Bring them home.
I would like to start by thanking Josh Marshall and Kate Cambor for the opportunity to speak with TPM Café’s readers this week. I especially appreciate being able to communicate with you through this medium. Online activism is bringing the people back in to politics and this has been very important part of my campaign. Speaking in this venue also allows me an opportunity to have a discussion with folks that I might not have a chance to meet while I am traveling throughout Ohio. I look forward to a lively and thoughtful conversation this week.
I’m Paul Hackett, a son of Ohio, born in Cleveland, raised in Cincinnati, educated at Case Western Reserve University, and Law School at Cleveland State. I met my wife in Cleveland, we married in Cleveland and after we left the Marine Corps we moved back to Cincinnati where we started our family and I built a business, Hackett Law Offices, a small business with 5 employees. I know first hand the impact government has on small businesses, their ability to create new jobs and provide benefits for their employees.
Despite, traveling, serving, and living around the world my wife and I chose to move back to Ohio to build our lives and raise our children because we know no other place as beautiful and great. I am a small businessman and my business has blessed me with success. However, to whom much is given much is expected and it’s in this spirit of service, leadership and commitment that I offer my continued service to the people of Ohio to serve as their next U.S. Senator.
I am also a Marine. My father taught me at a young age that military service, if one is able, was a patriotic duty. So I volunteered for the Marine Corps reserves while I was an undergraduate at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland. Upon finishing my law degree at Cleveland State University, I went on to fulfill my commitment to the Marine Corps serving on active duty in destinations such as Quantico, Virginia; Okinawa, Japan; and the Philippines. I was honorable discharged in 1999, but my leave from military duty would be short-lived.
Despite my strong opposition to the war in Iraq, I felt it was my duty to return to service. I was not going to sit idly by while my brothers and sisters in the Marine Corp went in my stead. I felt it was my place to be with my fellow Marines when they were fighting and dying. I left my political views at the American shores and volunteered for active duty in the summer of 2004. I was assigned to Ramadi and volunteered to serve in the Fallujah campaign and subsequent reconstruction efforts.
I was always against the war, and my tour of duty in Iraq did not change this. Career politicians have mishandled this war. Their refusal to listen to the advice of experienced military leaders in the Pentagon produced a very poor post-invasion strategy. The Bush administration’s alienation of many of our European allies has left us with few friends to help in the nation building programs that are necessary to construct a stable and democratic society in Iraq. This war was a misuse of America's military. It's wrong to have American warriors painting schools in Iraq. Nation building begins at home.
I was asked to run for Congress in Ohio’s 2nd district immediately upon my return from Iraq -- literally at the airport. I narrowly lost in a district that is predominately Republican and where a Democrat had not won in more than 30 years. My race was not a defeat for Democrats, but a victory for Democracy. I'm proud that I was able to energize Democrats in this district and across the country. My decision to enter politics was based on my strong belief that people with normal, real-life experiences should run for public office. Career politicians, entrenched in Washington D.C. politics, have lost the ability to stand up for the people and face difficult problems head-on.
This has become one of the major stumbling blocks in Iraq. It is the Bush administration’s headstrong insistence on “staying the course,” as well as the Democrats’ inability to adequately challenge this policy, that has lead to the prolonging of the conflict in Iraq. Stay the course? What is the course? Mission accomplished? You've got to be kidding. Mr. President, it takes more than landing on an aircraft carrier to achieve victory. I fail to understand why it has taken some elected politicians so long to face the hard problems and make the difficult decisions. While the Democrats do not YET have the majority in the legislature, they have the power to speak frankly about Iraq and unite the people behind a policy that will end this ongoing struggle.
When asked about my policy on the Iraq war by a veteran a few days ago, I simply stated “Bring them home.” This is the reality underlying the perceived complexity. Just because something is difficult doesn’t mean it should be avoided. Right now we are doing little to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. A full-scale military presence only hinders the ability of Iraqis to build their own nation. We should listen to our military leaders and set a timetable for the withdrawal of our troops. We should also invite our allies and international organizations to help in maintaining the peace and building the nation of Iraq.
