My reply to action@tedkennedy.com

50,000 people support your legislation apparently without having read it. There is no reason not to provide a link to the legislation on the petition page, so people can read what they are signing on to. This is no way to run an internet petition, and frankly I have not encountered it before, where people are asked to sign without knowing what they are signing. I think that if someone were to collect signatures on the streets of Oakland, where I live, in such a shoddy fashion, I think it would be illegal. I have asked you before to either include a link to the legislation on the petition page, or take the petition page down. There are other petitions to sign that just say "I oppose the escalation" and I have signed them. Some allow the signer to add his or her additional comments.

It is not at all unreasonable for me to request a link to the legislation you are proposing so that I can read it before signing a petition that says I support it. I asked for this a couple of days ago and got no response. Does your legislation tacitly or explicitly condone this genocidal disaster at current levels? I don't know. I HAVEN'T SEEN THE LEGISLATION!!!

How long have you been doing internet stuff? In case you are unaware, the internet is a two way street. I expect a reply. I expected a reply the last time I made this complaint. I sign a lot of petitions. I have signed a petition opposing the escalation. Why do you want me to sign a petition with Ted Kennedy's name attached to it, WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING WHAT I AM SIGNING???

Perhaps I could search around on the internet and find the text of your legislation. There is no reason that I should have to do that. The link to the legislation that I am saying I support should be right there on the petition page.

I thought for sure you would say Larry Allen is right. Or at least respond, and send me the link. I don't know if you consider this a stunt or a game or a popularity contest or what. I am sorry, but we the people have been lied to a lot. So show me the text of your legislation, please.

I had intended to communicate with Senator Kennedy is his capacity as Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee. I am beginning to believe that would be a waste of time. Perhaps Senator Kennedy is living in the past and does not know what internet activism is all about.

Is this an argument between continuing this disasterous genocide at a 140,000 as opposed to 160,000 troop level? I haven't heard Sen. Kennedy say anything about repealing the Iraq War Resolution or defeating the war appropriations bill and passing instead an appropriation to cover an orderly withdrawal over the next four to six months. Democrats were not given control of congress to preserve the status quo.

What was really going on this last week was the wholesale theft of 115 billion barrels of Iraqi oil by Bush and Blair on behalf of British Petroleum, Shell, Chevron and Exxon-Mobile. This unconsionable act will cost many American lives, and cause problems for generations to come. Why don't you propose legislation to undo those 30 year leases? Or do you plan to allow the theft of the oil, continue the genocide at current troop levels, and say in 2008 you opposed the war, after another 2000 Americans and 350,000 Iraqis are dead? If so, then good luck holding on to all those democratic chairs. We the people are way ahead of you, Senator.

Larry Allen
Oakland, CA

first, welcome to DU, Larry!!

if you're really interested in what Kennedy is pushing and not just blowing off steam about his petition and lack of disclosure, here's some info ... you can watch his speech to the Nat'l Press Club by going to www.c-span.org and clicking on "Sen. Kennedy (D-MA) Policy Speech on Iraq" ... Kennedy was impressive ...

also, there's a copy of the email he sent out regarding his petition at the end of this post ...

as for my reaction to your post, i think it would have been much stronger had you focussed on your last two paragraphs ... Kennedy's campaign to "stop the surge" may fall far short of what you or I want to see happen, but there's no reason to dismiss it as anything but a very positive step ...

however, I fully agree with your point that the right policy here is not "blocking 20000 more troops", it's stopping the damned war and bringing home all the troops ... Kennedy talked about not funding the next 20000 and it appears even on that he's not getting much (any?) support from his colleagues ...

as for your points about blood for oil, i couldn't agree more ... Dems need to speak out against the oil grab before it's too late ... they've already waited far too long ...

Forgive me if I am just blowing off steam. The letter was in fact about the petition. The truth is 50,000 of us have signed on to legislation that is a moving target. At best it preserves the status quo, and is being watered down from there, as we speak, by Senator Reid who wants to make it non-binding:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/1/9/173442/8848

The lemming approach is not going to get us out of this war. Bush does not really care, 140,000 or 160,000. If Kennedy wins, the war continues. If Reid wins, the war continues, if they compromise, the war continues. This is utter distraction by progressive democrats. If the Senators haven't gotten it yet, that the American people really do oppose this war, and expect the congress which they elected and which has the constitutional authority, to do something about it, then it is high time we do something to make sure they do get it.

The war appropriations bill is not that many weeks away. This "surge" is a red herring by Bush. The Senate seems to have taken the bait and is wasting valuable time. I would feel more comfortable if Kennedy was working for a defeat of the war appropriation in favor of a withdrawal appropriation, and Reid was trying to water that down in favor of a time table, say 105,000 by June and 70,000 by October.

The real event was the oil grab which overturns everything we have been told for four years. I think the Senators know that. At some point you have to ask yourself if they really intend to end this war. If you are not ready to ask that now, then when will you be? A war appropriation lasts a year, and a year from now we will be in primary season.

I get the eerie feeling that they are cooperating with Bush, positioning themselves for 2008, and pulling one over on the American people. What have we won, what has Bush lost, if they succesfully talk him down to current troop levels? Somehow we have to emphatically let them know that the war appropriation is not going to pass. Otherwise, the mandate of 2006 will have evaporated. Time is short.