending troops to where the enemy is?

We should be coordinating with Pakistan, and assisting Pakistan in getting rid of this Alqaeda threat. We could even have fast moving, small teams ready to assist if these AlQaeda move to the Afghan side of the border or if Pakistan will atleast turn their head when we strike inside the Pakistani border. This strategy that I am proposing does not require a surge of 30,000 American men and women. It requires strong, thoughtful diplomacy with Pakistan and very small strike teams that can accomplish our objective.

Seems to me, the President's strategy is what I would call the nation building-lite strategy. If the true objective is getting rid of AlQaeda, then the strategy of sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan is wrong.

I caucused for then, Senator Obama way back in February 2008 because I wanted a President that would drastically change the direction of this country. The horrendous domestic and foriegn  policy of the last administration has set us back a generation.

I appreciate President Obama's willingness to work on HealthCare, but, I fear that this Afghanistan priority will take away from the momentum we have on focusing on other domestic policy changes needed and economic priorities.

OFA: 300K Calls to Congress Tuesday

by: peacemonger

Wed Oct 21, 2009 at 01:59:46 AM MDT

Your voice was overwhelming -- with reports in the media of congressional offices "completely crushed with calls." CBS News described your effort as an "onslaught." And a congressional aide was quoted with a common response, saying their office was deluged by "pretty much non-stop health care calls from OFA.

OFA set an ambitious goal of 100,000 calls to Congress, and by 2:30pm eastern, a new goal of 200,000 was set.  At several points throughout the day, all phone numbers to CO legislators were busy. The Colorado Democratic Party Headquarters, home of the CO OFA, was hopping with volunteers making hundreds of calls, tying up all the phones in the process.  Many Obama supporters responded to robodial calls and emails urging them to contact their Member of Congress by emailing them instead. Twitter had so many tweets, it asked people to come back later.  

Is it time for Obama to blink ?

by: allyncooper

Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 07:46:37 AM MDT

As the wars drag on (year 6 for Iraq with 140,000 troops still there) and 8 years for Afghanistan, there are rumblings from Obama's own party about current policy in the conduct of these wars in general, and Afghanistan in particular.  

Iraq, for time being at least, appears to have stabilized, albeit at a cost far greater than anyone had imagined at the time of the invasion. On the other hand, the situation in Afghanistan is deteriorating. Perhaps this "nation building" thing isn't as easy as we were led to believe.

Obama has been presented with a request from his military commanders for another increase in troops levels in Afghanistan. General McChystal, the commander Obama put in charge of the war earlier this year, has asked for another 30,000 to 40,000 troops on top of the current U.S. force of 68,000. Several months ago an additional 21,000 troops were asked for, and approved, by Obama. But the latest request would mean the U.S. would have more than doubled its troop levels this year, to a troop level exceeding 100,000.

Commander in Chief Obama is carefully and deliberately seeking counsel on this. The U.S. seems to be at a tipping point in the war in Afghanistan, and policy discussions should be engaged beyond the immediate request for more troops. The hard question that has to be asked, and truthfully answered, is the U.S. effort in Afghanistan vital to the "war on terrorism", or has this mission become counterproductive in that effort, draining us of resources that could be used more productively. In essence, is the war in Afghanistan vital to the national security of the United States?

The parallels of the current situation in Afghanistan with our tormented involvement in Vietnam are very apparent. We were told Vietnam was vital to the national security of the U.S. because if Vietnam fell to the communists, all of Asia would likely become communist under the "domino theory". Of course, that never happened, so one of the main premises for being there was not valid.

After the Tet offensive in January 1968, Commander William Westmoreland requested to President Johnson a 206,000 troop increase in Vietnam which would have brought total U.S. troop levels in Vietnam to 740,000. Johnson blinked, called a bombing halt, approved only 22,000 additional troops, and abdicated the throne. The proverbial "light at the end of the tunnel" never got any brighter.

We have to ask is Afghanistan really worth it? Is it really vital to our national security and the "war on terrorism" ?  Are there better and more productive ways to combat terrorism than committing over 100,000 American troops in a virtually ungovernable region when history tells us our chances of success are elusive at best ?  The Russians were there for ten years with 150,000 troops in what was arguably their sphere of influence, and at the end of the day they blinked. Given the political realities of this impoverished feudal non-state, is it simply a black hole with no light at the end of the tunnel?

Commander in Chief Obama must make some  difficult decisions concerning our Afghanistan policy in the next few weeks. If he approves the troop increase, he has officially adopted this war as his own, for better or worse.

Or is it time for Obama to blink?

Obama Endorses Bennet

by: Colorado Pols

Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 18:00:40 PM MDT

President Barack Obama endorsed U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet today, throwing the force of the White House into a Democratic primary battle that officially is just over a day old.

"Families in Colorado and across America need (Bennet) in the United States Senate to help us revitalize our economy, improve our public schools and pass health-insurance reform," Obama said in a statement released by the White House.

