Democrats & Liberals Archives

Locked Doors

In China, President Bush was unable to escape reporters asking embarrassing questions because the doors were locked. It’s ironic because “locked doors” is a good way to describe the Bush Administration. Everything is done in secrecy. Everyone must follow the party line. Those who do not are savaged. However, I wonder if some of what Bush said in China with reference to Murtha implies an opening of Bush’s “locked doors”?

At a news conference in China, a reporter asked:

"Respectfully, sir - you know we're always respectful - in your statement this morning with President Hu, you seemed a little off your game, you seemed to hurry through your statement. There was a lack of enthusiasm. Was something bothering you?"

Bush replied:

"Have you ever heard of jet lag?"

He called the news conference to a halt and strode toward a set of double doors. The doors were locked.

Poor guy. For 5 years the "locked door" policy of his worked like a charm. Only HE could decide whether the country should go to war with Iraq, only HE could pronounce who would enjoy our legal system, and only HE could decide what is right and wrong - with the aid of a small handpicked group behind "closed doors."

For 5 years, those within the administration who disagreed with Bush - like Richard Clarke - were thrown out and ravaged; senators who disagreed with his policies - like Daschle - were pilloried as obstructionists; and Democrats who were against the Iraq war - too many to mention - were called unpatriotic and traitors. The "closed doors" policy worked every time.

But somehow, it did not work with Murtha. The White House compared Murtha to Michael Moore. Murtha was called a coward in the House. I heard that the GOP was going to start an ethics investigation of Murtha.

After all this, Bush says:

"Congressman Murtha is a fine man, a good man who served our country with honor and distinction as a Marine in Vietnam and as a United States congressman. And I know the decision to call for an immediate withdrawal of our troops by Congressman Murtha was done in a careful and thoughtful way."

In case you don't believe this is the new party line, here is what Rumsfeld said:

"He's not a coward, I'll tell you that."

Bush went further:

"People should feel comfortable about expressing their opinions about Iraq. I heard somebody say, well, maybe so-and-so is not patriotic because they disagree with my position. I totally reject that thought."

Yes, Bush says, let's have a debate. Does he really want to debate with dissenters who were disloyal to him, with Democrats who are against his policies and with anti-war activists who are "traitors"?

It's difficult to believe that Bush wants to open the "closed doors." I'm not sure he realizes yet that the "closed doors" policy has failed. He thinks that only the spin against Murtha did not take, that it would still work on others.

He may open a little. But, unfortunately, I think he is fundamentally incapable of operation without a "closed doors" policy.

Posted by Paul Siegel at November 21, 2005 5:43 PM
Comments
Comment #94626

The only good thing that Bush ever did was to invite the Dalai Lama to the White House. I wonder if this ever came up in his meetings in China. It was so under-reported here, that people don’t even believe that it happened, but it did.

The Bushes always go into denial about their negative attacks. It doesn’t stop the attacks, because the VRWConspiracy is a machine that keeps rolling out new attacks.

Posted by: ray at November 21, 2005 6:07 PM
Comment #94632

Paul:

You are trying to make the case here that Democratic poop doesn’t stink, only Republican poop stinks. It doesn’t help the cause. The truth of the matter is that both parties lack statesmanship. Your party bears equal responsibility in what you discribe above.

The head of your party says he hates me and everything I stand for. He hates me solely because I am a Repubican. I am not to the comparison thing saying the you liberals are a bunch of slime. I am just saying that you should clean up your own party before throwing flames at the Republicans.

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 21, 2005 7:09 PM
Comment #94646

Craig Holmes:

No offense but the difference between Democratic poop and Republican poop is that Republican poop is killing a hell of a lot of people. Not to mention the ridiculous deficit spending and the damage US image suffered abroad.

It is wrong for you to equate Democrats and Republicans this way. The only thing Democrats poop gets you is a fellatio.

Posted by: Aldous at November 21, 2005 8:08 PM
Comment #94652

On a personal note, I find it embarrassing the way Bush acted. Anyone who saw that entire episode KNEW Bush was running from the press. I may not like Bush but I dislike having America represented like that.

