Daily Kos

Five Years Later, A Responsible Plan to End the War

Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:58:55 PM PDT

Though Dick Cheney couldn't give a damn, opposition to the Iraq War has solidified in the country. For all the talk of the "success" of the escalation, talk that the traditional media is still happy to report, a vast majority of Americans remain steadfast in their opposition to it.

Meanwhile, it goes on. Five long, disastrous years have wreaked moral, economic, and political havoc here at home, and throughout the world in an ever widening ripple. Every dollar spent on the Iraq War has an opportunity cost attached, and will continue to for as long as it goes on. And it won't be over when the last of the troops come home. Iraq will still need to be rebuilt. Many of our returned soldiers and marines will still need medical care, some for the remainder of their lives. The deferred maintenance of our nation's social and physical infrastructure will result in untold billions necessary just to catch up again.

Into this mess step Darcy Burner and her colleagues, Congressional hopefuls who are making their own contract with America, a contract in the form of A Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq. From the executive summary of the plan:

What follows is a series of objectives that, taken together, refocus our current military involvement in the region while repairing damage to the U.S. to prevent a repeat of our mistakes. We have included some sample legislation currently in Congress to show that these objectives have been identified and can be addressed given sufficient political will. We have also included recommendations that the Baker-Hamilton Commission published in the Iraq Study Group Report. In some cases, no existing legislation or clear recommendations exist and new authorizing legislation plus careful planning would be required.

Supporters of this document have committed to these objectives. The American people do not need to wait for a new Congress and new administration to pursue this agenda: public pressure on our current elected officials to act can help us move in the right direction even before January 2009, when we hope a new presidential administration and a new Congress will avail themselves of the opportunity to address the great challenges we face as a nation. We are aware that facts on the ground will change moving forward, and the legislation is included just to show that a responsible end to the war is possible given the political will.

Those objectives include ending US military action in Iraq, using our diplomatic power in the region to bring stability, addressing humanitarian concerns, restoring our Constitution, restoring our military, restoring media independence, and creating a new, US-centered energy policy. Each of these objectives address the myriad of national and international problems exacerbated by the ongoing occupation in Iraq. Burner, who spearheaded the effort, worked with a number of military experts to develop the plan, all of whom have endorsed it. In addition to Gen. Eaton, Brig. Gen. Johns, Dr. Korb and Cpt. Seaquist who were orignal endorsers, today Rand Beers, a counterterrorism expert who served on the National Security Council under Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush, endorsed the plan with this statement:

"The Democratic challengers that produced this responsible plan to end the war in Iraq prove that Democrats can successfully and responsibly discuss national security issues of the first order, and discuss them in ways that represent real solutions to the real problems that we face."

The original ten challengers have been joined in the last two days by nine more House hopefuls and two Senate candidates. The new House challengers are Darius Shahinfar (NY-21), Faye Armitage (FL-07), Harry Taylor (NC-09), Lt. Col. Jim Hunt (MT-AL), Alan Grayson (FL-08), Dennis Shulman (NJ-05), Larry Grant (ID-01), Tom Wyka (NJ-11), and Cheryl Sabel (AL-02). Taking solid aim at the Oregon Senate seat, both challengers Jeff Merkley and Steve Novick have signed on.

Look at some of those districts: North Carolina, Montana, Idaho, Alabama. That should be enough to demonstrate to anyone that there is political will, from the entire country, to finally end this war.

Update: A recent addition: Greg Fischer (KY-Sen).

  • ::

Tags: Responsible End to the Iraq War (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 116 comments

  •  Thanks for this. (11+ / 0-)

    I've been really excited about Darcy's effort for days now. It's nice to see it front paged!

    "Poverty or wealth can make all the differences in securing the substance or only the shadow of constitutional protections." -Wiley Rutledge

    by asimbagirl on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:02:42 PM PDT

    •  I am excited about this effort too, but it's (4+ / 0-)

      important to acknowledge that this, like the Iraq Study Group report on which it draws heavily, is not actaully a plan for resolving anything in Iraq but a framework for developing a plan.

      There are a lot of statements saying things like the US must use its diplomatic power to bring Iraq's neighbors into the process and convince them that it's better to be committed to stabilizing Iraq than to jockey for whatever gains they can come up with. (That's a paraphrase, obviously).  

      And in fact, that's a big part of what we need to be doing.  

      And we need to negotiate with Shia, Sunni, and Kurd to help them find ways to resolve issues of territorial control, oil distribution, etc.

      These approaches, are a framework, not a plan.

      No one has a plan, yet. We can't.  We have to start the negotiations, figure out what can realistically be achieved, and hope that we can assist the IRaqis in coming up with something that doesn't entail too much more of a bloodbath.

      It's the right framework, I believe.  We should be promoting it to the American people. But somehow, we also have to be honest about the fact that Bush/Cheney got us into an extremely complex and fragile situation and smashed it like Humpty Dumpty's egg.  We really don't know how much we can -- or any combination of we, the Iraqis, and international support can -- put back together.

      That's sad, and grim, but that's the reality. THere may be civil war in that area for the next decade.  Somehow, we have to make clear to the American people that there is no guaranteed good outcome at this point -- only the best way to approach finding the best that can be managed now.

      After so many Iraqis and Americans dead...

    •  I worked on Darcy's campaign (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      asimbagirl

      in 2006. It's great to see her showing leadership in this effort.
      It's just the kind of thing to establish some credibility running against an incumbent representative.

      •  I'll Be Voting For Her (0+ / 0-)

        I'm in your district, apparently, and I'll be voting for her. Ms. Burner has good ability, but it will probably be a tough fight against a former law enforcement officer and "moderate" Republican -- except when it comes to the war and tax cuts. We'll need to get out the vote.