"Michael has had my full support from day one, and I look forward to working with him in the Senate for years to come."

The direct endorsement of a president still enormously popular among progressive voters is perhaps the biggest hammer that national Democrats can bring to Bennet's primary battle against former Colorado House Speaker Andrew Romanoff, and they wasted no time in wielding it.

Some Democratic operatives in the state were unsure how strongly Obama would weigh in, if at all, given Romanoff's popularity among the party's rank and file. Romanoff began a three-city kickoff tour just yesterday.

But faced with a race that has the potential to trip up the party's efforts to consolidate its gains in the Rocky Mountain West, national Democrats have quickly rallied behind Bennet, who was appointed to the seat vacated by Ken Salazar less than nine months ago.

Teabaggers to Descend on Grand Junction

by: ThillyWabbit

Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:51:27 PM MDT

And how about that Denver Post providing free, unlimited tea party promotion for Polster and Dick Armey FreedomWorks blogger Ross Kaminsky?

---

I'm on several of the teabagger lists and forums, and it's clear that they are organizing to turn out at President Obama's town hall forum on health care this Saturday.

On a site for 9/12er assault rifle aficionados (I will not give them or any other right-wing site link juice, Use Google.), the clarion call is to bring the "violent and agressive" [sic] tactics to the President's town hall that attendees have previously brought to Congressional town meetings. Another poster asked, "What about concealed carry.."

According to the Douglas County GOP, Jack Abramoff's "grassroots lobbying" firm Americans for Prosperity is conducting a "Hands Off my Healthcare" rally at which "it is vitally important that Colorado Republicans make every effort to have a strong presence."

Obama Not a Secret Muslim After All

by: Yokel

Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 06:59:31 AM MDT

But something kept bugging me:  The great, bolded sub-title emblazoned on the screen:
OBAMA SPEAKS TO MUSLIM WORLD.

Restoring Stem Cell Research - now and beyond

by: Diana DeGette

Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 13:19:32 PM MDT

And I am proud that he has acted on expanding embryonic stem cell research.

As a pro-science president, he has taken the first step in ensuring that the United States regains it preeminence in cutting-edge research by overturning the current restrictions on embryonic stem cell research. Finally, after eight years of roadblocks, millions of patients and their families now have hope for a cure. As the chief architect of bipartisan legislation passed by both a Republican and Democratic Congress, President Obama's decision is to be applauded.

CNN:Obama to sign Stimulus in Denver

by: wade norris

Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 17:42:38 PM MST

Is Denver and Colorado becoming the epicenter
of all things political? First the Convention,
then top targeting for Red to Blue in the general,
and now...?
The place Obama is announcing his first big move as
POTUS - The much needed and Republican opposed Stimulus package.
Read on...

The Pilgrimage

by: dslater

Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 08:55:32 AM MST

I'm in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania this morning. Yep, Harrisburg. Yesterday, we spent the entire day hopping from airport to airport to end up here - just a couple of hours north of our final destination: Washington DC.

It is a little reminescent of my first trip to Washington DC, way back in January 1993. Back then, a few of us Young Democrats from my school packed into a compact car and made the 20-hour drive from Norman, Oklahoma to watch the President we helped elect become, well, President. It was a breath-taking and exciting experience. But it was nothing like this time.

This time, I'm feeling a lot more emotional.

Barack Obamas' paternal grandfather tortured by British

by: Fidel's dirt nap

Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 10:13:46 AM MST

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t...

Just thought I would put it up because it is some pretty damn fascinating stuff.

Obama's father Barack Obama Sr. was briefly imprisoned by the British as well for attending a Kenyan National African Union (Kanu) meeting.  According to the article Obama Sr. inherited this disdain of the Brits from his father.

Caption Time

by: redstateblues

Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 11:33:43 AM MST

Take your best shot.

You know the 'pubs have given up already when...

by: Aristotle

Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 04:56:18 AM MST

Impeach, expel Barack Obama

 Why investigate Senator Obama?
 Barack Obama was in the Illinois Senate for 8 years and was
 elected to the US Senate from Illinois in 2004. Senator Obama
 has been rushed to the forefront of the Democrat Party
 without being vetted for his integrity and credentials to
 be the Democrat Party's candidate for president. Little was
 known about the senator from Illinois until the past year.
 However, the investigations of the Federal Government,
 indictments by Patrick Fitzgerald, testimony during the
 Tony Rezko trial and research by those without ties to
 the Democrat Party, have unearthed volumes of incriminating
 evidence about Senator Obama that are of grave concern. The
 grass roots effort behind this website and petition has
 evolved out of the concern of millions of caring citizens.

Internet veterans can have fun counting the tell-tale signs of the webmaster's nuttiness based on this snippet alone. I counted three the first time.

HT to SLOG.