Lets get real about the War on Terror. It was never in Iraq until we allowed it to be there, by not securing the borders. Saddam was a secular dictator, a horrible man, but not a religious fanatic and not a friend of Osama Bin Laden. In fact they were bitter enemies. Bin Laden even offered the service of his mujahedeen army in the removal of Iraq from occupied Kuwait in 1990, before the U.S. stepped in. The Iraq conflict had nothing to do with the War on Terror. It was a diversion from pursuing the real enemy, Al-Qaeda. We need to stop wasting the valuable resources of our military and reengage in a full-scale pursuit of Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. I personally have looked terrorism in the eye and vanquished it. If the President and Karl Rove want to question my patriotism, I say "bring it on."
President Bush claims that Al-Qaeda hates us for our democracy, while he is trying to limit our democracy by systematically impeding on our civil rights. He is not fooling this Marine, and he is not fooling the American people. Lets get real President Bush. Stop using the War on Terror to promote your own agenda. The war does not have to be without an end in sight. We need to use the full capacity of our military strength as well as strong, but cooperative, foreign policy initiatives that once again unite the world behind us in the pursuit of peace and the end of terrorism.
I chose to speak about Iraq and the War on Terror first, because we cannot move on to solving the problems of job security, rising health care costs, the lack of adequate funding for education and the burgeoning deficit while we are spending billions in Iraq. Lets bring our brothers and sisters in the Marine Corp, Army, Navy, Air Force and National Guard back to their families and loved ones. Lets make sure that they receive the best possible moral support and financial and medical benefits when they return. Then lets tackle the difficult economic and social problems head-on, and lets fix them. Lets settle for nothing less than excellence for this great nation. Lets make real change, right now. Please join our team and support our fight.
The war has exacerbated all of our problems (underemployment, health care, response to Katrina, education, budget deficits,military preparedness, American power and authority, terrorism, international collaboration and cooperation) and ameliorated none of them. It is an abject failure brought to America by an elite without ideas or compassion carried out by careerists and sycophants. And I don't think I am harsh enough.
February 13, 2006 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
What a refreshing post! So many democrats have nothing to say on Iraq and the war on terror. You are taking a page out of Karl Rove's playbook and attacking their alleged strength. While it seems to be conventional wisdom that the democrats should just pretend that Iraq is not happening you bring it front and center where it belongs and say the things that need to be said.
Please don't let anyone try to water down your message. If only John Kerry had your guts and straightforward approach, the world would look a lot different now.
I am irritated that Sherrod Brown (although he seems a decent enough person) has chosen to stand in your way. I think that the message you have is one that needs to be heard on the national stage - especially from people who have been fighting the war in Iraq.
Of course, the cameras will be slow to come to you and the other fightin' dems because the dominant paradigm is that Bush and the Republicans are strong on defense and Democrats are wimpy do-gooders. You and your fightin dems are breaking that mold. Keep it up and don't back down!
Raindog
February 13, 2006 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
No one questions your patriotism. It is your judgment that is in doubt. No number of cliches ("nation building begins at home" or "marines should not be painting schools") can obscure the fact that you do not explain a) why the consequences of immediate withdrawal would be palatable, and b) why it is clear that the strategy that is now being pursued will fail. This second point is crucial because it is obvious to me (a democrat) that there has been a substantial shift in US strategy over the past couple of years, away from traditional war fighting to counterinsurgency, and that this is producing results. We should respond by welcoming this development and encouraging them to do more. The most important thing here is not to score political points but to ensure the best possible outcome for the country. By the way, in a counterinsurgency, as you should well know, "painting schools" so to speak is exactly what forces should be doing-- in the name of winning hearts and minds, separating the public from the insurgents, providing safe havens, making a positive contribution, and downplaying the role of force.
February 13, 2006 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obviously as someone who has actually been in the Iraq war you are in a unique position to challenge the creeping warmongerism among some Congressional Democrats. Consider your challenger Sherrod Brown. While it is true he voted against the Bush administration's Iraq war legislation, Sherrod Brown is a co-founder of the Taiwan Congressional Caucus and an ardent anti-China politician. In 1997 Brown proclaimed at a rally in Taipei that Taiwan should say NO to China and the US should end the one-China policy.
Brown's position is bellicose. The one-China policy, while admittedly flawed, is the legacy of peace left to us by previous governments both Repubican and Democratics. A renunciation of it in favor of an independent Taiwan is an invitation to war with China. Is this really the type of policies Ohio wants espoused in Washington?