        It is now up to all of us to take it back. -- Howard Zinn

        by donaldw6 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:38:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Cheney (9+ / 0-)

    I spit in disgust.

    "It's the Supreme Court, Stupid!"

    by Kestrel on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:04:22 PM PDT

  •  Contract with America? (5+ / 0-)

    Didn't Gingrich register that as a trade mark?

    "Great men do not commit murder. Great nations do not start wars." William Jennings Bryan

    by Navy Vet Terp on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:04:23 PM PDT

  •  A response end to the Iraq war. (10+ / 0-)

    From your lips to god's ears.

    I sit here in shock today, realizing that we're really five years into this morass.

    It truly feels like only a year or so since I put my "War is Not the Answer" sign in my front yard, only to have it removed, trashed and graffiti'd a dozen times, until I could no longer afford to purchase more from the Friends community across town.

    Five years. Five fucking years.

    My daughter is 8 now. I feel the potential for a draft more every day.

    "Oh, TV. Is there anything you can't do?" -- Homer Simpson

    by Melody Townsel on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:04:26 PM PDT

    •  If you want this senseless war to end now (3+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Dallasdoc, ourprez08, express

      Institute a draft now.  The American people will rise from their apathy and throw these bums out.

      "Great men do not commit murder. Great nations do not start wars." William Jennings Bryan

      by Navy Vet Terp on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:06:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  A draft? Great idea! (NOT)... (0+ / 0-)

        Instead of only being able to get their hands on the kids they can bamboozle with their bullshit about duty, honor, and country, they get access to a limitless supply of kids.

        Even if we instituted a draft, the American sheeple will just go along believing whatever lies the Feds tell them (e.g., Saddam = 9/11; Iran = al Qaeda, etc.).  You'll have stupid parents telling their kids that its their duty to go if their country calls.

        A draft?  No fucking way!  Not now, not ever!

        America - FUBBBAR (Fucked Up By Bush Beyond All Repair)

        by George Gould on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:25:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Or (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        beijingbetty

        you'd find that most young persons would become loud and proud homosexuals....

        Alex
        Choose Our President 2008

        •  Or just talk against the war (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          ourprez08, beijingbetty

          you'd find that most young persons would become loud and proud homosexuals....

          There is another way to do it.  As soon as you arrive at the induction center get up on a chair and start to give an anti-war speech.  The trick is to do it early on.  They will pull you out of the group and in the end, they will reject you, probably based on a short talk with a shrink to whom you just explain that you simply feel you have to get this message out and don't intend to stop.

          At that point they have the choice of forcing you to take the oath, which you say you will do, and then court marshalling you right out of the induction center because you still talk against the war, or sending you on in a group to some other place without telling that they will need to separate you and court-martial you as soon as you arrive.

          Since the induction centers see it as their job to reject problems and not send them on to others what they will do is to find that you have a "psychological problem" and reject you.

          I once knew a man who got out of WWII in that way.  But the thing is it was not an act: he really was that way as his later career showed.

          It has always seemed a better way to go than CO.  How does one really know that one always would object to violence or war.  But it is easy to know that one objects on a particular war and intends to talk against it at every chance and to make that clear before they demand you take the oath.

    •  Send me an email (3+ / 0-)

      ... with your address.  I'll send you a check to purchase more.

      Hanoi didn't break John McCain, but Washington did.

      by Dallasdoc on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:06:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No need. I just ordered another one. But THANKS! (3+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Dallasdoc, beijingbetty, llamaRCA

        The political environment has shifted on its axis.

        The asshole neighbor who posted notices door to door in the 100-year-old, historic neighborhood we live in, complaining that the antiwar signs "interfered with the historical ambience the conservation district was seeking to encourage" couldn't possibly have the courage to pull that stunt again.

        (Note to asshat: If it's history you want, maybe the place to start is with that bright-yellow, bigass Hummer you have parked in your driveway.)

        I've long suspected that he was behind the destruction of our signs, but at $10/pop to help the Friends pay for printing, I had to stop at $120.

        "Oh, TV. Is there anything you can't do?" -- Homer Simpson

        by Melody Townsel on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:11:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Bet he didn't whine about the Bush/Cheney 04 ones (3+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Melody Townsel, jnhobbs, beijingbetty

          I guess the redolence of Confederate Revivalism appealed to his historical aesthetic....

          Hanoi didn't break John McCain, but Washington did.

          by Dallasdoc on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:19:12 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Too right. (2+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            Dallasdoc, beijingbetty

            He's a total effin' ass. The good news is, he stands out in my very liberal neighborhood. Back then, though, even my most die-hard liberal friends were afraid to put anti-war signs out because so many folks were behind the war at that time.

            Every time our sign got trashed, my stepmother would BEG me to remove it out of fear for our safety.

            It was me and the Society of Friends for quite some time. These days, it's all Hillary/Obama signs -- no McCain for miles.

            Five years. The antiwar signs are reemerging here.

            "Oh, TV. Is there anything you can't do?" -- Homer Simpson

            by Melody Townsel on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:25:51 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  I know exactly how you feel (4+ / 0-)

      My child was 3 in 2001, and I remember standing in my family room holding her that horrible day, wondering what horrid things would come as a result of this.

      I had no idea how bad it would be. She's 10 now. I will do whatever is necessary to make her future better than the past seven years have been.

      "Poverty or wealth can make all the differences in securing the substance or only the shadow of constitutional protections." -Wiley Rutledge

      by asimbagirl on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:07:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Make that responsible. Sheesh! n/t (0+ / 0-)

      "Oh, TV. Is there anything you can't do?" -- Homer Simpson

      by Melody Townsel on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:13:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  While you're out purchasing more signs... (0+ / 0-)

      drop by the pound and pick up the biggest, meanest fucking dog you can find, bring him home and tie him to the sign.

      Oh, and think "pit bull".

      ~Doc~

      -7.88 -8,77 Just a wine sipping, brie eating, $6 coffee drinking, Prius driving, over educated, liberal, white, activist, male New Englander for Barack Obama.

      by EquationDoc on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:32:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I like that. (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Dagoril

        Doesn't even have to be a mean pit bull - but people simply see one of "those" dogs and move carefully to the other side of the street.

        Never had a problem with most people's pet pit bulls, generally - it's all in the training and the care.

        I shoot people in video games, and I VOTE!

        by Duncan1800 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:18:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Absolutely. My mom has a... (0+ / 0-)

          half rotweiler, half pit bull, half velociraptor, half mountain lion, half rattlesnake, half M1A1 tank of a dog that is as gentle as a newborn kitten with her grandchildren, even when they pull his ears and tail or try to rile him up.

          But if a contractor comes over to work on her house, the dog goes apeshit. LOL

          Yup. It's all in the training.

          ~Doc~

          -7.88 -8,77 Just a wine sipping, brie eating, $6 coffee drinking, Prius driving, over educated, liberal, white, activist, male New Englander for Barack Obama.

          by EquationDoc on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:00:07 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  most of my students were in junior high (3+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      ourprez08, shumway, beijingbetty

      at the start of the war. They have been continually blistered by it. I have one brilliant young man in his early twenties who got Frost on the first go, understood the ironies and complexities. He's headed back in the summer for another tour. He's a brave man, and I quote him from an E-mail:

      "It's what I signed up for and I'll proudly go. But when we ask each other over there 'how's it going?' we answer, 'livin' the dream.' I think Frost would get it."

      These are the folks who defend our country, defend if necessary my right to stand up in a classroom and say whatever I need to say. And they're being asked to do this. This morally bankrupt thing. They are so strong and so brave. And so very, very tired.

    •  My young cousin (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      ourprez08, beijingbetty

      is at West Point. He is there for all the right reasons. The last thing I want to see is him snet into a war for all the wrong reasons.

      Peace,

      Andrew

      Full Disclosure: I am Chair of the Darius Shahinfar for Congress Campaign Committee in NY-21.

      by Andrew C White on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:54:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Fox (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      beijingbetty

      I accidentally landed on Faux News trying to get to Olbermann. According to Ollie North, all we need is five more years and it will all be terrific. FIVE FRICKEN MORE YEARS!

      These goopers are too much. Have they finally surrendered to the Friedman Unit?!

  •  I've sent emails to my candidates (9+ / 0-)

    I've been sending monthly ActBlue contributions to five House challengers for over a year now.  Only one -- Eric Massa -- is on the list.  When Darcy announced this plan I sent an email to the other four, asking them to sign on too.  Told them if they didn't, I'd find other candidates to support.

    Just an idea to put out there....

    Hanoi didn't break John McCain, but Washington did.

    by Dallasdoc on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:05:42 PM PDT

  •  The sad part is (3+ / 0-)

    that opposing Democratic candidates are bashing it:

    I spent this past Monday fighting to win the support of Mainers in my run for U.S. Congress.  My lead opponent spent Monday campaigning in Washington DC trying to win the support of Beltway insiders.

    Courtesy of an Ethan Strimling e-mail bashing Pingree. Sad thing is that I know that wasn't really Ethan that  wrote that. Isn't his style.

    Want superdelegates who listen? Rita Moran for DNC. We need your support!

    by Eddie in ME on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:06:18 PM PDT

  •  Depends what the meaning of "is" is. (3+ / 0-)

    That should be enough to demonstrate to anyone that there is political will, from the entire country, to finally end this war.

    It should be, but it's not and won't be for a good long time, I suspect. Voters, I'm afraid, are a fickle vanguard.

    --- "opendna is high and just makin' shit up outta nowhere." - greenskeeper

    by opendna on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:07:01 PM PDT

  •  Happy Birthday War! (7+ / 0-)

    Happy Birthday War by Mitch Benn

    Mitch Benn's new video, released for the anniversary, seems appropriate in this thread somehow.

    •  The war was absolutly adorable until (5+ / 0-)

      it turned 2, you know the terrible twos.  Now, because we gave it whatever it wanted, it is a monster. Just imagine when it is all grown up, in its 20s, and there is no way to control it.

      •  well, the war was extremely popular (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Nailbanger

        until we started losing.

        Sadly, it seems to me, it's not "the war" most people are against.  It's "we're losing" that they don't like.

        Had the war been over in three weeks, most of the USA would still be crowing about how wonderful it all was.

        Lesson to future protectors of America Invicta ---- launching an illegal pre-emptive war against a small country that did nothing to us, is absolutely fine with Americans.  As long as it's over in three weeks.

        We Americans like our wars the same way we like our education system and health care system --- we want all the benefits, but none of the costs.

        Editor, Red and Black Publishers http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

        by Lenny Flank on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:17:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  We lost the moment we dropped the first bomb n/t (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Nailbanger, beijingbetty

          We're pro-choice on everything! - Libertarian slogan

          by CA Libertarian on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:21:19 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  WE lost (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            edison

            the moment the Supreme court stopped the recount in Florida and appointed Bush.

            Things are more like they are now then they ever have been.

            by tjmurphy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:48:14 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  we lost . . . . (3+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              edison, beijingbetty, tjmurphy

              . . . when nobody cared.

              In any other civilized nation, if a government had assumed power with a minority of the popular vote, then launched a pre-emptive military strike against a tiny nation that did nothing to us, at the same time squelching internal dissent by illegally spying on its own citizens and imprisoning people indefinitely without trial based on "secret evidence" obtained through torture, the people of that nation would have taken to the streets and that government would have fallen.