Posted by: Aldous at November 21, 2005 8:26 PM
Comment #94653

Say ray let me guess you voted for the “war hero” kerry. Kerry lost Bush won get over it. Truth to you liberals is like garlic to a vampire.

Posted by: Thomas at November 21, 2005 8:28 PM
Comment #94654

“Kerry lost Bush won get over it. Truth to you liberals is like garlic to a vampire.”

Wow, how refreshing, a new insult.

Posted by: Rocky at November 21, 2005 8:34 PM
Comment #94662

CRAIG, Democratic poo versus neo-con poo hmm.

Could it beee that perhaps you’ve lost some faith in your party and want to come to a new field and veer free of our partisan criticisms. Cuz I’m smelling a swing vote here. Could I be wrong Craig that perhaps you are considering for the time being of the next election to perhaps change sides temporarily but don’t like the democratic party’s vitriol? (never mind Dean we don’t want him either)Granted a candidate comes along that doesn’t smack of the Dubya stuff.

What portion of the banter would you like removed as your stumbling block, just curious?

See this stuff has really intrigued me as to why parties don’t tone down vitriolic rhetoric whether it’s Ken Mehlman or Howard “Silly String” Dean as to play more towards the votes to the middle. Which I think garners more trust of that party if they get off the hang-ups and can be more Highbrow like the Mainstream Democrats used to be once upon a time.

****ANYWAY Here are my original comments on the article.

Bush is on the run without a Rove or a Hughes and his vice is off playin’ fundraiser and chockin’ up a losing score as his remarks hit the airwaves. I don’t think there’s much going on their except waitin’ and hoping for Plame issues to blow over. You did see how quick he left after the indictment of Scooter? THis way he can disguise himself in silk robes it’s like espinawj!

I think all his speeches are going to be rather brief right now and a snippy remark like “Ever heard’a jet lag?” really sums up his need to keep things brief and uninvolved with the press. He did have Hughes with him when he left the day of the indictment against Libby but it looks like he’s layin’ way low on the PR.

He can’t even hide in chi-nah!

And Donny well he’s going to pull out troops for twenty seconds until the election is over then in they go again. I just saw him on CNN owned by AOL which is headquartered in Dulles Virginia which is right outside of Langley’s gates.

Another big hmmm (That’s a fact check out AOL’s website, Dulles Va. no bull burgers guys!)It makes no sense why, there’s no major gov contract work that would predicate them being there. Maybe a front for legal Black budget shuffling or either it is being used as a sly press apparatus to tote the governemnt line via AOL/Time/Warner owned publications and media, Who knows.

Posted by: Novenge at November 21, 2005 9:02 PM
Comment #94683
Yes, Bush says, let’s have a debate. Does he really want to debate with dissenters who were disloyal to him, with Democrats who are against his policies and with anti-war activists who are “traitors”?

Of course he does. He’s looking for a face-saving way out of Iraq, and what better way than to blame it on the liberals. Never mind that the Democratic Party is powerless with absolutely no influence, Bush’s withdrawal from Iraq will be blamed on Democratic “obstruction”.

Posted by: American Pundit at November 21, 2005 10:34 PM
Comment #94690

Am Pundit,

I don’t think he will be withdrawing fully, this is a political position basically as republicans are worried about their own gerimandered butts in lieu of GW’s low approval digits. this is a last ditch, I think to save the house and senate they’ve conquered and soiled and porked-up. They just want to save their party and now Dems won’t let ‘em. It’s funny in a light that isn’t tainted by republicanized spin and just seen for what it is. Not letting the Cons out of the same room where they’ve crapped. Granted Dems have crapped there too but they can just say they didn’t know they were crapping or were misled into crapping there.

It all saves face at election time, who cares how CNN, MSNBC and FOX want to spin it for their own corporate concerns. I see alot of chasing people around with the stinky stick and then holding them down to the mess thay made.