Given your feelings about the war in Iraq and your very astute comments about the need to fix our own nation, where do you stand on the US-Taiwan-China knot?
"Where the bullk of the population cannot read, true democracy is impossible." -- Bertrand Russell
February 13, 2006 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
First, I would like to thank you for your past service to our nation, and hopefully for your future service in the U.S. Senate.
My questions to you would be these:
1. Since you were among the very first (if not the first) of the new wave of "Fighting Dems" to use your military background as a means of attacking both Bush and the Republican Party's policies with regard to Iraq and elsewhere, do you feel as though the media is basically potrraying you as essentially a single-issue candidate? And if that becomes the perception in the minds of Ohio's voters, do you think that could hurt your candidacy, particularly if circumstances somehow take a significant turn for the better in Iraq or if Bush were to announce a major phased withdrawal?
2. As the Fighting Dems trend appears to be sweeping across the country, do you believe that there could be a potential danger for the Democratic Party in terms of a fetishization of candidates who have worn a military uniform in active-duty service? It almost seems as though -- following the trail you blazed last year -- candidates are being sought out merely because of their prior service. I don't in any way mean to be disrespectful, but as proud Democrats, shouldn't the content of a woman or man's ideas matter more than the clothes they wore?
I wish you the best of luck throughout 2006 and look forward to supporting you this year and beyond.
February 13, 2006 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for such an honest, straight-forward post about the war in Iraq. It is very refreshing to see a Democrat who isn't afraid to mince words and stays out of the wonky-speak of so many leaders.
I urge you to keep fighting in the primary. We need New Democrats like you to reform this party from the inside out.
February 13, 2006 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Major Hackett,
It was an honor to donate money to your campaign in Ohio's second district and I wish you luck on your Senate campaign. I'm having a hard time donating any money towards this primary campaign, either to you or to Congressman Brown, because I like you both so much. Currently I'm planning to save my money until after the primary and then donate it to whomever goes on to face DeWine.
I was wondering if you'd be willing to write a little bit about the issues where you and Sherrod Brown see eye-to-eye and where you think you're different. And specifically, can you enumerate some of the things you specifically LIKE about Congressman Brown?
Thank you.
February 13, 2006 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
it is obvious to me (a democrat) that there has been a substantial shift in US strategy over the past couple of years, away from traditional war fighting to counterinsurgenc y, and that this is producing results.
Of course we're "producing results." The question is, what kind of results, and are they, on balance, more negative or positive. I take it you believe that "a substantial shift in US strategy" is producing mostly positive results. What evidence do you base that on? I don't think this is "obvious" to many people, even among Bush supporters.
February 13, 2006 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
No number of cliches...can obscure the fact that you do not explain a) why the consequences of immediate withdrawal would be palatable
Hey, that's funny. I just did a search on this page, and the first mention of "immediate withdrawal" was yours, not Hackett's.
why it is clear that the strategy that is now being pursued will fail.
I think you're right. I mean, heck, it's only been a few years of Bush's Plan For Victory. Give them a few more years, hell, maybe 10. I'm sure we'll win by then.
The only thing standing in the way of Victory is a few more thousand US troops deaths, right?
A small price to pay for a pro-Iranian government.
Dissent Protects Democracy
February 13, 2006 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I chose to speak about Iraq and the War on Terror first, because we cannot move on to solving the problems of job security, rising health care costs, the lack of adequate funding for education and the burgeoning deficit while we are spending billions in Iraq.
Lots of good stuff, but I think think the above hits it on target.
Contrast that statement with the conventional Democratic strategist wisdom that Dems should stick to domestic issues and avoid Iraq.
Nice to have some unconventional wisdom in our party. We need it.
Dissent Protects Democracy
February 13, 2006 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cmon, Bragan. Of course there's been results.
Last September, there was only one Iraqi battalion fully ready to fight on their own.
Today, there's...only one.
Never mind.
Dissent Protects Democracy
February 13, 2006 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dream on. We need to get our troops out of there and help to fund Iraqi reconstruction run by Iraqis.
Tom
February 13, 2006 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great Bertrand Russell quote.
Tom
February 13, 2006 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
"the first mention of "immediate withdrawal" was yours, not Hackett's."