              In the US, most of us just shrugged and went back to watching "American Idol".

              THAT is when we lost.

              George Lucas was wrong --- liberty does NOT die to thunderous applause.  

              It dies in the silence of utter apathy and indifferent self-absorption.

              Editor, Red and Black Publishers http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

              by Lenny Flank on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:58:46 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  John McCain can't wait to celebrate it's... (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Warren Terra

        100th birthday.

        ~Doc~

        -7.88 -8,77 Just a wine sipping, brie eating, $6 coffee drinking, Prius driving, over educated, liberal, white, activist, male New Englander for Barack Obama.

        by EquationDoc on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:40:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Clinton Iraq Advisor (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Melody Townsel

    says he has no confidence that she will end the occupation of Iraq!

    "Nothing can stand in the way of the *power* of millions of voices calling for change" Obama

    by SherriG on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:08:28 PM PDT

  •  in the interest of fairness . . . (4+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    ourprez08, shumway, edison, express

    Let's take a look at what the Dems were saying about Iraq BEFORE the results of the 2006 elections dragged them, kicking and screaming and fighting all the way, into an antiwar stance . . .

    Washington Post Aug 22, 2005:

    Senate Democrats, according to aides, convened a private meeting in late June to develop a cohesive stance on the war and debated every option -- only to break up with no consensus.

    Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) broke with his party leadership last week to become the first senator to call for all troops to be withdrawn from Iraq by a specific deadline. Feingold proposed Dec. 31, 2006.

    In delivering the Democrats' weekly radio address yesterday, former senator Max Cleland (Ga.), a war hero who lost three limbs in Vietnam, declared that "it's time for a strategy to win in Iraq or a strategy to get out."

    Although critical of Bush, the party's establishment figures -- including Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.), Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.) and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) -- all reject the Feingold approach, reasoning that success in Iraq at this point is too important for the country.

    Feingold said, "We have to go on the offensive to show the American people that we're not afraid to disagree." He said that he believes an immediate withdrawal does not make military sense but that the public needs reassurance that the Iraq operation is moving purposefully toward completion.

    When the Senate Foreign Relations Committee conducted a confirmation hearing for Bush confidante Karen Hughes, tapped as the next undersecretary of state for public diplomacy, not a single Democrat showed up to grill her on administration policy.

    "Credit the Democrats for not trying to pour more gasoline on the fire, even if they're not particularly unified in their message," said Michael McCurry, a former Clinton White House press secretary. "Democrats could jump all over them and try to pin Bush down on it, but I'm not sure it would do anything but make things worse. The smartest thing for Democrats to do is be supportive."

    CNN, April 21, 2004:

    Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said she is not sorry she voted for a resolution authorizing President Bush to take military action in Iraq despite the recent problems there but she does regret "the way the president used the authority."

    "How could they have been so poorly prepared for the aftermath of the toppling of Saddam Hussein?" the New York Democrat asked Tuesday night on CNN's "Larry King Live."

    "I don't understand how they had such an unrealistic view of what was going to happen."

    "Obviously, I've thought about that a lot in the months since," she said. "No, I don't regret giving the president authority because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade."

    "*The consensus was the same, from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration*," she said. "It was the same intelligence belief that our allies and friends around the world shared.

    MSNBC, June 13, 2005

    At a meeting of the Democratic National Committee in Washington, party activists were hoping to hear one of their leaders denounce President Bush’s Iraq policy.

    One rose to the occasion, electrifying the crowd by asking: "What I want to know is why in the world the Democratic Party leadership is supporting the president's unilateral attack on Iraq?"

    "I think Democrats have largely been backed into a corner on Iraq," said Judith Hope, a DNC executive committee member from New York. "While most of us believe we should never have gone in there in the first place, many of us believe that now that we’re there, we have no choice but to finish the job. It would be both immoral and dangerous to bail out of that part of the world, given what we know today."

    She added that the day may come when "the political leadership of this country has to say, ‘Not only was it a mistake to go in there, it’s a failure, and we’ve got to get out,’ but I don’t think we’re there yet."

    Another DNC member, Karen Marchioro, the former co-chair of Dean’s campaign in Washington state, said, "Once we’ve gotten ourselves into a mess like this, I’m not sure what I think we should do — and I was opposed to this thing from the get-go. I don’t think it’s a fair question to ask of people who opposed this war to figure out how to get out of it."

    USA Today, July 5, 2004

    The Democratic Party pledges an unrelenting struggle against terrorism and a commitment to seeing Iraq succeed, according to a statement of election principles shaped heavily by national security crises.

    The working draft of the Democratic Party platform rebukes President Bush's leadership on foreign policy and talks tough on terrorism. But it doesn't take a position on a central issue: whether the war in Iraq was justified.

    "People of good will disagree about whether America should have gone to war in Iraq," according to the draft, written in coordination with the Kerry campaign. Some anti-war Democrats say they will try to revise and harden the platform's stance toward the war.

    The 16,000-word document is shorter and more thematic than the 2000 platform. A copy was made available to USA TODAY and other news organizations.

    It says Democrats will:

    • Finish the job in Iraq. "We cannot allow a failed state in Iraq that inevitably would become a haven for terrorists and a destabilizing force in the Middle East," it says. It calls for persuading NATO to contribute additional military forces, a step NATO has declined to take.

    • Fund 40,000 more troops for the U.S. military. It doesn't say additional troops should be deployed to Iraq, however.

    Salon.Com, Dec 2, 2005

    Sen. Joseph Biden Jr. of Delaware, December 2005
    (In a statement to Salon)

    Norm Kurz, the senator's communication director, said that despite some calls for an immediate pullout from Iraq, Sen. Biden has "never believed in a specific timeline" for a troop drawdown. *"Pulling out precipitously is a problem," Kurz says, relaying Biden's view, "if what we leave behind is a haven for terrorists."*

    Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, December 2005
    (In a statement to Salon)

    Sen. Bayh's communication director, Dan Pfeiffer, said that while the senator believes a strategy to bring home the troops needs to be implemented, any plan must be "driven by events on the ground." Bayh, Pfeiffer said, rejects the mandatory withdrawal from Iraq by "any specific date."

    Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, Nov. 29, 2005

    "I do not believe that we should allow this to be an open-ended committment without limits or end. Nor do I believe that we can or should pull out of Iraq immediately. I believe we are at a critical point with the December 15th elections that should, if successful, allow us to start bringing home our troops in the coming year, while leaving behind a smaller contingent in safer areas with greater intelligence and quick strike capabilities. This will advance our interests, help fight terrorism and protect the interests of the Iraqi people."

    Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, Nov. 30, 2005

    "This debate is not about an artificial date for withdrawal ... No one is talking about running in the face of a challenge. We're talking about how to win, how to succeed, how do you best achieve our goals? That's the choice here...

    "So what the president did not acknowledge today at all is that the presence of our troops itself is a part of the current reality on the ground that presents food for the insurgency. And you need to reduce that presence over a period of time in order to be able to succeed, not fail."

    Former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, Nov. 11, 2005

    "We've reached the point where the large number of our troops in Iraq hurts, not helps, our goals. Therefore, early next year, after the Iraqi elections, when a new government has been created, we should begin redeployment of a significant number of troops out of Iraq. This should be the beginning of a gradual process to reduce our presence and change the shape of our military's deployment in Iraq."

    Foreign Policy in Focus, July 6, 2006

    The Democratic leadership of both the House and Senate supports continued funding of the Iraq war and has been reluctant to force the Bush administration to set even a tentative deadline for the withdrawal of American troops. Indeed, the Democrats—who controlled the Senate in 2002—share responsibility with the Republicans for creating the tragic conflict in Iraq by voting to authorize the invasion in the first place.

    On June 15, the U.S. Senate overwhelmingly defeated a resolution calling for the withdrawal of American combat forces from Iraq by the end of this year. Only six of the 100 senators voted in favor of the resolution

    During the same week, the House of Representatives, by a 256-153 vote, claimed that the ongoing war in Iraq was part of the "war on terror" and explicitly declared that "it is not in the national security interest of the United States to set an arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq." Forty-two Democrats joined all but three Republicans in supporting the resolution.

    Faced with a lack of support in the Senate for a withdrawal of American forces by the end of the year, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts put forward a resolution the following week calling for a withdrawal by July 1, 2007. The Democratic leadership reportedly put enormous pressure on Kerry to withdraw even this tepid resolution from consideration, but the bill went to the floor anyway. Kerry's bill was also soundly defeated, with no Republican senators and only 13 of the 44 Democratic senators voting in favor.

    The Democratic leadership are not on our side.  They never were on our side.  They are not opposed to the war.  They never were opposed to the war. Just a few years ago, they were still talking about succeeding in the war.  And they'd not be paying even lip service to us now, if we in the grassroots hadn't gone out and won (despite the party's efforts, not because of them) in the 2006 elections.

    Editor, Red and Black Publishers http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

    by Lenny Flank on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:09:49 PM PDT

    •  Actually... in fairness (0+ / 0-)

      you should take a look at what these particular Democrats were saying about the war since 2003.

      Peace,

      Andrew

      Full Disclosure: I am Chair of the Darius Shahinfar for Congress Campaign Committee in NY-21.

      by Andrew C White on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:01:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  well of course (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        edison

        these particular Democrats can say whatever they want to.  If they can't get it passed (with or, more likely, without the support of the party leadership), then it simply doesn't matter what they say or don't say.  

        Proposals are wonderful, and indeed any schmoo can produce proposals by the wheelbarrowful.  But if they don't get put into effect, they ain't worth diddley doo.

        So the question isn't what these particular Democarts say or don't say, the question is whether the rest of the Democrats will back them up.

        Given the, uh, actions of our new Democratic Congress, I'm sure you'll forgive me if I am . . . well .  . . rather skeptical.

        If we are to have a New American Century or a Pax Americana (and both the Dems and the Repugs want exactly that), then we MUST control the oil.  There is simply no way around it.  That is why nobody is seriously calling for a COMPLETE WITHDRAWAL of troops BACK HOME -- instead we get some fig leaf of withdrawing troops from Iraq and placing them in nearby countries ("over the horizon") instead.

        We will not leave without control of Iraq's oil.  No matter WHO is elected.

        Editor, Red and Black Publishers http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

        by Lenny Flank on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:16:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Which is why a critical piece of this plan (4+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          marc, Duncan1800, express, beijingbetty

          is getting off the oil.

          Peace,

          Andrew

          Full Disclosure: I am Chair of the Darius Shahinfar for Congress Campaign Committee in NY-21.

          by Andrew C White on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:25:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  alas, not gonna happen (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            edison

            And not because of cars, home heating systems, and electric generation.  When you get right down to it, that's not why we have to control Middle East oil.

            The reason we need the oil is MILITARY.  If there is to be a Pax Americana (or America Invicta, or New American Century, or whatever one wants to call it), then it can only be military in nature.  The US simply does not and cannot dominate the planet economically anymore.  Our only source of global power now is the fact that we have the most massive military machine that has ever existed in human history, and no other nation can come remotely close to matching it.  Alas for us, though, every jet that flies, every tank that rolls, every naval task force that sails, is utterly totally completely absolutely dependent upon just one thing -- oil.  Equally alas for us, we do not have sufficient oil resources of our own within the US to provide for the needs of an oil-dependent global military machine.  That is why we try to maintain something called the "Strategic Oil Reserve".  It's, uh, not there so people can heat their homes in the wintertime.  It's there so that, whatever happens, we will have enough oil in reserve to power the military long enough to seize foreign oil fields (can you guess where?) if it becomes necessary.

            And equally important to providing oil for our own military power, is the ability to deny it to military and/or economic competitors.  Such as, oh, the Chinese or Japanese.  As it happens, most Middle East oil doesn't even go to the US -- it goes to China and Japan.  Also as it happens, nearly all of that oil passes through a very narrow ocean channel called the Malacca Straits.  Naval control of those straits would give any nation the ability to cut off, at will, the flow of oil from the Middle East to Asia.  Coincidentally, the US Navy has, over the past seven years, built up an enormous permanent military presence in the Malacca Straits.  That coincidence has, uh, not gone un-noticed by either the Japanese or the Chinese.

            So even if every household in the US converts tomorrow to solar power, and peddles bicycles everywhere they go, that won't end the US imperative to control the world's oil supply, or the need to use military force to accomplish that control.

            Editor, Red and Black Publishers http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

            by Lenny Flank on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:55:06 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  It's very important (0+ / 0-)

      to remain alert to such a historical background and track records of those dems. Lenny Flank has done an excellent job in the sense that he(she?) reminds us that those dems who used to be supporters of the war have remained in the game. And now that the tide of war isn't in the winning side, there will be  a lot of retractions and second guesses.

      The task of the anti-war movement is, among other things, determining views and actions that are proven to be consistent and pass the test of history.

      God Bless Obama!!!

  •  Oh (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Melody Townsel, beijingbetty

    There are a bunch of smart people who are good from a progressive's standpoint who have a plan for Iraq.

    The war is illegal.  Until the war stops being political, the American government will make wrong decisions.  The war is political.  It's fucking illegal.

    Illegal.  Period.

  •  The only way (0+ / 0-)

    to end this war is to nominate then elect Obama. McCain and his base fear the possability of facing Obama in the Pres. election. They would rather face off against Clinton because they feel that they have a good chance against her.

  •  I commend these people! Heartfelt thanks to them (4+ / 0-)

    for doing this.

    Today fills me with pain for all the devastation that has come from this needless, tragic, wrong-headed war.

    I've seen Darcy on CSpan. She's like a shining light. Someday after I'm long gone, I like to think she might perhaps occupy the White House!

    Thank God the Democrats won control of the Senate... otherwise, think of how different everything would be. -G.Greenwald

    by Gorette on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:15:47 PM PDT

  •  Alabama? (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    ourprez08

    Wow, I live here and I'm impressed by that. A lot (even maybe the majority) of people here still think Saddam Hussein did 9/11. At least, if you're gonna go by people I've talked to, haha.

    It is impressive though.

    And this is what I get for reading over the diary quickly the first tim. This is what I saw:

    Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush, endorsed the plan with this statement

    I was shocked for a minute or so.

  •  50+ exit strategies dating back to 2004 (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    ourprez08

    Here.

    This is not a new idea.

    What is a new idea is actually considering an exit strategy.

    So long as Bush is in office, we could float 500 different exit strategies and it still wouldn't make a difference.

    We're pro-choice on everything! - Libertarian slogan

    by CA Libertarian on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:20:39 PM PDT

  •  I'm glad to see this movement grow (5+ / 0-)

    and that my preferred Senate candidate Jeff Merkley joined the House candidates. It would be nice to see sitting members of Congress join in. What are they waiting for?

    Edwards Democrats and Progressives Unite! Visit us at EENR Blog

    by sarahlane on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:23:12 PM PDT

  •  Steve Harrison (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Andrew C White

    running in NY-13, is one of the ten original sponsors and released this video today talking about it.


    Steve Harrison for Congress

    "There is a Providence that protects idiots, drunkards, children and the United States of America." - Otto Prince Bismarck

    by MBNYC on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:30:27 PM PDT

  •  Man I wish the FP had a rec button sometimes. (4+ / 0-)

    I love this diary and these candidates.

  •  Lets start by calling it an occupation... (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    ourprez08, edison, express

    Lets start by calling it an occupation because that is what it is.

    It is a money making racket for some and the source of economic troubles for most Americans.

    Peace.

  •  I've read it, does not seem like much of a plan (0+ / 0-)

    It's a decen document but it reads more like a checklist of issues that need addressing.  It does not say anything on how to address them.  Use diplomacy to keep away foreign meddlers ... well, what if the meddlers don't listen.  Nor do they explain certain contradictions.  Such as the aforemention need to keep out foreign forces, with the reccomendation to establish a Kurdistan.  Doing that is all but certain to draw in Turkey, Iran and/or Syria.  

    I guess the objection I have is they make it sound like it will be a snap to withdraw.  I wish they had called this something other than a plan.  A 'call for dialogue', a 'first stage' or something less sweeping.

    Take your fear and shove it, it ain't workin' on us no more.

    by Quicklund on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:39:12 PM PDT

    •  See, my problem with it is a little different (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Quicklund, express

      It reads to me like a good, sensible piece of legislation, but not necessarily the best we could do.

      Unfortunately, some of the candidates backing it are running in districts that have decidedly more left-wing views on the war and on issues like impeachment (there is no time limit on impeachment, and the penalty for conviction includes a lifetime prohibition on ever holding an office of public trust--we all know that McCain wants to be W's third term, so we should be acting to ensure that Bush, Cheney, Libby, Rove, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Perle, Feith, Gonzales and Addington never set foot in a US government building again except to renew their driver's licenses).  

      They should of course be supporting a bill like this when and if they see it while in Congress, but there's no reason to start further to the center than absolutely necessary this early in the cycle.

      It seems to me like we're surrendering ground that we could hold.  In seats where candidates could stand fast for not one damn dime more, we've now got people who are signed on to a plan that doesn't go as far as their constituents would support.  If we surrender the left flank, how are we expecting to make what (Christ I hope) we still recognize as necessary arguments in Congress?

      Only YOU can end the Metapocalypse. Join the mehvolution!

      by JR on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:27:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  In a similar vein (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        JR

        Seeing as the next C-in-C is about certain to be a Democrat and is certain to take office in about 10 months, I do not see deep wisdom in trying to legislate the next President's Iraq gameplan.  The next President can establish this policy - or set the goals even higher as you suggest.

        But OTOH I have read the proposal only once.  Perhaps I would bewillng to sign the petition after a 2nd read.  Somewhat unlikely but certainly possible.  

        Take your fear and shove it, it ain't workin' on us no more.

        by Quicklund on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:18:48 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  All we need now... (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    ourprez08

    ...is a President smart enough, flexible enough, and sufficiently determined to go beyond Politics as Usual® to make this plan happen.

    Great. Where the hell are we going to find someone like that?

    Oh, wait...

    I'm not a Democrat, I'm a liberal. Democrats go to meetings.

    by willie horton on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:42:21 PM PDT

    •  John McCain? (0+ / 0-)

      Well it's certainly not John McCain.  He claims to be an expert on foreign policy but, like Bush, he doesn't know the difference between shiite and sunni.

      Did you notice they're attacking Obama because Rev. Wright said 9/11 is America's fault but they're not attacking McCain even though the late Jerry Falwell, who John McCain kissed up to, blamed 9/11 on AMERICANS.  Why is that?  Could it be because of race?

      I hearby announce my endorsement for Barack Obama. I know Senator Obama will want to get pictures with us together like he did with Senator Kennedy. ;)

      by RA on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:49:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  No longer "Terrorist". It's now "Extremist". n/t (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    ourprez08, Quicklund

    ", syrup ,..., shit ,..., hotcakes." Meteor Blades
    John McCain

    by JugOPunch on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:43:25 PM PDT

  •  On behalf of Darius Shahinfar (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    mcjoan, ourprez08, dirtfarmer

    let me say that we are very excited to be joining fellow New York candidates Eric Massa and Steve Harrison along with Darcy Burner and all the others in supporting this plan.

    This plan addresses many of the concerns that Darius Shahinfar has been discussing with me over the last several years (sadly, too many years) that have lead up to this moment of him running for Congress and me working my tail off to send him there.

    It is not enough to simply call for the troops to come home. It is not enough to simply investigate the causes and the mistakes. Real change must be enacted to Renew America's Promise... to its soldiers, its citizens, and to the rest of the world.

    Darius will have more to say on this subject shortly and we will be sure to share it with everyone here at DailyKos as well as closer to home at The Albany Project.

    It is time to send Democrats to Congress that are committed to putting an end to this madness.

    Peace,

    Andrew

    Full Disclosure: I am Chair of the Darius Shahinfar for Congress Campaign Committee in NY-21.

    by Andrew C White on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:52:23 PM PDT

  •  Just a thought (0+ / 0-)

    I was going through all the congressional races coming up trying to figure out Democrats running or already the Party's nominee for each, and many of these names I never found...just looking at wikipedia and the DCCC home page, that is.

    So thanks for pointing out these challengers, first, and second, let's get 'em online, at least at a basic level!

    Alex
    Choose Our President 2008

    •  Wikipedia just did a "speedy deletion"... (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      ourprez08, Preemptive Karma

      of one of only two Democrats seeking the nomination to challenge Oregon Second District's Bush-McCain Republican Congressman, Greg Walden.  The rationale was "lack of prominence" as evidenced by a low number of Google hits with a search on his name.  So, unless your candidate is already all over the internet, don't count on a Wikipedia article on him or her surviving more than a matter of days.

      Healthcare NOT Warfare! (Petition)

      by jgilhousen on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:10:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Good point (0+ / 0-)

        I suppose they'll have less excuse to delete when/if they are actually the nominees.

        I was also kind of flummoxed to see that the DCCC doesn't even list challengers for so-called "targeted races"--are we supposed to click our heels and wish the targeted GOP incumbents get beaten?

        Not that I've given up on trying to update my own list....

        Alex
        Choose Our President 2008

  •  If you are in the Albany NY area (0+ / 0-)

    Saturday please come meet my good friendDarius Shahinfar at the Remembering the Fallen peace walk.

    When: Saturday, March 22, Gather and Music 1:30 pm, Speakers 2:00 PM, Peace Walk 2:30 PM

    Where: New York State Capital Building's West Capital Park, Albany, NY (see map)

    Peace,

    Andrew

    Full Disclosure: I am Chair of the Darius Shahinfar for Congress Campaign Committee in NY-21.

    by Andrew C White on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:58:54 PM PDT

  •  Hillary Praises Petraeus (0+ / 0-)

    Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton gave a relatively rare shout-out to the military's top man in Baghdad, General David Petraeus, calling him "an extraordinary leader and a wonderful advocate for our military."

    The commanding general, who has been a target of antiwar opponents and liberal groups like Moveon.org, has been a strong supporter of the escalation of American troops in Iraq

    http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/...

    Photobucket

    If I were running in this election, I'd be for change too. - George W. Bush

    by William Domingo on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:01:10 PM PDT

  •  a little OT - Barack (0+ / 0-)

    I saw Barack's speech on Iraq today and it sounds good to me. Sounds also like it has a lot in common with Darcy's. Video available here. Kossack Uniter pointed me to it earlier today.

