From Diggs:

The other day I got a candidate questionnaire from a group called ‘Peace Action West’.

As I was reading it, it struck me that there’s really no chance that my full answers will ever see the light of day if these people get their way.  (You’ll see why when you read their questions and my responses).

So I decided to go public with my answers myself.

So here is my complete and unedited response to the “Peace Action West Candidate Questionnaire”.

Needless to say, I don’t think I’ll be receiving their endorsement.

My responses are in bold.

Peace Action West Candidate Questionnaire

Nuclear Nonproliferation

1) The Future of International Nuclear Weapons Policy

A January 2007 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of State George Schultz, former Senator Sam Nunn and former Secretary of Defense William Perry called for a “world free of nuclear weapons” and urged the United States to lead an international effort to reduce nuclear weapons stockpiles. They argued for a multilateral, verifiable plan with strong enforcement mechanisms. President Obama has followed through on his commitment to negotiating a follow on agreement to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) with Russia by early 2010. The president has also talked about pursuing a new series of negotiations with Russia for even deeper reductions in both countries’ nuclear arsenals.

Do you support negotiating with Russia for deep reductions down to 1,000 or fewer weapons in our arsenals? Do you support the larger vision of taking practical steps to reach the elimination of nuclear weapons? Please explain.

_____Yes                                ____No

Please Explain:

Diggs: I’m going to assume from the title of your organization and the tone of your first question that this is going to be an interesting questionnaire.

So let’s dispense with the usual political double-talk.  I’m a Green Beret.  You’re something called “Peace Action West”.  This is not going to be pretty.

My answer to question one: I support negotiating with the Russians to reduce some of our stockpiles.  But let’s not forget that deterrence works.  The Russian military officers I worked with were downright taken aback by our advanced weapons systems and the caliber of our men and women in uniform.  In fact, they knew they would have gotten their butts kicked had we gone to war.

(It’s funny how that whole “peace through strength” thing is so effective, isn’t it?)

As for the “elimination of nuclear weapons,” are you kidding me?

It takes a pretty naïve outlook to assume that we live in a warm and fuzzy world where Kim Jong Il isn’t a lunatic dictator who’s starving his own people and blackmailing the Pacific Rim with nuclear threats.

It takes a pretty naïve outlook to give Iran the benefit of the doubt and assume that Mahmoud Ahmedinijad isn’t looking for a quick and easy way to wipe the Israelis off the map.

I’d say that there’s no such thing as a “practical step” to achieve the impossible.

2) A Nuclear Test Ban

The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, first opened for signatures in 1996, would ban all tests of nuclear weapons.  The CTBT has been signed by 182 states, including Russia, China, Great Britain, Iran, Egypt, and France, and ratified by 151, including all of the United States’ other NATO allies. The CTBT’s entry into force awaits ratification by nine key countries, including the United States.

Do you support U.S. ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty?

_____Yes                                ____No

Please Explain:

Diggs: Well, well, well… Iran signed it.  I guess we can all rest easy because Mahmoud Ahmedinijad has given us his word that he’s not going to be testing any nuclear weapons.  Did it ever occur to you that his idea of a “test” would be to lob one over at Tel Aviv to see if it detonates properly?

Throughout history, whenever America and her allies have put stock in the signatures of dictators on pieces of paper it has left us vulnerable.  Hitler signed a piece of paper agreeing to “peace in our time.”  Japan signed a piece paper in 1930 agreeing to limit the size of its navy.  The Soviet Union signed – and broke – treaties throughout the Cold War.  North Korea, Iran and Iraq have all signed pieces of paper in the past twenty years that have turned out to be meaningless acts of deliberate deception.

We must learn from history.  We must continue to develop the most state-of-the-art weapons systems and we should be testing them.

What’s the use of having weapons if we’re not sure that they’ll work?  More importantly, what’s the use of having weapons if our enemies aren’t sure that they’ll work?

3) The Future of the U.S. Nuclear Stockpile

Proponents of modernizing our nuclear arsenal through the creation of new nuclear weapons, such as the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW), claim that as our current nuclear stockpile ages it becomes less reliable, therefore new weapons are needed. However, a 2007 study on plutonium released by a group of independent expert scientists, the JASON Defense Advisory Panel, provides clear evidence that our stockpile remains reliable. Proving that most U.S. plutonium pits “have credible minimum lifetimes in excess of 100 years,” this report undercuts the arguments in favor of new warheads. Even the oldest warhead in our current stockpile has at least 70 years of reliability left. A September 2009 JASON report on the Lifetime Extension Program affirms that the U.S. can maintain its existing stockpile, saying, “Lifetimes of today’s nuclear warheads could be extended for decades, with no anticipated loss in confidence, by using approaches similar to those employed in LEPs to date.” In 2009, Congress zeroed out funding for the RRW and President Obama did not include funding for RRW in his 2010 budget request. However, Defense Secretary Gates and some members of Congress support stockpile modernization and the program could manifest in a different form.

The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) made new nuclear weapons production central to its plans to revamp and “modernize” the nuclear weapons complex. The Government Accountability Office estimated that new warhead production facilities producing newly designed warheads would cost at least $150 billion. The NNSA’s plan calls for funding the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Nuclear Facility (CMRR) in Los Alamos. As currently proposed, the CMRR is a plutonium pit production facility that would significantly increase U.S. warhead production capability. Expanding U.S. warhead production capacity at a time when the U.S. is recommitting to its international obligation to work towards eliminating nuclear weapons will make it difficult to achieve U.S. nonproliferation objectives. With no need for new nuclear weapons, the rationale for these new facilities has been called into question.

Do you oppose new nuclear weapons such as the Reliable Replacement Warhead?

_____Yes                                ____No

Do you oppose changes to the nuclear weapons complex under NNSA’s “Complex Transformation” or “Complex Modernization” plan that would support new nuclear weapons production?

_____Yes                                ____No

Please Explain:

Diggs: You’re making quite an assumption that there’s “no need for new nuclear weapons.”  The United States survives in this hostile world because it has the best-equipped military in history.  I support the modernization of our nuclear arsenal, I support the Reliable Replacement Warhead, and I support new nuclear weapons production.

U.S.-Iran relations

4) The standoff between Iran and the U.S. and its allies continues over Iran’s nuclear technology program. Unrest in Iran and the government’s violent crackdown, fueled by questions about the legitimacy of the June presidential election, have complicated U.S. policy. Currently the Obama administration maintains that it will stay at the negotiating table with Iran.

What diplomatic tools or approaches would you use to engage Iran over its nuclear program? Would you deal directly with Iran over its nuclear program and if so would you set any preconditions for negotiations? Under what circumstances, if any, would you use military means to deal with Iran’s nuclear programs? Please explain your answers.

Diggs: As the cornerstone of my negotiations with Iran, I would speed up the development and production of the Massive Ordinance Penetrator, a precision-guided, 30,000-pound bunker-busting bomb (the “MOP”) capable of destroying their underground nuclear facilities.

Bringing the MOP to the negotiating table would be an extremely effective “diplomatic tool”.

There would be a single precondition for negotiation: The immediate and unconditional cessation of all nuclear activities and the granting of full access to our weapons inspection teams.  If Mahmoud Ahmedinijad does that, we can talk further.

Those poor Iranian students who Ahmedinijad’s henchmen were slaughtering in the streets of Tehran this summer (and who President Obama ignored  because he was so afraid of offending the Iranians and damaging our “negotiations”) would be overwhelmed with gratitude if someone actually stood up to the tyrant running their country.

5) Many members of Congress support bills that would enact broad unilateral sanctions on Iran, such as the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act, which would punish companies that sell refined petroleum to Iran. The Obama administration is reportedly considering more targeted, multilateral sanctions that would affect individuals responsible for Iran’s nuclear program (such as the Revolutionary Guard Corps) rather than the broader population.

Do you support sanctions against Iran? If so, what kind (broad, targeted, unilateral, multilateral, etc.)? Please explain.

_____Yes                                ____No

Diggs: I support any and all sanctions on Iran, unilateral if need be.  However, any sanctions should be backed up with the “diplomatic tool” of the MOP.  (See Question 4).

The War in Afghanistan and the “War on Terror”

6) President Obama recently announced plans to send an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan. The RAND Corporation noted in 2008 that of all the terrorist groups that have ended since 1968, only 7% were defeated by military force, while the majority were defeated through policing and intelligence or political reconciliation.

Do you support the escalation of troops in Afghanistan? In general, do you support the use of military force against non-state terrorist organizations? Would you consider voting in favor of legislation that would exercise oversight of the military mission in Afghanistan (i.e. requiring development of an exit strategy or setting a timeline for withdrawal of U.S. troops)?  Please explain your answer.

_____Yes                                ____No

Diggs: Let’s be honest, have any of you have ever been to Afghanistan?  Have any of you ever fired a weapon (or had one fired at you)?  Have any of you have seen what the Taliban and Al Qaeda are doing to innocent civilians?

How about some of you go on a trip over there and ask the Afghan people what it was like when the Taliban was in charge and what it will be like if we leave too soon.

I’ve been to Afghanistan.  I have Afghan friends who were beaten by the Taliban because they didn’t grow a long-enough beard.  I have worked with Afghan women who were forced by the Taliban to wear head-to-toe burkas and prohibited from getting an education.  I have met Afghan widows who were beaten on the streets by the Taliban because they left the house without a male escort – and if they left with an escort other than their husband, they risked being summarily executed for presumed adultery.

I spent a tour of duty in Afghanistan.  I helped rebuild a school there, one of the first in the nation that allowed girls to get an education.  I saw the Afghans enjoying art, music and freedom of expression for the first time in a generation.  I saw Afghan villagers walk miles in bare feet to get their first medical care in years.  I saw the overwhelming generosity of the American people who opened their hearts and their wallets to ship school supplies to help children they’d never met.

All of that was made possible by the United States Military, and I saw the gratitude of the Afghan people who saw the American Soldier as their best hope for a better future.  The chants of “Thank you America!” still ring in my ears.

So when you’re ready to tell me what you’ve actually done about the conditions in Afghanistan, other than try to tie the hands of the people who are actually helping the Afghan people – the United States Military – get back to me.

7) President Obama’s strategy emphasizes the need for a civilian surge as well as regional diplomacy. Funding, however, has disproportionately favored the military approach, with less than 10 percent of overall resources going to civilian efforts.

Do you support shifting the ratio of funding to favor greater emphasis on civilian engagement in Afghanistan?  What type of non-military programs do you support for stabilizing Afghanistan (development, aid, diplomacy)?

_____Yes                                ____No

Diggs: Send in a bunch of civilians to get shot and blown up because there’s not enough military support to protect their butts?  What could ever go wrong with that plan?

You are aware that there are very bad people who are trying to kill us, right?  That’s why they call it a ‘war.’

Afghanistan remains a very dangerous place for civilians to do business.  The Taliban are actively seeking to attack American targets.  As such, we must continue to put the focus on security first.  Without security, civilians can’t do their jobs and the Afghan citizens can’t create a stable society.

One of the missions of the Green Berets is to win hearts and minds.  You do disrespect the tremendous work that our military does every day with the assumption that it takes a civilian to provide humanitarian aid to the people of Afghanistan.  I rode along with medical missions in the mountains of Afghanistan.  Many of the Army doctors I served with climbed aboard helicopters and volunteered to fly into remote villages, set up medical facilities and treat the people.

Some of those volunteers never came back.

The surge should be military, first and foremost.  They get things done, and they’re equipped to shoot back.

8 ) Air strikes that have killed civilians in Afghanistan and subsequent anti-American protests demonstrate the perils of using air power in civilian areas. The air strikes have plunged many families into poverty and increased resentment of the United States, contributing to instability. Pakistani authorities report that drone attacks in Pakistan since 2006 have killed 14 Al Qaeda leaders and 687 innocent civilians.

Do you support air strikes and drone attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan? Please explain.

_____Yes                                ____No

Diggs: You guys spent the first few years of the war complaining that too many of my brothers and sisters in the military were getting killed.  Frankly, the use of military dead to make your political points is disgusting to me.  Some of those men and women were my friends, and they would never want their sacrifice to be used to further your political agenda.

So now the Pentagon figures out way where a pilot can sit in a comfortable chair in Nevada and provide us air cover with a Nintendo controller, and you still have a problem?

What’s your plan?  Sit back and “hope” that our enemies will learn to “Coexist” instead of murdering civilians, torturing women and plotting to plunge the world into a 7^th Century theocracy?

Good luck with that, and thank God for the American Soldier (and those pilots protecting us with the UAV’s.)

9) Foreign Assistance and National Security

Efforts are currently underway in Congress and the administration to modernize U.S. foreign assistance, including a potential rewrite of the Foreign Assistance Act. Some of the goals of these efforts include increasing capacity, reestablishing civilian control of humanitarian and development efforts, and increasing accountability and transparency—in the service of the larger vision of making foreign assistance a central pillar of U.S. foreign policy. What do you see as the future role of foreign assistance in U.S. foreign policy? Would you support efforts to increase resources for development and elevate foreign assistance to better balance reliance on the Defense Department in U.S. interactions with the global community? Would you support a rewrite of the Foreign Assistance Act?

Diggs: “Reestablishing civilian control of humanitarian and development efforts…”  So the next time there’s an earthquake in Haiti or a Tsunami in Thailand the civilians will be the first responders?

Maybe the civilians will airdrop supplies from their massive fleet of civilian CH-47D Chinook helicopters?  Or maybe the civilians will roll up onto the beaches in their civilian rigid-hull fast boats?  Or maybe civilian paratroopers will secure the airfields for incoming flights of civilian C-130 cargo planes?

When the Tsunami struck, the first humanitarian teams on the ground were the United States and Australian Navies.  (For some reason, I doubt that there’d just so happen to be a civilian carrier battle group in the region on the day after Christmas).  As United Nations civilians dithered about which hotels they’d be willing to stay in, Airborne Rangers and Air Force special-ops teams secured airfields and conducted around-the-clock flight operations, sleeping on the tarmac in order to get badly-needed food and water to those in need.

This past week in Haiti, the 82^nd Airborne landed in Port-Au-Prince (the hard way), secured the roads from the airport to the city and set up massive food and water distribution systems.  The Coast Guard handled the immediate air-traffic control into Port-Au-Prince until the Air Force could take over.  The Navy used their landing craft to get around the clogged harbor.  Airdrops from military helicopters launched from the USS Carl Vinson were the first food aid to reach outlying regions.  Ten thousand Marines will provide security.  There’s a Navy hospital ship (the USNS Comfort) parked offshore with Navy medical teams performing surgeries on Haitian civilians.  Meanwhile, the French and the Venezuelans are complaining to the United Nations that we’ve “invaded” Haiti.

It sounds like you and I have very different ideas about how the world works.

I’ve actually been there.  As a college senior I signed up as a private in U.S. Army Reserves.  Today I continue to serve in the National Guard and proudly wear the uniform of a Green Beret Major when I’m called to active duty serving the United States.

Through it all, I have seen firsthand that the most powerful force for good in the world today is the United States Military, of which I am a proud member.

(I have a feeling I won’t be getting your group’s endorsement.)

Signed,

Diggs Brown

Candidate for Congress (Colorado’s 4^th Congressional District)

Veteran, Operation Enduring Freedom

www.diggsbrown.com

The state of the union under President Obama and the Congressional Democrats is one of lost jobs, higher taxes, larger government and less freedom.

Over the past year, President Obama and the Congressional Democrats have only deepened this recession.

‘Cap-and-trade’, which Betsy Markey voted for, would place a massive tax on energy, raising the price of doing business and burdening families under higher utility bills.

‘Card check’, which Betsy Markey co-sponsored, would drastically expand the power of union bosses and take away the right of workers to hold a secret-ballot election.

So-called ‘health care reform’ would put the government in control over one eighth of the United States economy.

Uncertainty about the cost of doing business has frozen business expansion plans. That uncertainty was created by the legislative priorities of President Obama and the Congressional Democrats.

But that was just the beginning of President Obama and the Congressional Democrats’ assault on our economy in 2009.

The politically-charged reshuffling of lenders during the government takeover of General Motors handed assets to the unions and sent a message that the rule of law no longer applies to lending.

The assault on the banking industry last week caused stock markets to crash and further delayed the day when capital can flow to expanding businesses.

The quadrupling of the deficit in a single year has devalued our money supply and placed a huge burden of nearly insurmountable debt onto the backs of our children.

Capital, the lifeblood of job creation, remains on the sidelines of this economy because of the actions of President Obama and the Congressional Democrats.

Unfortunately, however, President Obama and the Congressional Democrats have not learned from their mistakes.

Today, President Obama announced that he plans to increase spending on 89% of the federal budget. That is reckless and fiscally irresponsible and it will destroy job-creation.

If we want to create jobs, reduce unemployment and foster prosperity, we need to return money to the private sector and reduce the size of government. President Obama and the Congressional Democrats have proven that they do not understand the economy. This November, the voters will have the opportunity to vote for prosperity.

(Let’s see which news outlets report this accurately.)

Look for President Obama to propose a three-year “freeze” on federal spending.  Why put the word “freeze” in quotes?  Because it doesn’t “freeze” much.

Here’s a list of what’s not covered by the “freeze” order:

• Military
• Veterans Affairs
• Homeland Security
• “Certain international programs”
• Social Security
• Medicare
• Medicaid
• The $787 billion “stimulus”
• Other entitlement programs
• The new “jobs bill” (i.e. the next big-government handout making its way through Congress right now)
• The health care bill (it’s not dead yet)

It saves a whopping $15 billion next year.  What a joke.  Will the media call them out on this?

The American people agree:

Nearly three out of four Americans think that at least half of the money spent in the federal stimulus plan has been wasted, according to a new national poll.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Monday morning also indicates that 63 percent of the public thinks that projects in the plan were included for purely political reasons and will have no economic benefit, with 36 percent saying those projects will benefit the economy.

True stimulus comes when people keep more of what they earn.  Taking money away from taxpayers to feed it to the endless and inefficient bureaucracy only makes the recession worse.

Former Fort Collins City Councilmember, Green Beret Major and Candidate for Congress Diggs Brown released a statement today on Colorado State University’s draft rules that would repeal concealed carry on the CSU campus:

“This is an outrageous assault on the Constitution.  Students, parents, faculty, staff and visitors at Colorado State University do not give up their American Citizenship when they step onto the campus of Colorado State University, and they do not give up their Second Amendment rights.

“As for the students who choose to exercise their Second Amendment rights: They are American citizens, old enough to serve alongside me in our armed forces, and I will stand with them in their fight for the same Constitutional rights that we all claim as our birthright in the United States.”

Please stop by the Larimer County Republican Headquarters for our first “BROWN Bag Lunch”, from 11:30 to 12:30.

Bring a lunch and come meet Diggs.

4020 S. College Ave., Suite B6 in Fort Collins.

---

Congratulations to Another National Guardsman Named Brown
“BROWN” Bag Lunch Tomorrow
2010: The New Political Reality
Visit Us on the Blog

---

Congratulations to Another National Guardsman Named Brown

Last night, Scott Brown, an underdog candidate who has spent the last thirty years of his life serving in the Army National Guard, shocked the political establishment.

On the afternoon of January 18, the Diggs Brown for Congress office transformed itself into a volunteer phone bank for Scott Brown for Senate.  Regardless of who they are supporting in our particular race, volunteers came in to make get-out-the-vote phone calls.

Over the course of the afternoon, 20 people helped out, making over 1,000 phone calls.  These times call for grassroots unity and plain-old hard work.

So congratulations to Senator-Elect Scott Brown, and thanks to everyone who helped make it happen (in our own small way).

---

“BROWN” Bag Lunch Tomorrow

Please stop by the Larimer County Republican Headquarters for our first “BROWN Bag Lunch”, from 11:30 to 12:30.

Bring a lunch and come meet Diggs.

4020 S. College Ave., Suite B6 in Fort Collins.

---

2010: The New Political Reality

If we learned anything last night it is this: Everything we think we know about politics-as-usual is wrong.  (After all, the Senator-elect from Massachusetts is a Republican.)

The Republican Party is looking for new leadership and real-world experience – not the hand-selected suits that are cutout copies of the failed politics of the past.  Voters want to know if candidates understand real life, not just political gamesmanship.

Scott Brown contrasted his beat-up truck with Martha Coakley’s “annointed one” persona and attracted new voters who are fed up with the political machine.

Scott Brown made national defense an issue, contrasting his 30 years of military experience with Martha Coakley’s “I have a sister who lives overseas” foreing policy “expertise” (no, really, watch it here) and won new voters who were worried about the ongoing terrorist threat.

Scott Brown talked directly to the people about jobs and economic opportunity and brought together a winning coalition built on the understanding that Washington DC doesn’t create jobs, Main Street does.  (For one of the best commercials ever made, go here.)

Scott Brown was unafraid to speak with bold, unapologetic conservative rhetoric, proclaiming:

“And let me say this, with respect to those who wish to harm us, I believe that our Constitution and laws exist to protect this nation – they do not grant rights and privileges to enemies in wartime. In dealing with terrorists, our tax dollars should pay for weapons to stop them, not lawyers to defend them.”

and

“Raising taxes, taking over our health care, and giving new rights to terrorists is the wrong agenda for our country. What I’ve heard again and again on the campaign trail, is that our political leaders have grown aloof from the people, impatient with dissent, and comfortable in the back room making deals. And we can do better.”

Today, Scott Brown is the new Senator-elect from Massachusetts.

2010 is a new year indeed.

---

Visit Us on the Blog

If you’re looking for regular updates on events and happenings as well as some candid commentary (i.e. not your usual poll-tested schlock), please check out the blog at www.diggsbrown.com/blog.

(And remember, you can give to the campaign online, or by clicking on the button below).

---

We had desks and phones set up throughout the office, with more than 20 people coming together to make calls for Scott Brown’s campaign for Senate.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

DIGGS BROWN ANNOUNCES “BROWN FOR BROWN” PHONE BANK

FORT COLLINS – Diggs Brown today announced that his campaign headquarters would be temporarily converted to a volunteer phone bank on behalf of Scott Brown’s Senate campaign in Massachusetts on Monday.

“We’re going to be on the phone all afternoon on Monday, calling voters in Massachusetts to help get out the vote in support of another underdog Republican candidate who just so happens to be a National Guard officer named Brown: Scott Brown,” Diggs Brown said.

“It doesn’t matter who you’re supporting right now in our Congressional primary, we need to come together to get this done,” Diggs Brown said.  “Scott Brown would be the crucial 41^st vote against the federal takeover of our health care system, and we need to be able to put local rivalries aside for a few hours on Monday.”

The Diggs Brown for Congress headquarters is at 125 S. Howes Street, Suite 1001 (the 10^th floor of the Key Bank Building in Old Town Fort Collins).

Volunteers are asked to bring internet-ready laptops and cell phones, if possible, but the campaign will also supply equipment as needed.

The phone bank will run from 3 pm – 6 pm on Monday, January 18.