Their pork spending is really the issue not the war that irritates and ruffles republicans, not the war but don’t let em know that outside the beltway. Besides they can’t escape or go back on their spending, it’s all on public record now. Whether the dems will use that remains to be seen.

But a drawdown in troops will be small at best and then they will be right back at it again in Iraq BECAUSE the republicans will fly the coop as to why their party did that like a ‘weathervane’ and not stick to their guns. It’s gonna grind their gears baaad in Anytown USA!

Posted by: Novenge at November 21, 2005 10:58 PM
Comment #94702
CRAIG, Democratic poo versus neo-con poo hmm.

Could it beee that perhaps you’ve lost some faith in your party and want to come to a new field and veer free of our partisan criticisms. Cuz I’m smelling a swing vote here. Could I be wrong Craig that perhaps you are considering for the time being of the next election to perhaps change sides temporarily but don’t like the democratic party’s vitriol?

See the above thread written by Stephen. I have lost faith in both parties. I am waiting to be led. The one I will follow is the one with fresh ideas and statesmanship. I am tired of the peeing war that has us all wet, while good people are dying. Actually I am more than tired, I am discused by it. Someone needs to lead the charge out of the woods, and I really don’t care who gets credit for it. Right now, I am willing to vote Democratic, but can’t think of many good reasons.

We need fresh ideas to win the peace worldwide. The COUNTRY, OUR COUNTRY needs the Democratic Party to lead, and they wont. They just sit there and criticize in an endless predictable diatribe while good people are dying.

Stephen has a great identifiable plan that that has good ideas in it. Right now I’m a part of the Stephen party until better more practical, doable ideas come along. It is unbelievable to me that both parties are still mired in political cheap gotcha politics with so much on the line.

We need to put our party affiliations away, figure it out, and execute whatever needs to be done, to
help the people of Iraq and bring our troops home.

Will somebody, anybody, please lead!!!

(you asked for the time, and I built you a clock sorry!! But I do feel better!!)


Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 21, 2005 11:42 PM
Comment #94703

Aldous


No offense but the difference between Democratic poop and Republican poop is that Republican poop is killing a hell of a lot of people. Not to mention the ridiculous deficit spending and the damage US image suffered abroad.

No offense taken. Democrat poop is the constant discouraging of American troops overseas, by behaving so poorly in public during a war. Loyal opposition has a counter plan. The poop of the Democratic party is deciding not to put forth a counter plan to win the war, and instead just bitching day in and day out in order to score polical points by running down Bush’s polling numbers, thereby putting party politics ahead of saving American lives.

What I want the Democratic party to do is lead. Lead with statesmanship and courage. The party of ideas looks pretty pathetic right now to me. I would be happy to vote democratic, but can see any reason to. The party has no visionary leaders to follow!!

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 21, 2005 11:49 PM
Comment #94706

What I want the Democratic party to do is lead. Lead with statesmanship and courage. The party of ideas looks pretty pathetic right now to me. I would be happy to vote democratic, but can see any reason to. The party has no visionary leaders to follow!!

=============

Then vote third party next time. Find a party with bold ideas instead of parties with bad ideas or no ideas.

Posted by: tree hugger at November 22, 2005 12:11 AM
Comment #94710

CRAIG HOLMES excellent post you have struck a cord.

What I feel primarily is not so much we’ve lost our way but that it is all coming down and is utterly irrepairable. I look at our fiscal excesses all set up to come back and bludgeon the working poor of this country(And yes there is a working poor). A third party means you must divide one of the other parties but it’s a time of dispair as far any form of panacea bearing hopefullness.

I just got done reading how the republicans are cutting numerous much needed human services all the while they set up a means by the wealthiest 5% get tax cuts and are making room for these people over the next five years to have more tax cuts.

I believe this is irrepairable and I think many like me on the left see it. Our nation is so off mark that when people really get wind that it’s governement that destroyed our dollar and raised fuel and energy costs and it’s corporations that have decimated medicare ALL THE WHILE CNN is touting how many choices there are in the face of the choices there aren’t. WE will get wind of the truth and see the setting sun is nearing.I have retired parents reliant on Social security and Bush pulls his stunt with his corporate cronies to make sure they have no choice in drug-prices through the AARP and now have to order from Canada with a tarrif. How do you repair that? K-Street is involved on every level decimating everything for a buck it can and the midwesterner let’s them do it to us.

It’s all irrepairable third party or no, war or no, and yeah that’s pessimistic but the only ones to blame are those who made villains of the poor and demonized them as lazy and/or stupid and created a political party based on such wedges. See there’s a rule that if you make your arguements simple enough the majority will comprehend it and ignore the big macro-issues and that’s the republican gameplan blind ‘em with petty pedantic horsecrap they can hollar all over town and steal away the bank and rule over the big issues. Even the war in Iraq is a dumbo issue it’s good guy bad guy most Americans can follow along make ‘em scared and they will cower. then the corporations of K-street can walk all over you and your livelihood.

That’s the root of my liberal rage. But also seeing that the dollar can be destroyed before our eyes for the rich to double their investment and feather their own nest during wartime in energy,government contracts etcetera and we see it every time we go to the pump that they can destroy the dollar so the rich can become richer my money market modulations. And give out tax cuts for those wealthy 5% but do nothing for the average joe but have him demonized for working his two jobs and paying his rent, like those Joe’s aren’t Americans too. Where’s Joes tax cut? Will that tax cut to a major corporation destroy Joe’s small business by allowing the larger company to consume him too? Will it create for him a six dollar an hour job to replace it? Why is he paying for the government to errode by way of government funded subsidies his own livelihood? Why would federal governement roll over for the corpo-lobby to do that to Joe?

Why should the rich have to pay? well this is the land that gave them that opportunity they use our roads and schools and post offices and loads of other things that they soon won’t have to pay for and will all be on the backs of the middle classes to pay for.

AND it’s all irrepairable. You’ve heard the congressional saying: It’s easier to get rid of something than it is to create something. How many years will it take us to recover?

War it’s a quagmire,power of the elite to retain their millions in subsidization while the small farmer get’s shafted for loans. It’s all irrepairable, that damage is done! And when it hits the middle classes that what has been hurting them IS their own governement not terror, not lib-ruls, not any race of people but our own GREED what we do in retalliation will hopefully be just as irrepairable.

(there now I feel better-ah)

Posted by: Novenge at November 22, 2005 12:39 AM
Comment #94734
The poop of the Democratic party is deciding not to put forth a counter plan to win the war, and instead just bitching day in and day out in order to score polical points

You need to listen a little closer, Craig. The bitching is usually accompanied by a plan or a specific alternative. Stephen’s inkblot strategy was broached by Kerry last year during the elections — and dismissed as bitching.

Posted by: American Pundit at November 22, 2005 8:36 AM
Comment #94761

AP:


You need to listen a little closer, Craig. The bitching is usually accompanied by a plan or a specific alternative. Stephen’s inkblot strategy was broached by Kerry last year during the elections — and dismissed as bitching.

It looks like someone is finally leading. It’s the Iraqi’s!! At least I am encouraged by the warring factions coming together and requesting a timetable for withdrawal. If the Sunnis, Kurds, and Shites can get together and agree on the direction of their country, then the Democats and Republicans should be able to do the same. Maybe the Arab League can come to American and help us out.

Craig


Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 22, 2005 10:31 AM
Comment #94770

AP:

THEE democratic plan should be Murtha’s without the word “immediate” in it. It should now call for a timetable, since the Iraqi’s are calling for one. The distance between Murtha and the Iraqi’s positions should become zero, and then you should have a unified democratic position, lined up behind Murtha, and the Iraqi leadership.

If I were the Democratic leadership I would have Murtha in front of a microphone today modifying his position toward the Iraqi position. Then I would resubmit a nonbinding resolution calling on the Bush administration to fullfill the Iraqi request.

I would also eliminate the political crap talk, and put on statesman voices, and present themselves like a party ready to lead, instead of ready to bitch.

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 22, 2005 11:10 AM
Comment #94771

Craig,

What do you mean “It looks like someone is finally leading”…

Back in June, the Democrats formed the Out of Iraq Congressional Caucus. Which among other points, they were “requesting a timetable for withdrawal”.

I think you have some bias.

Posted by: Patrick Howse at November 22, 2005 11:13 AM
Comment #94776

Craig,

There is no reason for Murtha to “modify” his position. I think you are confusing the Republican’s faked Murtha Amendment (the one with emphasis on immediate) With the resolution actually submitted by Murtha.

You see, Murtha did request in his speech “To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces”. However the right wing has stripped this of all nuance. Along with that speech, he also introduced a resolution which states that the troops… “…are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date”.

When commenting on this, his words were “…have to do it in a very consistent way- but I think six months would be a reasonable time to get them out of there”

Posted by: Patrick Howse at November 22, 2005 11:46 AM
Comment #94782

To expand on what Novenge said in his recent post. If you recall during the debates, when Bush was asked about the job cuts, his response was the job outlook is improving and for those who can’t find a job in their field there are job training opportunities avalable. Funny thing is most of the people who lost their jobs were making more money than they could possibly make even after the training. The training he is offering is only an assosiates degree. With the market being as tight as it is if you don’t have a masters or bachelors you are still out of luck. The days of someone without a degree getting a decent paying job with decent benifits are slim to none. Now there is news that GM is laying off another 30,000 people and Ford is doing the same after the first of the year on the tails of how many salaried wokers gone before the end of the year. When are the job losses going to end? When are we going to get tired of paying for all of these politicians salaries and benifits and getting nothing in return. I for one would like to only work 9 or 10 months out of a year and get all the shit that they get. Hell I would be happy with half of what they get because it’s still more than my husband and I get together and he works 50 weeks a year and I work 52 weeks unless I take time off unpaid because I don’t accumulate enough hours in a year to get a paid vacation.

Posted by: Sherri at November 22, 2005 12:15 PM
Comment #94790

For example my husbands company does’t offer benifits because it would cost to much. My company offers them but they are not the greatest and at a high cost to me. I am a server and I make 2.83 an hour plus my tips. It would cost me 259.36 every 2 weeks for just basic health care. I am only scheduled at the max 20-25 hours a week. The key word being scheduled, if I’m first out I might only work 2 maybe 3 hours a day. So you do the math. I’d end up paying out of my pocket for my health care, which these politicians have the best there is and don’t pay a dime for it. Then you get the pres and vice pres. they don’t even have to pay for health care even after they are out of office. Go figure.

Posted by: Sherri at November 22, 2005 12:55 PM
Comment #94897

Patrick Howse:


There is no reason for Murtha to “modify” his position. I think you are confusing the Republican’s faked Murtha Amendment (the one with emphasis on immediate) With the resolution actually submitted by Murtha.

I read Murtha’s exact words. I don’t like the words “immediate”. That implies to me “without regard to strategic prudence”.

The troops are coming home next year. I would prefer for Bush react to the newly elected government’s request for us to leave. I think it would be stronger to negotiate with the permanently elected body.

It would be great for the Democratic party, or the Republican party to put forward a resolution requesting that the Bush administration negotiate with the new government for our withdrawal. Now that I would love. If it were bipartison I would be estatic.

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 22, 2005 5:03 PM
Comment #94934

SHERRI,

(On health coverage)I think the answer with that is what the seniors have in this country which is a largescale buy in. Meaning a company takes under it’s policy two to three hundred thousand people and myriad companies compete on this basis. Such as let’s say you had Aetna and let’s say company X, now each offer levels of plans from say Viper to Goldplans and there may be four or five inbetween. BUT if you had hundreds of thousands under these plans in one group account it would summarily cost much less with no sacrifices in services. ALSO what they have are a plethora of companies that are competing to provide coverage to them with their six or seven plans on their roster of coverage options. THIS IS what they have under medicaid essentially where you have these large scale accounts (300,000 or more on policy) but the problem is we need a stronger government to strong arm them, not roll over for them for contributions to their party whether dem or repub.

See that is the problem it’s K Steet corpo-lobbies that are ruling everything not only with largescale donations but with stock options and job offers to politicians.

I can remember when Lloyd Bentsen(D) was working to get rid of people’s right to bankruptcy this is a man who always supposedly fought for the rights of the small guy on the floor. But when he was offered his lobbying position he changed his tune overnight. Such is the power of the corporate lobbies in Washington. Forget momentarily that the politicians get the best health care and look at the reasons we don’t. We don’t because the healthcare lobby spends millions so that we don’t and subsequently have to pay more by not allowing large group coverage and make certain that it is microversal meaning a few in a party just as in a company or firm would have instead of what was strongarmed on them by medicaid.

DOES THIS MEAN Socialized medicine? Not in the least. Why because there are not only myriad options that you have within each company(viper through goldplan), different plans provided by that company with different rates but you have competing national companies offing deals and being more responsive to keep you. So you would have fifty companies six or seven coverage plans within each.

WHAT WOULD THIS MEAN FOR STATES? States spend tens if not hundreds of millions annually on providing fairly bad coverage this would mean that they spend less and actually could provide better services cost effectively. So why not reform it? K Street lobbies won’t allow it and politicians give way to the all mighty dollar to the DNC/RNC as well as future lobby positions for themselves with stock options made avilable to them.

The problem is the Corporate lobbies and politicians lax attitude towards them when they start writing out checks for their reelection committees and party organizations.

Posted by: Novenge at November 22, 2005 6:30 PM
Comment #94961

Craig,

I think your making my point… I’ve included his “exact” words as well (the part of the speech where he says immediate).

Still, you completely ignore; A) His resolution, and B) His explanation.

By doing so, you aid the right wing in removing all context. By your own account, the troops will come home next year, and by Murtha’s account, in six months. To me, it sounds like you and Murtha are saying the same thing. However, I won’t accuse you of supporting something without regard to strategic prudence. I just wish you’d do the same for Murtha.

If Murtha was in support of what you are suggesting, he would have voted for that fake Republican resolution, which calls for your “immediate” withdrawal proposal.

He did not, because Murtha put forward in his resolution “earliest practicable date”, and that “The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.”

Posted by: Patrick Howse at November 22, 2005 7:41 PM
Comment #95055
and by Murtha’s account, in six months.

Actually, Murtha never said that. He was asked — all other considerations aside — how long would it take the Pentagon to sort out all the logistics and get all the troops out if it came to that. Murtha replied it would probably take about six months.

Murtha never said we should bring the troops home in six months.

Posted by: American Pundit at November 23, 2005 7:52 AM
Comment #95058
and then you should have a unified democratic position, lined up behind Murtha, and the Iraqi leadership.

Except that Deocrats don’t want to bring the troops home immediately. A pullout right now would plunge Iraq into civil war that would draw in Iran and probably Saudi Arabia and Syria. It would destabilize the Middle East and have a huge effect on oil prices and the global economy.

It’d be pretty irresponsible to pull out without assuring the region would remain stable first. Bush got us into this mess, and it’s going to take a while to get us out.

Posted by: American Pundit at November 23, 2005 7:56 AM
Comment #95071

AP,

You are correct, Murtha did not imply the troops would be home in six months… Unless he got his way. That was my thought process- If Craig and Murtha got their way, by next year the troops would be out of Iraq.

Next, I’m very disappointed with the Bush Administration. During the election campaign they said hundreds of thousands for Iraqi troops were trained- where are they?

Lastly, I feel we are causing insatiability. Maybe a foreign force can create a more stable Iraq, but we lost that fight already. Unless we are committed to significantly increase the number of troops. For instance, if we pro-rated the amount of troops (US and allies) sent to Bosnia, we would have sent 600,000 troops to Iraq.

Posted by: Patrick Howse at November 23, 2005 9:01 AM
Post a comment