I Never Saw So Many People Gathered to Watch C-SPAN Before

I just got back from watching the inauguration at the historic Senator Theatre. I never thought I'd see so many people gathered to watch C-SPAN. It truly IS a new day in America when that happens! The 900 seat theatre had standing room only, and a very enthusiastic crowd.

The event was organized as a food drive, so the cost of admission was canned food. It looked like a lot of food was donated, so hopefully this is a big help to the GEDCO/CARES food pantry, which reports that it is seeing a record number of clients. I think their representative at the event said demand has doubled in the past few months.

It was really NICE to see the end of the Bush administration. I loved it when Bush waved to the crowd at the end of the inauguration and people in the audience shouted "BYE!" That was a good feeling. We can all breathe a bit easier now, for sure.

Obama gave a speech that touched on many important points, and I hope he is serious about green energy and job creation, and I certainly wish him the best in turning our country around and getting us out of this grave situation. Good luck, Mr. President, because you are sure going to need it.

I also hope he's serious about really bringing people of different backgrounds together and working toward the day when we can have peace. But I've got news for him. It's a lot closer than we think. Iraq? This is a war of choice. We could lay down our arms there right now, if we wanted to. We hear less about Afghanistan, but that seems to be a similar situation.

I was disappointed to hear him start off his speech by saying we're at war with a network of haters all around the world, because I don't think that's accurate. I think we're in wars of choice in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think there are a relatively small number of criminals (terrorists) around the world who hate us, but to call our struggle with them a war is an exaggeration that serves only to keep the American people fearful, distract us from more important issues, and inflate the egos of the terrorists, probably encouraging them somewhat.

In other words, if we really want peace, when are we going to make it a priority? Because we could do that. It's a matter of choice. Obama ought to act on Dennis Kucinich's idea of a Department of Peace, as well as end the wars ASAP. And this notion of a global war on terror really is silly, so let's recognize that as well.

I was glad to hear him talk about how we don't have to give up our values and our liberties for security, and I liked his rather pointed criticism of the Bush administration, even if he didn't specify who exactly he was talking about.

So, there was a lot of hope in Obama's speech, but also a disapointing amount of same-old, same-old. Really, as far as I can tell, the terrorists are a bogey man that our leaders like to use to scare us, keep us in line, and distract us. They also use them as an excuse to start wars of choice so war profiteers can make money. I wish Obama would just admit that. But I suspect all leaders like to have an enemy they can blame when times get rough.

Anyway, with cautious optimism I will say it looks like there will be some improvements, and they are certainly needed.

In the spirit of service to the community which Obama mentioned, I don't want to forget to give a plug here for the Senator Theatre, which hosted the event. This is a real old architectural gem of a movie theatre from the 1930s. I just love the old Art Deco theatres. This is one of the few left. It also happens to be in my neighborhood, for which I am lucky.

The Senator has had a lot of trouble over the years remaining open as a historic, single-screen theatre. Right now I know they are looking at turning it into a nonprofit to keep it going. There's a community meeting there at 10:30 AM on Thursday, January 22nd. If you're in Baltimore, I hope you can make it. In the words of the theatre's web site:

Join us this Thursday, January 22nd at 10:30am for a communal call to action and express your support for The Senator remaining in operation as it transitions to become the region's premiere, community owned non-profit Arts & Entertainment Venue.

The mid to long-term prognosis for The Senator Theatre after its transition to non-profit ownership and operation appears promising, even in this economy. The immediate short-term status of the theatre,however, has become very precarious.

Like a nasty flu that sickens the healthy but can kill those who are already weak, the downturn in the economy has placed the operational status of The Senator, and its future, in great jeopardy.

To prevent a devastating shutdown, The Senator's economic viability must be quickly addressed among all those who share a vested interest in the theatre maintaining its near 70 year unbroken chain of day to day operation.

I'll try to keep blogging in this new year about what's happening with the Senator. I'd really like to see it preserved.

John Edwards: A Tough New Strategy Against Terrorism

Yesterday, in a major policy speech at Pace University in New York, John Edwards laid out a tough new strategy against terrorism that is winning rave reviews in the press and the blogosphere. Matthew Yglesias of the Atlantic blog calls it "brilliant."