Top 10 Reasons NOT to Vote for Obama

by: hanksaz

Sun Nov 02, 2008 at 08:57:57 AM MST

10. Education and Health Care - Obama's record in Chicago speaks volumes here.  Chicago has one of the worst educational systems in America and he did absolutely nothing to improve it.  He has no clear policy on Education for America either.  We all know everyone should be able to afford college for our kids but where's the plan to make that happen?  Health Care is another joke.  Again he did nothing in Chicago to make any improvements in their system.  His policy for America would force small businesses into providing a service they can't afford or penalize them thru fines for not doing so.  How will that help when you lose your job because costs have now gone up and they can't afford to keep you.  You'll be without a job AND health care then!
9. Foreign policy is a danger sign.  Sitting down unconditionally with terrorist nations is in the countries worst interest.  In addition, he has no foreign policy experience having never been to most of these countries or met their leaders.  Even the leader of Italy recently said after meeting Obama that he had serious doubts about his knowledge or ability to lead the US.  Who has recently supported Obama....Libya said 3 weeks ago that the Muslim community is watching closely in anticipation of their African Muslim brother gaining control of the richest, most influential country in the world.  
8. Redistribution of wealth policy - why work when you can sit back and receive a check from those that do?!  Redistribution is much different from our current policy.  Our taxes support those in need through the funding of programs meant to help those in need.  Redistribution will assume everyone below a certain number is in need and then give money to them regardless of the circumstance.  So again....why work when you can just get a check?
7. Tax policy - Obama's voting record shows he voted 94 times against tax cuts in while in Chicago after promising those constituent tax cuts.  Do you think all of a sudden he's for them now?  First it was those making less than $250,000 would get a tax cut, then he said it was $200,000, then Biden said it was $150,000, and the latest is from Richardson who now says it's $104,000.  Which is it?  AND...raising taxes on the upper percentile of Americans will severely reduce our capability to grow the economy.  Who do you think owns the businesses, funds business expansion, hires Americans when business is able to increase?  Like it or not, it's the upper percentile of Americans!  They take the risk with their money.  If you raise their taxes, they will have less to invest, less to expand their businesses which equates to no growth and less jobs.  Even a 5th grader understands this basic concept!!
6. Campaign Funding - misled McCain and others after shaking hands and decided to take private funding, much of which has gone unverified.  This was a calculated lie meant to deceive the public and McCain.  And how much has come from overseas from countries that want to sway the election?  Where's the verification that it has all been legal?  This is exactly why the McCain-Feingold bill was past.  Obama has spent almost $1 Billion dollars in his campaign and will have millions left over afterwards.  And as if he had won the election already, aired his first state of the union address to the nation with a ½ infomercial last week.  With this kind of dishonesty, can you trust him with the US Treasury?  
5. War in Iraq - Obama speaks about how he opposed the war and spoke out about it at the time.  To who?  He wasn't even in the US Senate then!  In addition, he continues to deny the surge works and will pull our troops out within 12 months of taking office regardless of the conditions, consequences or advice of those in country.  Our troops will come home disgraced and defeated leaving a gaping hole in Iraq for rogue nations to fill, thus destabilizing the Middle East for years to come.
4. National Security - Obama's plans for Nat'l Security includes: reducing the military at a time when America needs to continue our war on terrorism, repealing the Patriot's Act that has provided invaluable information to pre-empt further attacks in the US and other free nations, reducing spending on advanced military weaponry such as our missile defense initiatives and advanced fighter capability.  In addition, Obama has never shown he's been a supporter of the military community, demonstrated by his one trip to Iraq and Afghanistan after being ridiculed by McCain for never having visited.
3. Past Associations - like it or not, Obama's past associations should be a concern to every American.  Consider:  20 years in a congregation with a preacher delivering sermon after sermon full of hate for the white American community, even calling him the father he never had in his book;  having his Chicago campaign launched by a well know terrorist and then gaining and sitting on a Board with the same man for many years; having a long term close relationship with Farrakhan and his organization for years throughout his career; and now we find ties to a known Palestinian supporter who advocates death to Israel. And why is the LA Times not releasing the tape of the event where these two, along with Ayers attended? The latest is also his Aunt who we find out yesterday is in the country illegally.  Of course Obama claims he didn't know anything about that either.  His own family??  Wake up everyone.....he has been lying about these associations.  Ask yourself this.... who have we not heard about??
2. Energy Policy - advocates only wind, solar and biodiesel fuels are viable options. Only supported more drilling and the "potential" for nuclear when pushed against the wall.   Denies that drilling will provide quicker relief while other fuels are developed.  Why do we only get his attention and endorsement of considering all avenues when he's pushed against the wall politically.  
1. Lack of Experience - ask yourself this question before you pull the lever, check the box or punch the chad through the paper on Tuesday.......if I was the owner of the US and had both resumes side by side - who has the most experience, credentials, and proven results?  It's not about who had the best speech, was able to pull in the crowds, etc.....it's about who is best qualified and had the proven experience and on the job education for the position.  You wouldn't even interview one of the candidates if the resumes were side by side.  The choice is clear.....John McCain should be your choice!