    Maybe worth a later FP post of the video?

  •  Situational morality and imperial overreach (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    bornfdup
    1. American invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation that is not a threat to the United States.  The American people are all for it, relatively speaking.  So a lot of people are going to die; well, it sucks to be them.
    1. Five years later, America is still there.  The American people are all against it, relatively speaking.  Yeah, a lot of people have already died, but, fuck, enough with expensive gas already; it sucks to be us!

    Glad to see we have our priorities straight.  Otherwise, what sort of example would we be setting?

    Move along, folks; nothing to see here.

    God bless America: the land where money trumps blood (and democracy) every time.

    " ... or a baby's arm holding an apple!"

    by Lavocat on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:06:57 PM PDT

  •  GREAT news...let's get more! Darcy Burner is (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Andrew C White

    awesome. And so are the rest for stepping up with the plan. Better than many of the weak Dems we have in Congress these days!

  •  Responsible Plan? (0+ / 0-)

    Pull all the troops out of Iraq and cross our fingers.  How exactly is that a responsible plan?  

    •  Um (0+ / 0-)

      How is that NOT the MOST responsible plan?  

      Anyway, this plan is about replacing soldiers of the empire with social workers of the empire.  It is just as wrong-headed as the plan to occupy Iraq in the first place.

  •  Picture worth a thousand words: (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    HarveyMilk, Duncan1800, express

     title=

    Taken by me at the Portland march on Saturday.

  •  There's something wrong here (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Ma Joad

    Why the hell is a big booster of the Iraq War running neck and neck in the polls with two dems who want to withdraw troops and end the war if the war is so damned unpopular?  I don't get the disconnect or rather the disconnectedness and apathy of so many Americans from this conflict.

  •  Tom Perriello (VA-05) (0+ / 0-)

    website for those in Central VA or elsewhere that would like to know more about the man:

    Tom Perriello for Congress

  •  It looks like self righteous 20/20 hindsight (0+ / 0-)

    The plan makes some leaps of faith:

    There are two strategic questions raised by our current dilemma:

      1. How do we bring American military engagement in Iraq to a responsible end?

         There is no military solution to the problems faced in Iraq: the real progress that can be made requires diplomatic, political, and economic means. We must stop counter-productive military operations by U.S. occupation forces and end our military presence in Iraq.

    Clearly a simply military solution is ridiculous, but an ongoing military presence along with improved diplomatic efforts seems the optimum choice.

      2. How do we prevent a repeat of the mistakes we've made?

         The breakdown of checks and balances in our government led to bad decision-making which damaged America's national security. Ending this war and preventing future situations like it requires that we restore these Constitutional checks and balances and fix the ways in which our governmental, military, and civil institutions have failed us.

    A presumption of both cause and effect, we will always be vulnerable to emotional appeals no matter how many layers of bureaucracy we apply.

    Ultimately the plan fails to address the underlying causes of the war, beyond hanging a few straw men ... a rather  convenient tactic for wanna be politicians.

    •  the Dems cannot address the underlying causes (0+ / 0-)

      because they don't reject them.

      PNAC made no secret of its plans to invade Iraq (they put those plans in writing several years BEFORE the 9-11 attacks).  And they make no secret of the aims behind it.  The purpose is to provide a stable base from which the US can dominate the Middle East.  And why do we need to dominate the Middle East?  Oil.  Both because we need it ourselves, and because we need to be able to deny it to potential global rivals.  It is the key to global control and domination.

      The neocon plan called, quite literally, for America to dominate the entire globe and impose our agenda upon it.  They named it "The New American Century".  In reference to the Romans who tried the same thing, I prefer to call it "Pax Americana" or "America Invicta".  The less politically-correct might refer to it as "Amerika Ober Alles".  They all mean the same thing -- the US runs things. Unquestioned and unchallenged. When we say "shit", the rest of the world asks "what color?" And if someone grumbles, then the boys from the 101st Airborne will be dropping in to discuss the matter.

      Alas, the Democratic leadership is every bit as much in love with that "America Invicta" agenda as the Repugs are.  And it is that agenda -- the desire to impose unchallenged American global hegemony upon the world -- that is the underlying cause for everything that has happened in the past seven years. We can no longer dominate the globe economically, so we must do it militarily -- the reason behind the "modernization" of our armed forces and our steady move towards an increasingly militarized "national security" state, including a "war on terror" that is intended to never end, ever.  

      To dominate the world militarily, we need to control that most vital of all world resources -- oil -- both to give ourselves free access to it and to deny access to potential global rivals.  To dominate the globe militarily, we need a network of support bases all over the world -- and conveniently enough, the unending "war on terror" gives us a great reason to put military bases anywhere and everywhere.

      Since empires must protect against internal dissent and opposition as well as external, we have things like surveillance on internal political opponents, spying on anyone and everyone who is or might become a potential threat.  Like every other empire, we have turned to crushing internal dissent by imprisoning people indefinitely without trial, based on secret evidence obtained through torture.  

      All of these things are vitally necessary for the success of the "Pax Americana". Once one accepts that goal -- the goal that the US should enjoy unchallenged global supremacy -- then everything else MUST follow.  They are the necessary costs of global empire.

      And because the Democratic leadership does not reject the goal itself, but embrace it just as enthusiatically as the neocons do, they too must accept those costs.  The Dems can, of course, try to be kinder and gentler about it, but the bottom line remains that any global American Empire MUST, absolutely MUST, protect itself against both foreign opposition and internal dissent.

      The only way to prevent that, is to reject the goal itself.

      And neither party is willing to do that.

      Editor, Red and Black Publishers http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

      by Lenny Flank on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:39:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Five = Less than One (