Skip to main content

For the last week of the Hawaii Democratic Senate primary, I promised a dairy a day to help Akaka, and raise awareness about this race, but that's getting hard! Since we only have two days to go until primary day, I can't stop now, can I?

Hope this doesn't seem lazy, but the email from the campaign listserv today is really good. So I am just going to cut and paste their comparison here. Ironic, because I criticised an Ed Case blogger for doing that...  This is different, because rather than cutting and pasting here without attribution, I'm properly giving credit where it's due.

 "The two candidates have vastly different records on the Iraq war,
as well as several other issues where Case stood with the Bush administration
while Akaka strongly opposed Bush."

- The Council For a Livable World,
a national arms-control and anti-Iraq War group,
announcing their endorsement of Senator Daniel Akaka over Ed Case

Oh!  And if you want my original writings, please see my diary listing.  I've written quite a bit about this race already... back to the cut & paste...

On Authorization For War
Akaka Votes Against Giving Bush Authorization To Invade Iraq.  Akaka was one of only 23 senators who opposed giving President Bush the authority to invade Iraq. [Vote 237, 10/11/02]    

Case Would Have Voted With Bush.  Until his sudden flip-flop last month, Case had insisted for nearly three and a half years that he would have voted to give Bush the authority to invade Iraq. [Honolulu Star Bulletin, 6/27/06; AP, 12/17/03; Honolulu Advertiser, 1/28/03]

On Faith In Bush
Akaka A "Top Skeptic" From Beginning.  Even before the invasion, the Honolulu Advertiser called Akaka a "top skeptic" of Bush's drive to invade, noting that Akaka had said Bush "has not made a persuasive argument for war or explained the long-term role for the United States in a post-war Iraq." [Honolulu Advertiser, 1/28/03]    

Case Decided To Put Faith In Bush.  Case said he supported the war because "I decided to believe my government." [AP, 12/17/03]

On The Invasion
Akaka Condemns Decision, Presciently Predicts Difficulty With Occupation.  Upon the invasion of Iraq in March of 2003, Akaka expressed confidence in the ability of the U.S. military to defeat the Iraqi army, but worried that such action would lead to an occupation for which President Bush had not prepared the country. The U.S. is not, Akaka said, "sufficiently prepared either materially or psychologically for a protracted occupation of that country.... We are not as prepared as we should be for the consequences of a war with Iraq." Akaka added that he did not understand why the President "has chosen to fight Iraq at this time or what his objective is in so doing." Moreover, while Saddam Hussein was a terrible dictator, his "actions do not justify going to war now if we are unprepared for the consequences of war and if we do not have a clear exit strategy for getting out of Iraq." [Honolulu Star-Bulletin, 3/18/03]    

Case Praises Invasion Of Iraq.  Upon the invasion in March of 2003, Case released a statement praising the decisive action. "Democracy depends on both debate and decision, and with Iraq we have now had both." [Case Statement, 3/19/03]

On Progress In Iraq
Akaka Calls for Exit Strategy. In November 2005, Akaka publicly questioned Bush's Iraq policy, "We need an exit strategy from Iraq. The Administration should have had one before the war." [Akaka Statement, 11/18/05] As the situation deteriorated in Iraq, Akaka urged that "...a reassessment would be really needed at this point in time." [Honolulu Advertiser, 3/6/06] After Bush suggested that troop withdrawal would be decided by future Presidents, Akaka expressed his strong disapproval, "President Bush says withdrawal from Iraq will be up to future Presidents. This is completely unacceptable. While we must not abandon the Iraqi people until we have provided them with the tools necessary to stand on their own, I am outraged that the Administration has no exit strategy to complete our mission and return our soldiers home safely...I insist that the Administration provide a more comprehensive plan that includes specific criteria to determine if our goals in Iraq are being met and to develop a timetable for bringing our soldiers back to their families." [Akaka Statement, 4/24/06]

Case Echoes Bush's Rosy View of Iraq. Throughout the end of 2005 and the beginning of 2006, Case continued to parrot the Bush line on Iraq. In September of 2005 Case insisted that things were improving in Iraq and that the media was exaggerating the problems. When Bush defended his strategy in Iraq in a December speech to the nation, Rep. Neil Abercrombie hammered Bush's speech, saying "it isn't a plan; it is a prayer" while Case insisted that Bush was "articulating a set of goals that are pretty much what I have been articulating for three years."  He also called the speech realistic and said, "I think [Bush] is trying to do the right thing." Finally, earlier this year Case again endorsed the Bush approach saying, "I think we are collectively doing what we must be doing at this point given the reality of Iraq today." [Hawaii Tribune Herald, 9/8/05; Honolulu Star-Bulletin, 12/1/05; Honolulu Advertiser, 3/6/06]

Staying The Course
Akaka Calls For New Direction.  Akaka called for a "new vision to strengthen the war on terror" and voted to begin a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. Akaka explained his vote by saying, "I believe our country and our military need a clear and decisive exit strategy for Iraq. Tragically, the Bush Administration's open-ended no plan, no end Iraq policy has failed and it is time to begin redeploying our U.S. forces out of Iraq." Akaka voted for the Levin-Reed amendment calling for a phased withdrawal beginning this year. He was also one of only 13 Senators to vote for the Kerry-Feingold amendment to redeploy US forces from Iraq by July 1, 2007. [Akaka Release, 6/22/06; Vote 182, 6/22/06; Vote 183, 6/22/06]    

Case Endorses Bush's "Stay The Course" Position.  Last month, the House passed a resolution endorsing President Bush's "stay the course" Iraq policy. The resolution also takes a stand against setting withdrawal dates. The resolution was written entirely by the GOP and Democrats were barred from proposing an alternative. Many Democrats felt the resolution was unfair because it conjoined non-controversial measures, such as declaring support for the ongoing Global War on Terror, with controversial measures, such as joining the War in Iraq to the War on Terror. Ed Case abandoned his party, voted for the resolution and joined Republicans in endorsing George Bush's "stay the course" policy in Iraq. [House Vote 288, 6/16/06]

OH! One last thing - can you please help Akaka with his GOTV fund?  Crossposted on my blog:

Originally posted to schultzy on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 08:40 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 Shultzy (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raatz, andy winer

    This race is not getting the attention that it deserves. I hate to say it but I only found out about this race by looking in the "Hidden Comments" section here. There are strong opinions on both sides of this race.

    Two days to go, it is getting down to the wire.
    Go Akaka!

  •  Case says peace activists are "naive" (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hono lulu, Shliapnikov, andy winer

    The Maui News:

    Honolulu Star-Bulletin:

    A liberal is a conservative who's been hugged.

    by raatz on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 12:34:37 PM PDT

    •  "Naive" is one of Ed's Favorite Words (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hono lulu, andy winer, LiberaLee

      I find it quite grating. He does not limit it to "peace activists" but to everyone that believes the ongoing war in Iraq is counter-productive. This includes his colleagues in the Senate. I'm sure his fellow Senators would welcome such remarks in the Democratic caucus.

      Ed would have us believe that he is "not naive," but wise in the ways of the world. Even though he has consistently misjudged the Iraq war situation.

      Ed doesn't want to talk about how we got into the war, because Ed trusted the Bush administration's assertions about Saddam's WMDs and ties with al-Qaeda. And he had confidence that Bush-Rumsfeld-Cheney-&-Rice knew enough about warfare, intelligence, and "nation-building" to destroy Iraq, re-build it, and, in the process, win the "hearts and minds" of the Iraqi people and the the populations of the broader Middle East-Central Asia region. Akaka, Inouye, Abercrombie and Patsy Mink were all skeptical of this ambitious, and ruthless, project. But Ed demonstrated his "independence" and jumped on board.

      Now, he doesn't want to talk about those days. What motivated him? Was he "naive" to have confidence in Bush-them? Was he simply an opportunist seeking to establish his bonafides as a "muscular Democrat" in the eyes of the voters? "Stupid" or "unprincipled:" those are the choices, folks. "Naive" seems like a pretty charitable way of saying "incompetent."

      Unfortunately, Ed continues to "be naive" (or opportunist) in trusting the Bush Gang's ability to "stay the course" and "complete the mission" in Iraq.

      I do find it interesting that he has settled upon "naive" as a favorite criticism of others. I strongly suspect he wrestles with this weakness in himself so much that he projects it upon others. Much like a struggling alcoholic tells his frineds they are alcoholics, too if they like a beer at the end of the day.

      We cannot afford anymore of Ed's "naivete." "Naive" and/or "opportunist," we must not allow this guy to continue as a "Democratic" cheerleader in Bush's war council. Bad enough when he was a pipsqeak congressman with no seniority or clout. Let's NOT allow him to rise to the Senate.

  •  Akaka not a great Senator (0+ / 0-)

    Since people are still waking up in Hawaii I thought I would come back on the site and put some quotes from Akaka up.  I read someone in here say that Akaka is now against the war in Iraq. But why didn't he convince more than 22 of his fellow Senators to vote against the war?  Or 21 since Inouye probably was easier to convince being a fellow Hawaii Senator.  I found these rather Republican sounding statements from Senator Akaka's Senate website.

    Senator Akaka on the eve of the vote that led to war:

    October 10, 2002

    "Mr. President, I rise to express my support for a resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq." ( that seems odd for him to say)

    "I do so with two cardinal prerequisites: first, that all possible means be exhausted short of war to enforce United Nations resolutions concerning Iraq and, second, that any attack against Iraq take place as part of an international coalition.....

    "As we consider this war, we must also consider the implications of what we are doing. Saddam Hussein is not the only dictator who oppresses his people, attacks his neighbors, and is developing weapons of mass destruction (WMD). North Korea's Kim Jong Il, Libya's Muammar Qaddaffi, Iran's Ayatollah Khamenei, Syria's Bashar al-Asad, and others, all pose threats or have posed threats to American interests. All are known for their human rights abuses..... "

    (and now the kicker)

    "I agree that we must neutralize Iraq's WMD threat."

    "We must take the threat of an Iraqi chemical or biological attack very seriously. According to the British Government's White Paper on Iraq, Iraq chemical weapons caused over 20,000 casualties in the Iran-Iraq War. Iraq used sprayers, bombs, artillery rockets, and artillery shells to deliver these weapons. Thousands of rockets and artillery shells filled with chemical weapons remain hidden in Iraq's arsenal."
    full text of speech

    Also here is the vote count for that October early morning vote:
    War vote

    I did have one question as to why Akaka was not there for the cloture vote on October 3rd - a vote that passed 95-1-4. But did some looking and I'll guess that since Cong. Mink passed away on Sept. 28th he was probably at her service that weekend in Hawaii. So, no problem missing for that reason.

    But that still left him 8 days to spread the news and dire future to come about the war- WHY DID AKAKA NOT DO MORE IF HE KNEW SO MUCH??   Why did he say in 2002 he supported the invasion but now he puts on airs of being a hero?

    And one more for you Lieberman fans, Senator Akaka at a hearing on Homeland Security:

    Preparing for Reality: Protecting Against Weapons of Mass Destruction
    Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs

    June 28, 2002

    "Good morning. I want to thank you for being here while we discuss how the new Department of Homeland Security should address threats from weapons of mass destruction (WMD). I would like to thank my good friend, Senator Lieberman, for calling this hearing. Thank you for being what I consider the man of the hour. You are truly a leader in the Senate on this issue and sponsored legislation on a Department of Homeland Security before the President announced his proposal.
    You and I have been working on emergency preparedness and bioterrorism for some time now. We first asked - can a bioterrorism attack happen? This was a little time ago. Today, we ask - how can we reduce the threat? "

    Full text

    Case is a Democrat and should be given a Democratic chance at representing our country and Hawaii. I am sure that someone will dig out comments from these same links and try to prove me wrong - but I don't believe what I placed was out of context.

    •  yep, you've taken things out of context (4+ / 0-)
      For anyone who has any abouts about Sen. Akaka's wisdom and prudence, please read the speech in its entirety:

      It's amazingly prescient.

      One purpose of the speech was to support an amendment that would have placed specific conditions on the President's authority for Iraq. The amendment failed, and Sen. Akaka wisely joined Sens. Boxer, Feingold, Inouye, Kennedy, and Wellstone (among others) in voting against the Iraq resolution. I wish they could've persuaded enough of their colleagues to defeat the resolution. But it's obviously silly to blame Sen. Akaka individually for that failure.

      It's highly offensive for you to say that Sen. Akaka tries to act like a hero. I think he is a hero. But he's also one of the most humble and gracious people I've ever known.

      A liberal is a conservative who's been hugged.

      by raatz on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 02:34:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Right on, raatz! (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        raatz, hono lulu, andy winer, LiberaLee

        [Akaka is] ... "one of the most humble and gracious people I've ever known."

        Right on, raatz!

        I have put a lot of time into this election-- not just on blogs, but in the real world as well. I have not been paid a dime and this has actually caused my some economic hardship.

        Senator Inouye is much more powerful than Inouye, but you will not find me playing this role for Inouye.

        First, Akaka is considerably more progressive than Inouye.

        But more important, if only in motivating my heart, I have a great personal affection for Akaka and regard him as the most decent person in Hawaii politics.

        Which is why I am personally offended by sweeping, careless, uninformed and malicious attacks on the Senator from people who do not know what the hell they are talking about. It is cheap and discouraging to witness.

        Someone unfamilar with Senator Akaka, reading these exchanges on the internet, might just assume that we are defending Akaka becuase we are blindly defending the status quo or are "sucking up to power" by defending an incumbent. That is so far off-base. It is the Left in the Hawaii Democratic Party that is so vigorously and pasionately defending Akaka on the internet. I do not recognize the "real world" identities of all the Hawaii-based DK supporters of Akaka, but bnecause I know the dynamics within the Hawaii Party, I can assure you that none of us would be mistaken in the real world as lackeys for the "Old Boys."

        •  Boy, do you have that right! (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          raatz, Shliapnikov

          I can assure you that none of us would be mistaken in the real world as lackeys for the "Old Boys."

          I'm still laughing at the thought of me rubbing shoulders with the party faithful.

          The truth is there has always been a core of progressive "radicals" in the state Democratic party: David Hagino, Tom Gill, Nadao Yoshinaga, and, at the top of my list, our beloved Patsy.

          After watching Abercrombie morph into a pro-military Inouye wannabe (the brain boggles), it is a relief to see the Party and progressives on the same side.

          "I still think politics is about who's getting screwed and who's doing the screwing." -Molly Ivins

          by hono lulu on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 08:34:32 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Any day now . . . (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hono lulu

    . . . I shall be released from the Case-bots (in fact, it'll happen on Saturday!).

    Sing it, Bobby!

    A liberal is a conservative who's been hugged.

    by raatz on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 08:48:09 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site