A legitimate comment but that is the meaning of what he said-- set a timetable and leave. The timetable is not contingent on progress but only on "inviting" other states to help, which has been already done, and proceeding regardless. In the debate on next steps that is what is understood as "immediate", i.e. unilateral and as soon as possible.
"The only thing standing in the way of Victory is a few more thousand US troops deaths, right?"
A cheap shot. We must be objective in our assessment. The military and civilian officials I have spoken to say that the counterinsurgency war is in the balance. They also say the consequences of withdrawal would be catastrophic. In my book that means stay for a while longer until it is safe to leave or until it is unwinnable.
I asked this question in here before-- do you want the administration to succeed in Iraq? Because, we all should for the country's sake but sometimes I get the impression that many people want them to fail, and withdrawal is a way of securing that.
February 13, 2006 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Hackett, it is unfortunate that you and Sherrod Brown are running against each other. I hope you both continue to focus on DeWine and resist the urge to go negative in the primary.
I wish good fortune to you both!
About the corruption issue. Corruption is primarily a Republican problem, not bi-partisan. I suggest you contrast your own obvious belief in public service, with the Republicans insistence on "getting the government off our backs."
If they go to Washington believing that government is the cause of our problems, yeilding to personal temptation might seem like a minor evil. But Democrats go to Washington with the ideal of helping government work better for all us citizens, and corruption is not in the playbook.
February 13, 2006 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Its just terrific to have an outspoken veteran like yourself speaking "truth to power" as they say.
President Bush has now stated that the nation is addicted to oil. Dealing with this issue will be very difficult and unfortunately his budget doesn't match the rhetoric.
One idea that has come quite close to passing the Senate in the past is increasing fuel economy standards for cars and trucks. That's probably the most sure-fire way to address the nation's dependence on oil.
Sen. DeWine opposed more fuel efficient vehicles. Rep. Brown has supported it. What's your view?
Thanks.
February 13, 2006 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Hackett,
I wish you success in your campaign. Having a Democratic candidate running for office and, at the same time, speaking the truth about Iraq is so unique! I often get the feeling that most people, and not just candidates, think they are defending their manhood by supporting our unfortunatee adventure in Iraq. That adventure - ok, that illegal invasion - is not defendable in any rational debate. It was wrong when we did it, it was wrong when we took over Iraq, and it is still wrong as we seek to establish an extremist Iranian government for Iraq. I am assuming that the latter is our goal there - to assume otherwise would be to accuse the President of being a clueless idiot, and I wouldn't want to do that.
Hoppy in Sacramento
February 13, 2006 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
To be honest, I have a hard time understanding how people who were against the war in the first place were able to come to that conviction. How did you know that they would be so incompetent beforehand? How did you know that they weren't serious about post-war planning beforehand?
February 13, 2006 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's interesting how those of us who were right about this being a bad idea on 2/15/2003 when millions of people around the world protested in order to prevent what was an obvious bad idea from taking place have had to defend ourselves. By reading the European press before Bush invaded it was obvious that Bush/Cheney were cherry-picking info to back up the pre-determination to invade Iraq and dump Hussein. It was no surprise to most of the world that Powell's UN speech turned out to be bogus. They knew ahead of time by reading and thinking as opposed to listening to administration lackeys on Fox News, etc.
When Bush only finds out about the difference between Sunnis and Shiites in January 2003, according to George Packer, you know you're dealing with a yokel who has no clue what he is doing. This has been Bush's pattern from day one. Except for his bullhorn moment at Ground Zero the guy has been a total disaster at everything he's done. So it's no surprise that the Iraq situation is a disaster. Incompetence, arrogance, ignorance, and greed are not qualities that lead to wise decision-making.
Tom
February 13, 2006 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I opposed the war in the first place, and it had nothing to do with the framing you set up. The issue for me was not whether the war would be a success, so the administration's lack of competence or planning skill wasn't signficant.
Iraq was contained and bottled up, with no-fly zones in place and inspectors on the ground. They were not a threat, but Osama bin Laden was (and remains) a threat. The job in Afghanistan was not done, and still isn't done.
I actually assumed at the time that Saddam had some chemical weapons left over from before the Gulf War, but I was happy to allow the inspectors to find any that remained and supervise their destruction. Had Saddam blocked inspectors' access to any buildings (he did not, by the way), I would have supported the "muscular inspections" approach: if you don't let us into building X, we'll destroy that building. However, by March 2003 the inspectors were already beginning to realize what we now know: there were no "WMD" remaining.
But perhaps the main reason I don't have the blind spot that so many Americans have is that I travel abroad for work, and I have colleagues from all over the world, including the Middle East. Americans don't get nationalism. If you invade someone's country, even if the ruler is a monster, people will rally against the invaders, simply because they are invaders. Afghanistan only went as well as it did because the ground fighting was carried out by Afghans (the Northern Alliance); they were not invaders. Bush, Senior was right; pretty much all the negative consequences he predicted as coming from a Saddam overthrow have come to pass.
February 13, 2006 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I opposed the invasion but not because I expected incompetence. It was the justifications that were weak. We were saying it would hurt Afghanistan, and it has. We were saying we couldn't afford it and now we're broke. We were saying that the probable chaos would encourage terrorism and provide a recruiting theme, and it has.
Those justifications are, of course, now completely discredited, so I have no trouble sticking with my initial position. It is both a bit of schadenfreude and also horrifying that we were such bunglers. Soldiers such as Paul Hackett carry no blame for the chintzy troop levels, the emphasis on securing oil facilities first, the disbanding of the Iraq army, or the looting. Their superiors at the Pentagon and the White House bear full responsibility for those failings.
During the Vietnam war you couldn't run for national office without a position on it. Once again we have used our soldiers cruelly and callously.
February 13, 2006 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
A cheap shot. We must be objective in our assessment.
Yes, admittedly cheap. But I don't need to be objective. Not when it comes to our troops getting killed for no reason. Oh, I mean for a pro-Iranian government.
They also say the consequences of withdrawal would be catastrophic. In my book that means stay for a while longer until it is safe to leave or until it is unwinnable.
Two rebuttals, hopefully less cheap. First, there's a good argument on the other side that says "we are the cause of the insurgency." We leave, the violence stops.
Second, I am trouble by the phrase "for a while longer." We've been staying "for a while longer" for a while now.
That, plus the fact that we really have no measures for success (do you really think it's ever going to be "safe"? How do we know it's "unwinnable"?), other than some vague Bushian notion of "Victory," it all adds up to what we did in Vietnam.
We're headed that way...
Bush's plan is "trust me, we know what we're doing." Well, they don't know what they're doing.
They've proven that.
Dissent Protects Democracy
February 13, 2006 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I never for one moment thought that Saddam could get to us. In my gut I knew that the administration was lying to us. I remember watching an Oprah show before the war, Thomas Freidman was the guest, and he kept qualifying his statements, if this happens then maybe that will...I was screaming at the TV that if the war started there were no if's in people dying. Freidman still makes me ill.
Maybe it comes from being old enough to remember the lies the country was told about Vietnam. But it sounded like lies to me, and of course it was. And BTW, that being welcomed by flowers BS they fed us? I could not imagine any country welcoming an invasion force with flowers. Can you?
February 13, 2006 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Mr. Hackett: I proudly support you in whatever endeavor you choose. I really hope you win Ohio's Senate seat, either now or in 2010. You are the kind of outspoken, proud Democrat we need in Washington! I lost a friend to the Iraq War and I still don't know why he had to die. Please, if you decide not to run in the Senate race, go for a rematch against that evil witch who called Murtha a coward. I'll support you either way.
February 13, 2006 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I realize that most people are focused on the operational details of the continuing Iraq situation, but I think this will prove to be a diversion. Unknown candidates should devote themselves to the greater themes. You can express your position on the conduct of the war and the reasons for getting in (or out) and then move on to concerns of voters.
There are two, it seems to me. The first is how to deal with the increasing militarization of the society. People like Chalmers Johnson have been warning of the effects that this is having on our values and economy. Having the Dems try to out-hawk the Republicans is not what we expect. Explaining how to maintain security while getting rid of the vestiges of cold war programs and using the money saved for improving competiveness through infrastructure redevelopment and social programs is a more postive approach. It is also one the Republicans can't use, they have had 14 years to put their programs into effect and the results have not improved the economy or the lives of the average American.
Second, Ohio was the first real place to show the full effects of the shift away from the "rust belt" economy of the first half of the 20th Century. It should be the place where new ideas are tried out so that it can become the first place of the 21st Century to move beyond the this legacy. I think this means seeking advice from progressive thinkers on what a post-industrial, post-military society can look like. Current platitudes like "improved education" are not resonating with people. A progressive campaign in Ohio would provide a model in many other areas. "If Ohio can change, why can't we".
--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape
February 13, 2006 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
About the rumors, have you decided to run for the House? Or are you sticking with the Senate race? Thanks.
February 13, 2006 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
How did you know that they weren't serious about post-war planning beforehand?
It was well-known (see this timeline under "Winter-Summer 2001, and also see this series of articles from WaPo from 2001) that Rummy wanted to invade Iraq to flesh out his "military transformation" theory (see Rumsfeld doctine for more).
It didn't take a military expert to know that 60,000 troops were not going to be enough to occupy Iraq.
Call it "flowers and chocolate" post-war planning.
It was pretty easy to see that they were not taking the post-war planning seriously, relying in delusional statements about how the Iraqis would love us and all.
Dissent Protects Democracy
February 13, 2006 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can definitely understand and agree with your point about having prior commitments in Afghanistan and with Bin Laden. And I never bought the WMD thing, either.
But I can't understand how anyone could not endorse a policy of the removal of any and every dictator across the globe.
February 13, 2006 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Paul
Thank you for your service and for your participation here at the Cafe.
Given your strong views on Iraq what are your views about America's role in the world. How would you engage the American people in the necessary debate about this role?
Daniel A. Greenbaum
February 13, 2006 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
We did it by getting a coaltion of the "bribed and bullied", then spat in the face of the UN. We have increased Iranian power and Islamist power in the area. Not a real bright way to approach finding a solution to the problem of a murderous dictator.
Tom
February 13, 2006 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
How can we prevent large scale Republican electoral hanky-panky such as we had in Ohio in the 2004 Presidential election?
Tom
February 13, 2006 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
But I can't understand how anyone could not endorse a policy of the removal of any and every dictator across the globe.
It depends on what you mean by "policy." Bush-style Freedom Spreading(tm)?Dissent Protects Democracy
February 13, 2006 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I mean is engaging in a war in order to overthrow a dictator, after all uses of soft power have genuinely been tried, and have failed to produce any effect.
February 13, 2006 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would certainly hope that the increasing militarization of American society would be a concern of voters, but I'm not sure it actually is. Moreover, Hackett's lines above about how it's been politicians who have lost the war in Iraq by ignoring the sage advice of the military give one little confidence in his ability to oppose the ruinous bureaucratic inertia, territoriality and staggering greed that the Pentagon has just showcased with its new quarterly defense policy review, in which it reveals that is has learned nothing from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and prioritizes more gigantic nuclear-powered ships and obscenely expensive fighter jets above all else - including the preparedness of its own soldiers for the wars they are actually likely to fight.
February 13, 2006 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Hackett,
As a fellow Ohio citizen I am glad to see a Democrat in our state to finally get some guts and fight back. I hear their is speculation that the House Dems are courting you for another fight against terrible Jean Schmidt. I hope you opt instead to stick with your senate run. Ohio and our party needs you. Sherrod Brown although a good man, does not have the backbone like you have. I want a fighting Democrat to represent me. You may not have as much money as Brown, but you have the guts and the determination to overcome that obstacle. Here at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio I have started a group supporting you and I already have over 150 willing supporters to fight for you in Butler County. You speak for us Mr. Hackett, keep fighting, and I will keep fighting for you. Good Luck Paul, and I always got your back man!
February 13, 2006 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
THANK YOU Mr. Hackett!
A Democrat with a spine is an endangered species
February 13, 2006 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Removing dictators is policing the world and depends on a supportable determination that
1) the majority want him gone,
2) the aftermath will be an improvement,
3) we can afford it, and
4) it can be done at acceptable cost in lives.
1) Applied in Iraq, but 2-4 did not.
If we are supposedly acting for the benefit of the world the world gets a say. If we are acting in our own interests we have to show an imminent threat or it is aggression. Since we can't be everywhere we will pick and choose and be therefore unfair.
February 13, 2006 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink