Where's the Love for Mike Gravel?

There's a great blog write up on Hanlon's Razor about the Senator. You can read it here.

Here's an excerpt: "Name an issue the Democrats have failed us on and Gravel isn’t fooling around. Iraq? Let’s get out. Iran? Hell no. Universal health care? Let’s get it. Drug laws? Get rid of ‘em. Gay marriage? Of course. Stem cell research? Let’s get it going. Abortion? Rare but legal."

Mike is getting some good press lately, but we're finding ourselves having to set the record straight on the sequence of events regarding Hillary and her now infamous vote on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment.

Mike will have something coming out soon on this issue. In the meantime, please write to Newsweek, Maureen Dowd and any other mainstream journalist who cites criticism of Hillary's vote but fails to mention the integral part Mike played in raising the issue.

Comments

Where's the Love for Mike Gravel?

That's a good question. The article referenced was pretty good especially in it's brevity and accuracy.

I love this guy. There's no telling how much suffering and killing he stopped singlehandedly. How many people have I known that would have been drafted if not for Mike? How much longer could/would the Viet Nam war lasted? Was Mr. Gravel's action as much responsible for ending the Viet Nam war as anything else?

In the past fifty years Mike Gravel probably has done as much if not more good than any other american politician. The only other public servant that seems to have done his job as well was John Kennedy with the smart thinking and wise judgment he displayed during the Cuban missile crisis. If Kennedy had been like these modern warmongerers in both parties, we probably would have incinerated the earth forty plus years ago.

With Mike Gravel as president we might finally have another president worth honoring and remembering.

"Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversary, we offer not a pledge but a request: that both sides begin anew the quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction.
We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.
But neither can two great and powerful groups of nations take comfort from our present course—both sides overburdened by the cost of modern weapons, both rightly alarmed by the steady spread of the deadly atom, yet both racing to alter that uncertain balance of terror that stays the hand of mankind's final war.
So let us begin anew—remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.
Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belaboring those problems which divide us.
Let both sides, for the first time, formulate serious and precise proposals for the inspection and control of arms—and bring the absolute power to destroy other nations under the absolute control of all nations.
Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors. Together let us explore the stars, conquer the deserts, eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths, and encourage the arts and commerce."

John Kennedy - 1/20/61

 

I'll vote for Gravel. Who else is there? Nobody! except Kucinich. A Gravel and Kucinich ticket would please me immensely.

Don't play the village idiot. Again.

It Takes A Village to Start World War III

On September 26, 2007, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton voted yes on the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment that effectively labeled the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps a “terrorist organization.”

Clinton was the lone Democratic presidential candidate to support this legislation that many view as giving President Bush authority to launch an air war against Iran. Senator Chris Dodd, in explaining his negative vote, said, “We learned in the run up to the Iraq war that seemingly nonbinding language passed by this Senate can have profound consequences. We need the president to use robust diplomacy to address concerns with Iran, not the language in this amendment that the president can point to if he decides to draw this country into another disastrous war of choice.” He added, “We shouldn’t repeat our mistakes and enable this President again.”

In her statement released the same day as the vote, Clinton claimed, “I voted for this resolution in order to apply greater diplomatic pressure on Iran. This resolution in no way authorizes or sanctions military action against Iran and instead seeks to end the Bush Administration’s diplomatic inaction in the region.”

Does this sound familiar? It is an uncanny echo of statements Clinton had made about her 2002 Iraq War authorization vote. At the time she said, “So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.”

This vote was Clinton's demonstration of loyalty to the AIPAC : she can be relied upon to do their bidding no matter how detrimental the result for the American people.

Now the money she's been given to "campaign" comes into play as the Top Down Media explain to us that she is "unbeatable", and a large piece of the American public, stupified by years of irradiation before their TVs, dutifully believe what they are told.

If Mike Gravel gets more votes on election day... he wins.

Vote for Mike Gravel and be a winner.

Don't play the village idiot. Again.

--

Times have changed. We are going to empower the American people. Let’s work together. I am tough. I’m not afraid. None of this politics as usual. Mike Gravel