CNN gave a fair review of the speech, even if their report did fit the mold of typically shallow mainstream media reporting:

Edwards shows that he is using creative thinking to come up with smart new ideas on how to not only combat existing terrorists, but prevent new terrorists from being recruited. He rightly points out that the Bush administration has used outmoded thinking and that their approach has made us less safe, not safer.

There is now only one key question we must ask ourselves: are we any closer to getting rid of terrorism than we were six years ago? And the terrible answer is no, we're further away. Today, terrorism is worse in Iraq, and it's worse around the world. So what does all this mean? It means the results are in on George Bush's so-called "global war on terror" and it's not just a failure, it's a double-edged failure.

The Bush approach hasn't only made the terror problem worse. The Administration has rigidly stuck to outdated approaches that are ineffective against the modern terrorist threat. We need a counterterrorism policy that will actually counter terrorism. That matches 21st century threats with 21st century tactics. That replaces Cold War thinking designed to defeat a single, implacable enemy with new world thinking that can defeat a multi-national, diverse, and often hidden foe—not just now, but for the long-term. That's strong, fast, and hard enough to stop terrorists cold, but also smart, honest, and prescient enough to draw people away from terrorism in the first place.

The strategy that Edwards proposes is groundbreaking and comprehensive, and he went into it in good detail in his speech. But the Bush administration has become an irresistible target to just about everyone, so it's kind of fun to listen to Edwards smack Bush hard a few times.

President Bush, like the Republicans following him today and even some Democrats, was stuck in the past, and he still is. He had no grasp of the new threats we faced, so he failed to offer a vision to keep us safe in a world that had changed. Saddam Hussein was the threat he knew, so Iraq was the war he waged.

We needed new thinking and a bold vision to protect the world for our children; instead, George Bush literally gave us his father's war—but without his father's allies or his father's sense of decency. What's more and what's worse, the so-called "war on terror" he used as his excuse for war in Iraq became his excuse for trampling our Constitution and, most perversely, for ignoring the demands of the actual struggle against terrorism. Because in George Bush's reality, disagreement is called weak, challenge is suspect, and opposition downright unpatriotic.

Six years later, the devastating consequences of the Bush "war on terror" doctrine are so clear that his own Administration has had to admit them.

A recent National Intelligence Estimate found that Al Qaeda is now as strong as it was before 9/11. In a recent survey of America's most respected foreign policy experts, the vast majority said the world is becoming more dangerous for Americans and the United States. The State Department recently released a study showing that terrorism has increased worldwide 25 percent in 2006, including a 40 percent surge in civilian fatalities.

And as everyone here knows, Osama bin Laden is still at large. Six years ago, President Bush declared that he wanted bin Laden "dead or alive." This is his starkest failure. Apparently, bin Laden plans to address America on the anniversary of 9/11. But I don't need to wait and hear what this murderer has to say. My position is clear. I can make you this solemn promise: as president, I will never rest until we have hunted bin Laden down and served him justice.

Well, all that was a lot of fun, but let's get to the meat of Edwards's proposal. Edwards believes in multilateralism, so at the heart of his new proposal is an international Counterterrorism and Intelligence Treaty Organization (CITO).

As president, I will launch a comprehensive new counterterrorism policy that will be defined by two principles—strength and cooperation.

The centerpiece of this policy will be a new multilateral organization called the Counterterrorism and Intelligence Treaty Organization (CITO).

Every nation has an interest in shutting down terrorism. CITO will create connections between a wide range of nations on terrorism and intelligence, including countries on all continents, including Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Europe. New connections between previously separate nations will be forged, creating new possibilities.

CITO will allow members to voluntarily share financial, police, customs and immigration intelligence. Together, nations will be able to track the way terrorists travel, communicate, recruit, train, and finance their operations. And they will be able to take action, through international teams of intelligence and national security professionals who will launch targeted missions to root out and shut down terrorist cells.

The new organization will also create a historic new coalition. Those nations who join will, by working together, show the world the power of cooperation. Those nations who join will also be required to commit to tough criteria about the steps they will take to root out extremists, particularly those who cross borders. Those nations who refuse to join will be called out before the world.

It's important to note that CITO is not a panacea, nor will it be perfect. But it would represent the first step in a new direction. As President John F. Kennedy observed when he signed the treaty that first limited the testing of nuclear weapons, we must begin with the common recognition of a common danger. President Kennedy said then, "A journey of a thousand miles must begin with a single step." Today, this new anti-terrorism organization would be such a first step.

A major emphasis of this new international effort would be improved human intelligence, and Edwards would work to recruit counterterrorism experts who can relate to local cultures and speak local languages. As part of this effort, scholarships would be provided for students willing to enter the appropriate fields.

Edwards would also emphasize protecting the world from nuclear and chemical weapons, discouraging extremist ideologies at home and abroad, and freeing America from our dependence on oil.

As president, I will create a Global Nuclear Compact to strengthen the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which would support peaceful nuclear programs, improve security for existing stocks of nuclear materials, and ensure more frequent verification that materials are not being diverted and facilities are not being misused. And I will lead an international effort to rid the world of nuclear weapons.

Our chemical plants are also targets for terrorists. A successful attack on any of these targets would be devastating. Because of industry pressure, new watered-down security rules imposed by the Bush Administration may actually weaken security at many chemical plants. I support implementing tough new safety standards at plants vulnerable to terrorist attacks.

We must also work hard here at home to ensure that extremist ideologies do not take hold in our own Muslim communities—and we must do so in a way that respects diversity and civil liberties and avoids practices like racial profiling against both Arabs and Muslims. We must encourage American Muslim participation in public life. I will put new resources toward engaging American Muslims, empowering local mosques to counter extremist ideas, and working hand-in-hand with Muslim communities to identify and isolate threats.

Finally, we must achieve energy independence. If we reduce our reliance on oil from instable parts of the world, Middle Eastern regimes will finally diversify their economies and modernize their societies. And fighting global climate change will reduce global disruptions that could lead to tends of millions of refugees and create massive new breeding grounds for desperation and radicalism.

I like the fact that Edwards is clearly willing to work with other countries that we share interests with, but that he's not going to give them something for nothing. In particular, I was happy to see him clearly state that we have been giving Saudi Arabia too much for too little for too long.

And Saudi Arabia is a country we have given too much in return for too little. We must require the Saudis to do more to stop the flow of terrorists to Iraq. As president, I will condition future arms packages on Saudi Arabia's actions against terrorists.

John Edwards continues to prove that he is the inspirational leader for a new generation, so it is fitting that he closes with a Kennedy-like call to service.

We have a choice today, and it rests in your hands. You are the generation who will help decide whether America will stick with the failed policies of the past, or whether we will aim for the horizon.

Every generation of Americans has faced grave challenges. We have overcome great foes in the past, and we will do so again—in the last century, we closed the chapters on Nazism, Fascism, and Communism through courage, bold new ideas, and strength.

Today, we stand on the shoulders of the generations who faced those challenges in their own time, and who rose to meet them.

Just as they rose to meet the enemies they faced, we must rise to meet ours.

And just as they did, we rise to meet them as Americans.

So challenge your leaders—hold them accountable for creating a safer world. And challenge yourselves—hold yourself accountable for creating a better nation. That is what it means to be American. To reach, to keep on reaching, to never, ever stop reaching for the best that any nation can ever be.

You can watch the entire speech, including the introduction by 9/11 widow Kristen Breitweiser, below:



After the speech, Edwards was interviewed by Talking Points Memo on the Petraeus report and the situation in Iraq.

Edwards slams Republicans on the politics of terror

John Edwards gave a speech today about his plans to combat terrorism. Here's the full transcript:

Remarks by Senator John Edwards
New York, New York
June 7, 2007

For six years George Bush has used the language ‘war on terrorism’ to force through an ideological agenda that undermines our values and does nothing to undermine terrorism. The Bush ‘Global War on Terror Doctrine’ is a political slogan—a political slogan that the president has used to stifle opposition to the biggest uses and worst mistakes of his administration—Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, spying on Americans, torture. None of this has made us safer, and all of it has undermined American values and the perception of American values around the world.

In fact, by the Bush Administration’s own admission, we’re less safe today. Terrorism is on the rise, the Taliban is resurgent, and Al Qaeda is expanding across the Middle East and even into Europe. The Administration’s mismanagement of the war in Iraq and neglect of the situation in Afghanistan has turned both nations into breeding grounds for terrorists. There’s been a 29 percent increase in worldwide terrorism from 2005 to 2006 according to this Administration’s own State Department. And the number of deaths due to terrorism has climbed 40 percent. That’s an increase of 6,000 deaths for a terrible total of more than 20,000.

And this is actually the worst part of Bush’s ‘War on Terror Doctrine’: not only is it a distraction from the real war of stopping terrorists, it’s actually backfired. Today, we have more terrorists and fewer allies. And I want to say that again. Today, as a result of what George Bush has done, we have more terrorists and fewer allies. There was no group called "Al Qaeda in Iraq" before this president’s war in Iraq. But there was nearly global support for America in the period immediately following September the 11th.

The Bush Terror Doctrine actually misunderstands the problem and fails to offer an effective long term solution. This is not a war against a fixed enemy at specific locations that we can defeat just through a constant military operation. And because its origins are political and ideological, it leads to decisions imposed on the military that are sloppy, ill-defined and poorly focused, losing sight of the real mission, which is to protect Americans.

It is no wonder that so many generals and military experts and even leading Republicans have criticized this president’s ‘War on Terror’ approach. General Anthony Zinni has called it a counterproductive doctrine and Admiral William Fallon, the president’s Mideast commander, has instructed his staff to stop using the term ‘long war.’ And even former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has flatly told an interviewer -- this is a quote -- ‘It is not a war on terror,’ end quote, and said that the doctrine was one of his regrets.

We need a smart national security strategy to shut down terrorists, not a political strategy to shut down debate, which is what this president is engaged in. It actually doesn’t help, by the way, that the Republican presidential candidates seem intent on trying to one-up each other to try to be a bigger, badder George Bush. They want to become George Bush on steroids. I hope they, and all the candidates, both Democratic and Republican, will direct their attention to offering real plans to stopping terrorists instead of just political rhetoric.

I want to talk for just a minute about my plan, and what I think we need to do, and what I will do as commander in chief.

I’ll strengthen our military so that we can better address the threat that is posed by terrorist groups to the United States. We’re going to strengthen our force structure. I will hold regular conferences with my top military leadership so that they’re advice is not filtered through civilians—it comes directly to me, as president of the United States. And I will give back military professionals control over operational decisions, not have those operational decisions made by civilians.

Second, I recognize what our military commanders have already made clear. Military action is only one of the tools that should be used to fight terrorism. We have to supplant the lore of violent extremists with the hope of education, opportunity and prosperity. There are today thousands who are committed to violence. I fully recognize that. And they have to be stopped, wherever they are, using whatever means are available to us. But there are millions more who today are sitting on the fence. We have to offer them a hand to our side instead of a shove to the other side of that fence. I’ll launch a global—a sweeping global effort to provide education and fight poverty. Here in the United States we’ll create a 10,000-member-strong Marshall Corps, all to ensure that terrorism does not take root in weak and failing states, which is exactly what is happing in Iraq.

My strategy will actually put America on the offensive footing. We not only will go find terrorists where they are today, using every tool available to us -- military, intelligence, work and information gathered by our allies and alliances -- but also, we’re going to undermine the long term forces of terrorism. We’re going to fight terror—potential terrorists, those who are sitting on the fence, toward us, toward opportunity and hope. And the way we’re going to do it is America is going to lead an international effort that once again reestablishes America as a leader in the world.

I know that there are terrorists who mean us harm today, and they have to be stopped. To suggest otherwise is to do exactly what I have criticized the Bush Administration of doing: to reduce the fight against terrorists to a bumper sticker slogan and use it for political gains. Using fear as a wedge issue may help win elections, but it will not protect Americans. For more than 200 years we have defeated our enemies though strength, through ideas, with confidence and with honor. To win the struggle against terror and uphold the greatness of America, we have to do the same. We have to come together and we have to cast fear aside.

I got the transcript from Tracy Joan's diary on Daily Kos

I particularly love these lines:

And this is actually the worst part of Bush’s ‘War on Terror Doctrine’: not only is it a distraction from the real war of stopping terrorists, it’s actually backfired. Today, we have more terrorists and fewer allies. And I want to say that again. Today, as a result of what George Bush has done, we have more terrorists and fewer allies.

We need a smart national security strategy to shut down terrorists, not a political strategy to shut down debate, which is what this president is engaged in. It actually doesn’t help, by the way, that the Republican presidential candidates seem intent on trying to one-up each other to try to be a bigger, badder George Bush. They want to become George Bush on steroids. I hope they, and all the candidates, both Democratic and Republican, will direct their attention to offering real plans to stopping terrorists instead of just political rhetoric.

Here are some video excerpts: