Democrats & Liberals: Archives

The only reason the Dems put these bills up is to satisfy the extreme left…They really don’t believe in any of them and frankly, they are glad they don’t see the light of day…

I wish they would take the stand of the Moveon people and fight it out…then the american people could have a true chose this election…

will-
To satisfy the extreme left? The majority of Americans, the mainstream, want this war over. If the mainstream of American politics seems extreme left to you, what does it say about your own position on the political spectrum? The American people already had their choice, and they chose us. In 2008, they’ll choose us again. There’s a reason, you just don’t want to confront it.

Stephen,

I thought this was interesting:

“What MoveOn hasn’t told you is that the “General Betray-Us” moniker isn’t their invention. It’s been reported in the British press to be coined by a retired General:

“Critics, including one recently retired general, are privately calling him “General Betraeus” on the grounds that he is too ambitious to deliver a balanced report on the war.”

That quote comes from the same Lane Hudson that posted the emails from Mark Foley to a sixteen year old House Page on www.stopsexpredators.blogspot.com many moons ago.

His new blog is:
http://www.newsfortheleft.blogspot.com/

And the “British press” article he’s referring to is here:
August 19, 2007
Americans doubt ‘General Betraeus’ over troop surge
http://tinyurl.com/2xky52

I’m extremely disappointed in the 22 Dems (not including Lieberman) who voted yes on condemning moveon. It’s ridiculous. Moveon expressed a sentiment shared by MANY of us, myself included.

I think Petraeus deserves every bit of criticism he’s receiving in the media. It’s not only our right, but our responsibility to critique ANY of our nations leadership, whether they’re politicians or members of the military leadership.

If the “majority of Americans, the mainstream, want this war over…” then Democrats in congress would have no trouble getting the necessary votes to override a veto. Congress has a deeply ingrained habit of folding like a cheap tent when their actions are opposite of what the people want.

The trouble with your claim is, most Americans want this war over but they don’t want it the way you want it…surrender and defeat.

Their position reveals the hatred Democrats feel for their own country…a hatred for one man and his party that has overcome their common sense to the degree they wish defeat and destruction on their own country for their own short-term political gain.

If Democrats would, for once, fully support the troops by backing the mission, then the insurgency and AQ in Iraq would see a united front facing them and the war just might end soon.

But instead, they see division, and calls for retreat from the leaders of their enemy which encourages them to continue until Democrats force a premature withdrawal.

What Democrats are doing is joining with the enemy to defeat their own country in a war and refusing to address the consequences while dressing it up as some kind of self-destructive patriotism.

The public doesn’t buy it just like they were repulsed by the Moveon.org slander of the general risking his life to defend this country.

Calling Bush and Cheney cowardly while working daily to aid the enemy in defeating your own country is the height of hypocrisy.

The “majority of Americans” see what Democrats are doing and will respond accordingly at the next election because they don’t want what all the Democrats want, surrender and defeat, for their country.

“It’s not only our right, but our responsibility to critique ANY of our nations leadership, whether they’re politicians or members of the military leadership.”

It is not your right or your responsibility to undermine our troops in the field in wartime…that’s called treason.

If you want to “critique our nations leadership” why not do it by helping them win instead of working for defeat?

kansasdem,

the whole to do with moveon.org is just partisan grandstanding… notice that when the republicans where in the majority and a similar thing happened with John Kerry and swiftboat that there was no such congressional condemnation, the republicans where tickled to death to see a smear of a dem but when it hurt the neo con agenda all of the sudden there is a vote to condemn. Kerry was a soldier and defended our county just as Petrayus is doing but i guess in neo con eyes he just didnt rate.

partisanship sucks

SD
I reject the premise the Rep leadership refuses to acknowlege defeat. What they are acknoweleging is victory. What they are trying to protect is that victory. The US now controls the 3rd largest oil reserve.Oil companies are making huge profits. They won. They fully expect the occupation to continue,either with the large involvement of American troops or the Iraqi puppet army,paid for,supplied and directed for the express purpose of maintaining US control of oil ang global dominance.
I agree the Dems should play hardball. If the Reps want tp filibuster to exhaust the troops let them stand there for days telling how great it is to violate the Pentagons own rules for length of deployment.

sorry i misspelled Petraeus

This bill was designed mostly to cripple the ability to deploy our armed forces. It is well that the Senate rejected it.

It sounds good. Who can argue with giving brave troops a rest before going back. The problem is that units are not made up of all the same guys. There is a mix of veterans and new recruits. It is a healthy mix. If you rotate out all the veterans, you will not get the benefit of their experience. You also would not be able to move soldiers around.

We have an all volunteer military. Most of those in Iraq would prefer to be somewhere else, but they are doing their duty and they are mostly proud to do so. I recently talked to a group of Marines who had been in Iraq and were scheduled to go back. They were not eager to leave their families and friends. They were eager to get back where they believed they would be doing something good and useful.

I believe that the problem is that Dems often view members of our military as victims. In fact, they are very mature men and women who made a logical (for them) and noble choice. Employers should be happy to have such young men and women. They are amazingly more mature and responsible than the run of the mill young person in our hedonistic age.

What we should do is pay them better and perhaps ensure more benefits when they return to civilian life. That is something Congress can do. Congress should not micromanage troop deployments. We should be thankful that the Senate has stepped away from that foolishness.

I believe that the problem is that Dems often view members of our military as victims.

What a bullshit statement.

“…notice that when the republicans where in the majority and a similar thing happened with John Kerry and swiftboat that there was no such congressional condemnation.”

The perception of Kerry’s war record is that he went to Vietnam to get his “combat ticket punched” with the goal of getting the required number of Purple Hearts to justify returning “as a viable war hero” which he promptly cashed in by joining the anti-war movement providing it with much needed credibility.

All Kerry needed to debunk as a smear what the Swiftboat Vets were saying is to release his military records - something he said he’d do but as yet we’re still waiting for.

What voters responded to was the fact that Kerry returned from a war and promptly turned on his fellow soldiers, calling them the army of Ghengis Khan - while they were still on the battlefield, and transparently for his own short-term political gain.

As an added insult to his brothers in the field, he met with leaders of North Vietnam to negotiate the US surrender in Southeast Asia which resulted in the murder of millions of innocent people which, in the face of overwhelming evidence Kerry maintains did not occur.

North Vietnamese generals have said that Kerry’s efforts aided them immeasurably in their victory since they knew they couldn’t defeat the US military in battle but they could hold on until America’s leaders were persuaded to leave. Democrats in congress cut off much needed funds to the South Vietnam army in 1975 and the NVA promptly overran them.

John Kerry and Jane Fonda committed treason - caused many unneeded US soldiers deaths with their sedition. Instead of being praised as a “decorated combat veteran” John Kerry should be tried for sedition and treason, convicted and hanged right alongside Jane Fonda.

“It is not your right or your responsibility to undermine our troops in the field in wartime…that’s called treason.”

My kingdom for an original thought.

Posted by: Snardius
John Kerry and Jane Fonda committed treason - caused many unneeded US soldiers deaths with their sedition. Instead of being praised as a “decorated combat veteran” John Kerry should be tried for sedition and treason, convicted and hanged right alongside Jane Fonda.

since when does exercising ones constitutional right for free speech equate to treason. wake up this is the 21st century mideval reasoning and ignoring the bill of rights isnt an option.

speaking your mind no matter how popular your opinion, is protected by our great constitution.

“My kingdom for an original thought.”

My prayers that you will have one…

“…speaking your mind no matter how popular your opinion, is protected by our great constitution.”

The first amendment guarantees your right to free speech but as with all rights it carries responsibility. Shouting “fire!” in a crowded theater is not protected speech and you have no right to do so. Similarly, we have no right to give aid and comfort to our enemy no matter how you want to dress it up as your right to “speak your mind.”

Encouraging our enemy in Iraq by publicly slandering the general ordered to conduct our forces there is, at best, irresponsible, at worst sedition and treason.

John,

“…since when does exercising ones constitutional right for free speech equate to treason.”

With Fonda and Kerry, they didn’t just exercise their right to free speech. Through their actions (Kerry testified falsely before congress about the actions of our soldiers - Fonda visited Hanoi and allowed herself to be filmed posed on an anti-aircraft gun for propaganda purposes) they undermined the mission of our soldiers in combat.

None of these actions can be called protected speech under the constitution.

BillS,

“…paid for, supplied and directed for the express purpose of maintaining US control of oil and global dominance.”

I hope so - I can’t think of a better reason to be there.

now this is funny you equate speaking out against a war that one finds unjustified with inciting a riot by yelling fire. no person of any intelligence sees a connection there i guess that when our forefathers argued publicly against king george that they should have been captured and executed for sedition and treason as well.

when a government infringes on its citizens uninalienable rights or freedoms it is the responsibility of TRUE patriots to speak up and tell that government that we will not go softly into the night and that the more they oppress civil liberties such as free speech, such as the right to have a dissenting view and vocalize it, the louder true patriots will sing their song.
I dont buy that speaking out against the government and its actions are treason that is a ridiculous position and is not supported by any law anywhere in the USA.

i think you need to really examine your beliefs , they more properly belong in 18th century europe or mid 1940’s germany.

funny i dont remember Kerry being charged with and convicted of testifing falsely under oath to congress(perjury)… did i miss that?

John,
“when our forefathers argued publicly against king george that they should have been captured and executed for sedition and treason as well.”

They were - and King George had every right to do so since they were advocating the overthrow of his government.

The difference here is that what Democrats are doing is not trying to overthrow our government so much as undermining our army in a time of war by siding with the goals of our enemy.

“…when a government infringes on its citizens uninalienable rights or freedoms it is the responsibility of TRUE patriots to speak up and tell that government that we will not go softly into the night”

Contrary to what you think, none of your rights have been infringed upon or we wouldn’t be able to have this conversation.

If there is any infringing going on it’s being done by the congress in their attempt to satisfy their fringe Left by hampering the president in his duty to protect our country “from all enemies foreign and domestic.”

John,

“funny i dont remember Kerry being charged with and convicted of testifing falsely under oath to congress(perjury)… did i miss that?”

No, because charging him with perjury would have been politically unpopular (to say nothing of elevating him further as a persecuted anti-war veteran). But his testimony has been repudiated. What he said was false and came from others in the anti-war movement who had not even been to Vietnam.

Kerry was not an eye-witness to any atrocities and if he were basing his testimony on his eye-witness accounts he failed, at the time, to bring them to the attention of his chain of command. That alone guts the credibility of his testimony.

the following are exerpts from a speech made by John Kerry about his antiwar activism in the 1970s’ and todays war and antiwar activism i believe that it speaks for itself.

I believed then, just as I believe now, that the best way to support the troops is to oppose a course that squanders their lives, dishonors their sacrifice, and disserves our people and our principles. When brave patriots suffer and die on the altar of stubborn pride, because of the incompetence and self-deception of mere politicians, then the only patriotic choice is to reclaim the moral authority misused by those entrusted with high office.

I believed then, just as I believe now, that it is profoundly wrong to think that fighting for your country overseas and fighting for your country’s ideals at home are contradictory or even separate duties. They are, in fact, two sides of the very same patriotic coin. And that’s certainly what I felt when I came home from Vietnam convinced that our political leaders were waging war simply to avoid responsibility for the mistakes that doomed our mission in the first place. Indeed, one of the architects of the war, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, confessed in a recent book that he knew victory was no longer a possibility far earlier than 1971…..

The lesson here is not that some of us were right about Vietnam, and some of us were wrong. The lesson is that true patriots must defend the right of dissent, and hear the voices of dissenters, especially now, when our leaders have committed us to a pre-emptive “war of choice” that does not involve the defense of our people or our territory against aggressors. The patriotic obligation to speak out becomes even more urgent when politicians refuse to debate their policies or disclose the facts. And even more urgent when they seek, perversely, to use their own military blunders to deflect opposition and answer their own failures with more of the same. Presidents and politicians may worry about losing face, or votes, or legacy; it is time to think about young Americans and innocent civilians who are losing their lives…. Dissenters are not always right, but it is always a warning sign when they are accused of unpatriotic sentiments by politicians seeking a safe harbor from debate, from accountability, or from the simple truth…. And here and now we must insist again that fidelity, honor, and love of country demand untrammeled debate and open dissent. At no time is that truer than in the midst of a war rooted in deceit and justified by continuing deception. For what is at stake here is nothing less than life itself. As the statesman Edmund Burke once said: “A conscientious man should be cautious how he dealt in blood.”….America has always been stronger when we have not only proclaimed free speech, but listened to it. Yes, in every war, there have been those who demand suppression and silencing. And although no one is being jailed today for speaking out against the war in Iraq, the spirit of intolerance for dissent has risen steadily, and the habit of labeling dissenters as unpatriotic has become the common currency of the politicians currently running our country.

Dismissing dissent is not only wrong, but dangerous when America’s leadership is unwilling to admit mistakes, unwilling to engage in honest discussion of the nation’s direction, and unwilling to hold itself accountable for the consequences of decisions made without genuine disclosure, or genuine debate.

I take exception to the statement that Republicans “managed to both scuttle a bill…” Since when is 56 vote a loss? Didn’t the bill win a majority? Isn’t 51 votes a majority? Sure, it isn’t veto-proof, but the Senate should have sent it to Bush for the veto. Make him do the dirty work where our troops are concerned. It reflects directly on him if he vetoes the bill.

If the “majority of Americans, the mainstream, want this war over…” then Democrats in congress would have no trouble getting the necessary votes to override a veto.

Unfortunately, the majority of Americans are neither IN Congress nor are they REPRESENTED in Congress at the current time…just who are the obstructionists now???

Isn’t 51 votes a majority? that is a simple majority on the introduction of a bill that is if all senators are present. in the case of a simplpe majority it needs only a true simple majority if the caucaus but it takes 60 votes in the senate to “break a fillibuster” and go on to final voting on a bill … dems missed that by 9 votes

Some of you have very strange logic indeed. If I recall correctly, The President of the United States received authority from Congress to make war on terrorists where ever found and at his discretion. That act of Congress made the President’s actions legal and the official position of the United States. Until Congress rescinds that consent, that authority remains. When a private citizen purposefully seeks, by words or deeds, to undermine the legal authority of the nation that is not patriotism. We have a ballot box to settle our national differences.
All this nonsense about who is right or who is wrong is counter-productive to our nation’s legal and stated purpose. Change peoples minds with civil discourse please, not blather.

“I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it.”
— John Kerry

“The lesson here is not that some of us were right about Vietnam, and some of us were wrong.

Millions of Vietnamese and Cambodians couldn’t be reached for comment because Kerry and others “dissented” and surrendered them to the communists.

“Since when is 56 vote a loss?”

When it takes 60 votes for it to pass?

Jim, I believe what’s taking place on here certainly qualifies as civil discourse….the fact that you may not agree is irellevant:
v. (d-skôrs, -skrs) dis·coursed, dis·cours·ing, dis·cours·es
v.intr.
1. To speak or write formally and at length. See Synonyms at speak.
2. To engage in conversation or discussion; converse.
How is it that so many can so easily sidestep the fact that Bush took us into Iraq in spite of the information provided, rather than because of it???

Sandra,

“How is it that so many can so easily sidestep the fact that Bush took us into Iraq in spite of the information provided, rather than because of it???”

Because the world community believed Saddam was a threat to his neighbors and reflected that by passing 17 resolutions demanding that he disarm and surrender his WMD (he’d used them before, he must still have them).

Bush asked for and got authority from congress to enter Iraq and disarm Saddam. Those in congress who now claim that Bush misled them must also claim that Clinton mislead them, too, since his position when he was still in office was identical to that which caused Bush to ask for authorization to disarm Saddam.

That Democrats who now say they were duped by Bush are guilty of pure political opportunism.

Aside from the fact that, if you believe as they do that Bush is a blithering idiot, if they were duped by a blithering idiot they are too stupid to lead this country anyway.

Snardius-
Silent majorities are wonderful, aren’t they? Problem is, nobody hears from yours. It’s not the people who block the bills coming out of the Senate, it’s a caucus of Republicans that consistently votes along party lines to extend debate (that is, threaten a filibuster). This is how bills with majority support, including the one that opposes general attacks on the military, manage to die.

Go check the votes if you think I’m full of it. I can wait until you return more familiar with what the polls and the Senate votes say.

As for Kerry? Let me ask you a question: If Kerry’s goal was to get his ticket punched, why did he take such a controversial view upon coming home? If he just wanted it for the aura of heroism, coming back home and making a lot of big noise would be counterproductive. He could have shut his mouth and kept himself much more electable.

One can interpret Kerry’s action once he got home in any number of ways, but there were much safer ways of becoming a political star.

As for Kerry’s military records? Why don’t you compare disclosures here? Bush gave scraps and your side praised his “full” disclosures. Kerry fills in practically his whole career, and your people say he hasn’t shown enough. Such bull. Republicans get a pass on their service(or lack of same), but Democrats have to practically send CSI to their theatre of operation to meet your standards. Thanks for proving the point of my original entry.

Kerry’s testimony was on behalf of many veterans like himself. The atrocities are well documented. Kerry didn’t spare himself, but he didn’t blame the soldiers for their actions. He chalked it up to the commanders and the politicians who were unwilling to admit the problems of the war, but fully willing to put soldiers in harms way to confront them with no way of triumphing over them.

As for North Vietnam? It’s interesting how quick you are to use their selective approach to telling soldiers the truth to justify blaming Kerry and those like him for the loss of Vietnam. Let’s get something clear here: When Kerry asked the question “How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?” The public he addressed understood that mistake to be Vietnam, and agreed with him. Nixon campaigned on having a secret plan to get us out of Vietnam. The Neocons you would so quickly defend today, The Vice President even, were voicing their own criticisms, favoring a pull out.

Kerry was not responsible for America wanting to leave. The most he did was participate as a voice confirming that this was the better decision. As for America cutting off funds in 1975? I got a question for you: What good did America do by propping up South Vietnam all those years? The time to have won was early on, in the early sixties. We should have worked with the Vietnamese, rather than try and impose ourselves on top of them. Unfortunately, the way we conducted that war ended up playing to the enemy’s strengths and against our own. We didn’t lose Vietnam because of bad press and doubtful folks at home. We lost it because we applied inappropriate means to the goal we sought, means that did not work to get us, or the folks who trusted us in South Vietnam what they needed.

Our involvement in Vietnam was not free of charge. We essentially had to suffer through the economic disasters of the Seventies paying for the Vietnam War. Ironically, what made it worse was the deficit spending; had we done it out of straight tax dollars, it wouldn’t have hit us so hard.

But hey, all this logic, all these facts, you don’t care. You just want to continue four decades worth of partisan vitriol. Never mind examining the facts behind the claims. Never mind looking into the documentations to see whose story seems most straight. No, we’re just to call people names and disrespect service when the the people who paid their dues don’t also pay Republican dues.

Snardius, I do most certainly believe that Bush is a blithering idiot, but back before so many of us were proven right about that, there were a larger number still hanging onto the belief and hope that we were wrong, and that Mr. B.I. just might do something intelligent.
Check out more current information and see those on the red side of the aisle who were duped as well, and have since changed their opinions.
That 11% support is not just a partisan showing, either.

Stephen,

“As for Kerry’s military records?”

If Kerry’s military records would have debunked the Swiftboat vets, then why didn’t he release them all? Could it be that his military records supported what the Swiftboat vets were saying?

“The atrocities are well documented. Kerry didn’t spare himself, but he didn’t blame the soldiers for their actions”

Kerry didn’t spare himself? Just what atrocities did he commit? And calling them “the army of Ghengis Khan” is not assigning blame?

“If Kerry’s goal was to get his ticket punched, why did he take such a controversial view upon coming home? “

Being anti-war in 1971 was controversial? People in 1971 were calling returning soldiers “baby killers” and spitting on them. Kerry was preaching to the choir when he testified. He took the position he did because it made him more politically viable, not less.

“Unfortunately, the majority of Americans are neither IN Congress nor are they REPRESENTED in Congress at the current time…just who are the obstructionists now???”

Rachel,

Wham ……… Bam …………. that is exactly how I feel!!!!!! The so called “report” from Petraeus and Crocker was so damn obviously a Republican hack-job it’s ridiculous!!!!!!!!!

And, for our own party to Betray Us by voting yes for this piece of crap amendment does make me wonder if we shouldn’t just let the Republican’ts win again!!!!!!!!!!!

Maybe it is time to go GREEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Snardius, my compliments to you, you are the first of the righties to acknowledge this debacle is about our addiction to oil and not freedom for the Iraqi people from a brutish dictator and establishing a democracy in the middle east.

“It is not your right or your responsibility to undermine our troops in the field in wartime…that’s called treason.”

snardius,

That suggests that I’m guilty of treason!!!!!!!!!!!!

I’d argue that it is my responsibility to speak out regarding MY nations security and the treatment of OUR troops by a negligent CinC and his bunch of toadies!

Just consider that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz disregarded the advice of General Eric Shinseki who was the Chief of Staff of the Army and they openly criticized his recommendations regarding troop levels prior to and following the invasion of Iraq.

If you want to hang the title of “traitor” on anyone I suggest you begin with Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Rice. From there you can work your way on through the whole damn administration ……… including General Betray-Us!

Petraeus violated his oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC ………… without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion ………”

Need I repeat, “without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion”!!!!!!!!!

IMO Petraeus displayed a “purpose of evasion” and the 22 chicken shit Democrats that went along with the Republi-nazi condemnation of “moveon” should be run out of DC on a rail!!!!!!!!!!!

Snardius-
What makes you think he didn’t? As for debunking the SwiftVets?

One of these guys is contradicted by his own medal citation. Two of these guys pitched in to help Kerry on tough election campaign, where they could have sunk him in a second. Much of what they say is countered by the official records and citations in question. Kerry authorized the Navy to turn over the records, and the Navy did. Are you telling me that the Navy joined Kerry in a conspiracy to defraud the voters of the nation?

All this “unfit for command” crap is mostly fog of war revisionism of events decades in the past, by people feeling the pressure of folks playing on their military spirit and patriotism at a time when many felt the war a necessary and critical enterprise. Without hard evidence to back the charges, this is just the former debating rival of Kerry coming back to do the dirty work of another political machine.

And yes, being anti-war in 1971 still was controversial, just as it is now. Not ever community greeted the anti-war movement with open arms, and Kerry lost the election he attempted at that point. The argument that it made him more politically viable runs right into the reality that it didn’t.

But of course, this is all a distraction from a fact you wish not to face: your own people didn’t like the war. Not until it became politically convenient for getting your knocks in on Democrats.

And how about Max Cleland? I remember the respect they gave him. Just because he wouldn’t support your war, he gets portrayed as best buddies with Bin Laden and Saddam. Worse, the accident that made him a triple amputee gets slimed by your people. Going to get a beer with friends becomes him being drunk. Picking up a grenade he thought may have fallen off his belt becomes stupid rather than responsible decision. An accident caused by an unfortunate private messing with the pin becomes a drunken mistake by Cleland. The accuse him of claiming to be a war hero because of being blown up by this grenade, when in fact his actions in the seige of Khe Sanh earn him this honor.

But of course, such honors will always be questioned, twisted, and have tortured logic applied to them to give the Republican party the unquestionable advantage on a war that many of them dodged, including the man they chose to run against Cleland.

I’m sick of this slimeball politics. You see, the problem is MoveOn wasn’t especially egregious in its words, it’s just that they were amateurs at the mudslinging your side employs without a second thought.

Latest CBS Poll, for those Republicans willing to find out just how mainstream all these “leftist” ideas of ending the war are.

Snardius- Do you really believe your attempts at

swiftboating those here on this Blog. are worth all

your waisted time invested? Since swiftboating is

tactless an with out facts, really is not all that

difficult, now is it!

Whatever the truth is about Kerry’s military records, to this day it makes no sense to me at all that he didn’t simply release all of those records BEFORE instead of after the 2004 election. Why didn’t he? I only half-way paid attention to this controversy while it was taking place, but it always seemed strange to me that if he was telling the truth, he didn’t just put the matter to bed by releasing those records. And it still seems weird to me that he’s only allowed a few hand-picked media outlets to review them while refusing others—including the general public—the same opportunity.

Though it’s water under the bridge now, but I suspect that a great many people who were disposed to reject the claims of the Swiftvets at the time started having second thoughts as a result of Kerry’s odd behavior and the appearance that he was being less than forthcoming. Seems to me that Kerry supporters are the ones who should be most upset about how poorly he handled this matter—especially if they believe that the truth was on Kerry’s side.

This administration needs to get it’s story straight.

Are we in Iraq serving the needs of the Iraqi people?
If this is the case we need our diplomatic corps to start working some overtime, as this isn’t the mission our troops are trained for.

If we are there for the oil, we as Americans need to do some serious soul searching and realign our priorities.

If America has the abilities to spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year on the technology to create and sustain war, why can’t we come up with a viable solution to replace our dependence on Middle East oil?

Rocky

The diplomatic service is working overtime. We are doubling the number of PRTs and they are being led by senior State Department officials.

We were not in Iraq to serve the needs of the Iraqi people. But if we do not serve their needs, we cannot accomplish our security goals.

The new strategy we started in January 2007 is much more in line with the total diplomatic/security/building scenario outlined in the new army counterinsurgency manual, written in large part by General Patreaus.

We made many mistakes. It is still risky and very dangerous, but I believe we will win this one. We will help establish a reasonably democratic and stable Iraq that is not a threat to its neighbors.

Wednesday Gates will ask Congress for more money- we’re up to $195 billion now.

LO-
First, why should Kerry have expected to be slimed on his combat decorations (for which he provided all the relevant documentation)?

Second, why should Kerry have to prove himself innocent of having faked the deeds necessary to get the medals? Why isn’t the presumption that he earned them?

Why do the SwiftVets get such a free pass on all the factual mistakes and discrepancies, while again and again, Kerry gets roasted for the least bit of deviation from the record?

Why isn’t the burden of proof on these people who made these extraordinary claims?

The trouble we got here is that Republicans have given value for suspicions and insinuations equal to that of hard fact. If you work that way, though, Kerry can’t win.

And why does Bush get a free pass at having a document disclosure that most closely resembles a picked snowbird? There’s much more evidence to support that he ditched his drills than that Kerry faked his mdeals.

LO- Your Republican Glass houses are just now beginning to crack, an seems the more they throw
stones at the Democrats the faster Republicans fall.

Stephen,
Good link on the polls. When will Democrats start acting in accordance with what the majority of Americans want? Yes, the Republicans will filibuster, & yes, Bush will veto. Let them. Reid & Pelosi & the Democratic leadership keep trying to play nice, in hopes of getting something done. Forget it. The polls clearly show Americans favor the liberal agenda. It is time to demand it.

Kansas Dem,
Good comment. I am very frustrated with the Democrats. Okay, I understand they face endless filibusters. In their defense, they did try to pass a bill for immediate withdrawal, which failed miserably, as well as a bill for a more gradual withdrawal, which failed 47-47. They need to keep trying. Make it abundantly clear to the American people what Democrats stand for, and what the GOP stands for. Let”s vote on it in 2008.

I totally understand the urge to vote Green. The liberal wing of the Democratic Party is doing what I want them to do. Unfortunately, there are a fair number of Democrats who enable the Republican agenda, whether they intend to or not.

Nevertheless, one thing I am absolutely positive about: I have had enough of the Repubican agenda to last a lifetime. And if it means voting for Dems to prevent those people from having power, well, as weak and pathetic as the Dems may be, they are far preferable to the “good germans” who back Bush. They have disgraced our country and its ideals.

With a little luck, the Democratic Party will have a supermajority in both houses & a Dem president.

Sadly, the Democrats will inherit a horrible mess.

Thanks, Republicans. Nice job. Way to screw our country.

Stephen,

There is no point in going backwards on this. The focus must always be forwards. To me forward thinking says WE DEMS must let the Senate know just how bad this betrayal pisses us off.

Well, it really makes me think that the Green Party should prevail …………. honestly! If we Dems have grown so weak that we’ll cave in to just anything, maybe it is time to write an obituary for the Democratic Party.

Actually an obit sounds good. Maybe we should all take out a paid obit in our local papers designating the day the Democratic Party died!

phx8,

I hear you, but I’m so disgusted. How crazy is the obituary idea. A paid obit can’t cost more than $20.00. If a whole bunch of us run paid obits across the country declaring the Democratic Party dead will that wake some folks up?

(Paid obituary)

Following a prolonged illness the Democratic Party died on September 21st, 2007 in spite of the efforts of many close friends. Once a strong and vital part of our communities fabric, she went out with little more than a whimper.

The funeral was attended by two winos and a homeless man who were rapidly taken into custody.

If the United States were a family, democratic Presidential candidates would be home wreckers, kind of like the woman in this song:

Halloween Queen
Dr BLT copywrite 2007 Smash Records
http://www.drblt.net/music/Hallo7.mp3

KansasDem-
I think it would be fairly useless to protest to the Dems in Washington.

What Democratic groups need to do, and feel free to share this with as many people as possible, is organizing large protests and information campaigns aimed at stirring up public awareness and anger against the Republican’s obstructionism.

This is what we had to do with the war, this is what had to do with the 2006 campaign, and this will be what we have to do with the Republican obstructionism. The old Guard Democrats have had caution bred into them. If the public starts openly protesting against what the Republicans are doing, that’ll make it easier for we Democrats to push our Senators and Representatives to represent our interests more firmly.

Now it shouldn’t be difficult I mean, with the list of what the Republicans have gotten in the way of, there are sure some initiatives we can make them regret. The very number and pace of their cloture votes is a talking point in and of itself.

Let’s not waste time, energy, and political strength by getting into the usual circular firing squad. Let’s get the Republican party against the wall, and take some well-deserved shots at their obstructionism.

To clarify: Protesting to the Dems in Washington is useless because they still remain the best candidates to carry out what we want done, compared to just about everybody else. Besides, they’re not causing the problem, they’re just responding weakly to it.

Democratic Party politicians have become fairly good over the years at second guessing themselves, at striving to be inoffensive. It’s taken a lot of leadership from underneath to get them to act more courageously.

What I propose is that instead of attacking the Democrats, who are on our side but weakly so, we attack the folks who are really fighting against us, and hit them back. They’ve been using these votes to quietly scuttle bills, and the time has come to make the process less than quiet, and the consequences of their actions less than remote. If the Democrats in Washington won’t lead the way, we will. And we should.

Don’t write obituaries. Write up bills that they’ve scrubbed, and make sure the world knows what they’ve gotten in the way of.

Stephen Daugherty- Since most of the bills are “D.O.A,” I hope the Democrats kill that 200 Billion
dollar Defence bill, if they do not, we will be in
Iraq just as we are in so many other countries.
How many more and at what cost? The World can
no longer tolerate seize an seizure mentality.

This is what we’re up against.

The problem here is that MoveOn made the mistake of trying to run its ad in the territory these people already know well.

I don’t recommend Democrats get too good at this, for it’s one part of the Hubris that closed the GOP’s mind to their own hypocrisies and shortcomings. One thing we should do, though, is get better at hitting them where they deserve to be hit. Democratic and Leftwards political organizations need to make national and international political hay out of their obstructionism.

Here’s the thing: we no longer have to convince people things are bad. We no longer have to convince them that the Republicans have the wrong policy. These are things people know and understand in their bones.

Now I’ve been pushing and pushing my points for quite some time now. I’ve done my very best to convince every last American I could about this. But now, we’re down to the Republican base, the people who are emotionally invested in the Republicans maintaining power. The Republicans cannot be backed down here by anything short of being publically confronted with the extent that they’ve taken draconious measures to interfere with the legislation most Americans want passed.

Right now, Democrats are getting blamed for not putting more legislation through, for not taking more action. It is the Republicans, though who keep on blocking the legislation. Perhaps we let it go quietly, in the hopes that we might be able to work across the aisle. Trouble is, the folks across the aisle aren’t cooperating, they’re covering their asses. We are unlikely to persuade them by reasonable means to break ranks, when doing so means dealing with the more fickle than ever Republican base.

This is something we’re going to have to force out of them. If any of you here have political connections or work with a campaign, start bring this up. Start researching it. This is a two edged sword the Republicans have picked up, and its time it started cutting both ways.

As usual Stephen, when I am at the end of one of your articles, I say to myself, “Damn Skippy.” In the non-vernacular that means, “the points in your summation are absolutely correct.”

I do want to restate some points that you made because there are still those, especially here, who will look through the “infinitesimally” small holes present by some of your arguments. They cannot, however, get through the directness of my statements with any conceivable intellectual/factual/reality-based counterpoint without resorting to “personal attacks”; but I can take it (I don’t need the protection of the Watchblog police—LOL).

The Bush/Iraq war from its unbelievable inception has been a fantasy of the worst and most dangerous kind of narcissistic idiot (one that has control over the lives and deaths of Americans) who was able to raise enough money to purchase the presidency of the United States. When he failed to reap the full return on his donators’ investments he had to rely on appointment by the Supreme Court for his ascendency to the office. Having made that point, AGAIN, let’s move forward to examining how an idiot is able to wreak the kind of havoc that only an idiot named George W. Bush has been able to inflict on the Country he claims to serve (although I think that claim was hoisted on him by the Presidential Oath of Office).

Here’s the recipe for—“How an Idiot Attempts to Ruin America”
1. You need greed, avarice, a sociopathic LACK of conscience, and unrelenting evil—enter DICK “CHICANERY” CHENEY as VP. Enough said about that ingredient.
2. You need the credibility of character—Bush, himself, lacks this raw material, so he had to drain it from someone possessing it (or at least has the semblance of possessing character). Remember the original “General BetrayUS” Colin Powell.
3. You need the most powerful propaganda, which can only originate from horrible human tragedy such as the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks of 9-11-2001.
4. And of course, you need the inexorable blindness of stupidity—GWB himself supplies this ingredient “in spades.”
Put those things together and cook them over the course of a 7 year smoldering fire known as the Bush Administration and what do get…a meal that “sticks with you” (and NOT in a good way) and has the following consequences (Parts B, C,…to follow under separate posts):

(PART A) Americans who can be duped into believing that removing Saddam Hussein from power is worth the life a single American, let alone 4,000 American lives. Before my detractors play that tired card again, now that it is also propped up by the former Fed—Allan Greenspan— Please keep in mind that “Anything Saddam could have done, Iran can NOW do better (especially BECAUSE Saddam is gone).” Iran does not need to go marauding through the middle east (yet) for oil reserves they have their own. In addition, they will reap the benefits from newly re-established ties with Shiite Iraq (again, now that Saddam is gone) and the oil resources of Iraq. Oh yes, let’s not forget the new technology that continues to develop in Iran, which I am sure they will be willing to share with their returning prodigal son “Iraq” (NOW THAT SADDAM IS GONE). Yes, I’m talking about NUCLEAR CAPABILITY. NOW go ahead “Bushies,” “McCainies,” and all those who don’t want the “guilt by association” stigma of those names—play the card in the face of these Post-Saddam changes occurring in the Middle East, and tell me again why it was worth the lives of 4,000 American soldiers to remove the scourge of Saddam Hussein, and how America’s future is MORE SECURE as a result of the “victory” and the “end of major combat operation” in Iraq. I wonder if the Kingdom’s of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia feel more SECURE…now…that…Saddam…is gone.

SUMMATION: Stephen, I have to disagree that the war in Iraq was won, let alone, brilliantly won by the Republicans once Saddam was removed from power and executed. I think it is naïve, if not frankly short-sighted, to think that simply removing this particular despot from power would bring any kind of stability to that region that would serve American interests as whole, even if one considers ONLY AMERICAN INTERESTS. Unfortunately, the hatching and execution of the Iraq war has cost the lives of 4,000 of our fellow Americans. THERE SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN A BUSH/IRAQ WAR. I think it is boarding on irresponsible to invoke any kind of “victory” language regarding the events that have taken place in Iraq. I could have told you that our Military could have accomplished what they have WITHOUT even one of them having to risk their life. There was never any question in my mind about the prowess of our military and their ability to purge the world of Saddam Hussein. The question that should have been asked and answered: “Is it appropriate to leverage the lives of VOLUNTEER military personnel without careful, intelligent, and discerning thought and planning of military options and consequences of unwarranted military action in the absence of LEGITIMATE foreign or domestic threats?”

Precious few (Americans or otherwise) have benefited from the removal of Saddam Hussein—the most notable among the benefactors—ingredients #1 and #4 in the recipe of “How an Idiot Attempts to Ruin America.”

The current political and military “predictions” are that “victory” in Iraq will take at least 10 years at the present (or very similar) American troop presence—10 years (which war supports bought that pile of crap)—try 100 years—and that is an EXTREMELY conservative estimate. What that means to some of you is that your GRAND CHILDREN could be deployed to Iraq to face what our troops are facing now, or even worse.

To be continued….

Posted by: Dr BLT If the United States were a family, democratic Presidential candidates would be home wreckers, kind of like the woman in this song:

if that statment where true then Bush would have to be the wife beating, drunk, cheating husband.

Posted by: Snardius “It is not your right or your responsibility to undermine our troops in the field in wartime…that’s called treason.”


The test of democracy is freedom of criticism. ~David Ben-Gurion


We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. ~John F. Kennedy


If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all. ~Noam Chomsky

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. ~Voltaire


For if Men are to be precluded from offering their Sentiments on a matter, which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences, that can invite the consideration of Mankind, reason is of no use to us; the freedom of Speech may be taken away, and, dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep, to the Slaughter.
GEORGE WASHINGTON, address to the officers of the army, Mar. 15, 1783

Sorry I meant to post this quote as well in the last post.

“We may congratulate ourselves that this cruel war is nearing its end. It has cost a vast amount of treasure and blood… . It has indeed been a trying hour for the Republic; but I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless.” — Pres. Abraham Lincoln

You cannot negotiate, compromise or come to a consensus with those who are self-annointed morally superior beings. The fillibuster should be entering it’s second week. If the support of the American People isn’t going to give the Democrats the backbone to stand and fight this tyranny of the minority then the Democrats should resign. If they refuse to make a stand and they refuse to resign, the Democratics must challenge them in the primaries.

What the dems may need to consider is that their leadership in DC has been tainted by the same sickness that has befallen the repubs. That is to say the leadrship is not beholding to the people that vote for them but to the monied class that put them into office. IMHO that is why the dem leadership is playing softball in a hardball world. It benefits them to do so. Jefferson, Honest Abe , Eisenhower and others have warned us about the corporations since the beginning of this Country, at some point we should listen, otherwise there isnt a nickel’s difference between the two parties.

Jim, I believe what’s taking place on here certainly qualifies as civil discourse….the fact that you may not agree is irellevant:
v. (d-skôrs, -skrs) dis·coursed, dis·cours·ing, dis·cours·es
v.intr.
1. To speak or write formally and at length. See Synonyms at speak.
2. To engage in conversation or discussion; converse.
How is it that so many can so easily sidestep the fact that Bush took us into Iraq in spite of the information provided, rather than because of it??? Posted by: Sandra Davidson at September 22, 2007 04:46 PM

Sandra, I am pleased that you took time to discover the meaning of “discourse.” YOur next assignment is to look up the meaning of “civil.” Then put the two together and you will understand my meaing.

Stephen (good article), KD, phx8, Sandra, DAVID, Kim Sue, jlw, j2t2, john, and other Liberals reading and posting here will find this interesting, I think.

Here are a few important facts about the Republican Lite Senators who voted for condemn Moveon for daring to question whether Petraeus would betray us (which he did, IMO).
As you’ll note, a lot of these people have a history of selling out our party:

Max Baucus (Montana), Evan Bayh (Indiana), Thomas Carper (Delaware), Kent Conrad (North Dakota), Byron Dorgan (North Dakota), Dianne Feinstein (California), Tim Johnson (South Dakota), Herb Kohl (Wisconsin), Mary Landrieu (Louisiana), Patrick Leahy (Vermont), Blanche Lincoln (Arkansas), Barbara Mikulski (Maryland), Ben Nelson (Nebraska) — every single one of these people also voted for the credit card industry written bankruptcy bill.

Bill Nelson (Florida) gets a nod for voting against the bankrupcty bill, but since he just voted against the first amendment, he still deserves to be voted out. He also deserves nothing more from Moveon since they gave him a lot of help with his campaign and in getting out the vote in Florida against Katherine Harris in the last election.
Indeed all of these people deserve our condemnation, to be voted out, and clearly they should never get a penny of money, or an inch more support from Moveon from here on out.

Now we come to those who owe enormous amount to all the hard work, and the truly national effort to raise money for their campaigns to the people who work for and contribute to Moveon.org, but who (in true Republican Lite fashion) decided to crap all over them:

Cardin (MD), Casey (PA), Klobuchar (MN), McCaskill (MO), Pryor (AR), Salazar (CO), Tester (MT) are all in their 1st term in the Senate after the 2006 election.
Next time they run they’ll likely be dipping into the deep pockets of the credit card industry and other corporations for their campaigns just like the those listed above (and all of the Republicans) do, but they certainly don’t deserve a penny more from any of us.

Note to Kansas Dem:
My friend, there is no need for liberals to leave OUR party just because some of the politicians who put a (D) next to their names aren’t truly Democrats. We just need to weed them out as time goes on. Also, as you may know, I briefly joined the Green Party, and from what I’ve gathered after talking to you here, I get the feeling that (like me) you wouldn’t enjoy the way they go about doing things very much. It appeared to me that the Greens weren’t good at getting much of anything done (and perhaps never will be) because they didn’t work well together. Maybe it isn’t the same everywhere, but where I live, there is a serious lack of cohesion, and far too much in-fighting and needless drama for this liberal lady to stomach.

John, great quotes! Here is another:

The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole.

Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile.

To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else.

But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else.

— Theodore Roosevelt, 1918

Thanks Jim, and I especially appreciate the condescending tone and attitude.
My point that you’re missing is that whenever one doesn’t agree with what is being said, then the discussion becomes “blather”.
And by the way, I choose to not accept your latest assignment……

Adrienne-
Again, I’d recommend against the circular firing squad approach. We’re in a time of transition here. If we’re not somewhat forgiving here, we’ll end up like the Republicans, artificially taking our party out of sync.

It’s easy for those in Washington to get caught up in the insular environment there. The key here is to make it so profoundly obvious that things have changed, that it’s no longer necessary to be careful with our friends on the other side of the aisle, to take this kind of bullying, that these people get the message.

We can’t simply leave these guys alone, and just hope they’ll just get what we’re thinking. You can’t do that with any politician. It has to be an ongoing relationship, not merely an occasional running to these folks for help.

PART B—

I think if I hear, read, or sense anymore of this Iraq-Vietnam comparison and current federal legislators/”executives” with supposed military/war “honorables” prompting their commitment to fight Global terrorism I am going to [cough] up a lung. The other lung will come up if our current situation on the international stage continues to be associated with the hyperbole of how Ronald Regan initiated the end of the Soviet empire “freeing us from the Cold War, and how his “policy”, belief, or what-have-you spurred young republicans (i.e. fascists…oops…I mean neoconservatives) to envision and create a world aggrandized to such magnificence by the spread of American democracy. P.T.I.—give me a break, PLEASE!!!!

This post is not even so much as a criticism of Ronald Regan, so those of you prone to use the excuse of “defending” your icons to hi-jack intelligent discussion and marginalize and ignore legitimate arguments—spare me, please.

Let’s examine a few other things that had a far greater impact on the “fall of the evil empire” than Ronald Regan’s policies, belief, etc.

1. Mikael Gorbachev—In the fall of Communism (at least as far as the West (except Cuba) is concerned, I don’t know how some people rate Ronald Regan above this NOBEL LAURATE. Ronald Regan hardly got so much as an honorable mention from the Nobel Committee with respect to the “peaceful” end of the Soviet Union and the Cold War.

2. In my opinion even more important than which world leader should get the credit (Gorbachev or Regan) is the WELL IGNORED “Soviet invasion” of Afghanistan. I certainly can see why neocons (hell all republicans seeking some kind of re-election) want to ignore and avoid drawing parallels between that ISLAM vs. THE WEST conflict and our very own BUSH/Iraq War. The humanitarian, economic, political, and diplomatic consequences of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, in my opinion, had the greatest impact on dismantling the Soviet Union, in the post-Stalin era that is to say. Now that “democracy” has come to that portion of the West, how are they recovering following their “battle” with Islam?

I would be interested to know who actually thinks that American democracy ALONE can protect the US from the kind of deterioration and destruction of economic and political infrastructure that the Afghan/Soviet conflict had/has on the countries of the former (communist) Soviet Union.

SUMMATION: Stephen, as much as I would like to agree with you that Americans, in general, are smart. If “we” are, then why haven’t we all shown up in the voting electorate? I think as Americans, we are a generally optimistic people. However, this optimism has become shrouded in complacency, which set the stage for the ascendency of ignorance and incompetence to the highest level of our government. Now, we as the citizens who empower elected officials (irrespective of their party “brand name”) have become their victims because we are unable to dislodge them and purge them of power efficiently without risking anarchy. Some of the consequences to average Americans have been grappling with the day in and day out loss of our fellow Americans in Iraq, sky rocketing & rollercoaster gas prices, housing foreclosure rate the likes of which the “middle class” are quite unaccustomed, and the like. I’ve made no mention of those other pesky issues like the environment and global warming, immigration, fair housing, fair employment practices, civil rights, discrimination, education, etc.

Have we so successfully tackled the ills of our own country that we can now turn our attention and resources to ensuring “freedom” for other nations that only democracy can bring? Only a rich, white, silver-spoon-in-his-mouth, American born idiot could set out to execute such ludicrous ideologies (WAIT!…I’m wrong, a rich, arab, silver-spoon-in-his-mouth, Yemeni born idiot could accomplish a similar thing, but NOT under the guise and authority of any “civilized” nation).

Was ridding the world of Saddam really worth having to face these types of consequences and issues? TO ALL THOSE SMART AMERICANS THAT STEPHEN AND I HOPE ARE OUT THERE—By all means get out and vote, but I implore you, examine the “unexpressed” qualification (or lack thereof in the case of GWB) of those who seek political power before you cast a vote in their direction. No longer is the most eminent impact of governing officials felt solely at the local and state levels.

Adrienne- Bringing cohesiveness too our party is
especially important this year an your endeavors
are showing a greater loyalty an respect to our
Democracy, an shows many Democrats could indeed
show a greater loyalty to the Democratic Party.

By the way Adrienne, I added a link to your
energy post which has a picture an description
of that new supper, power device.

As always, excellent posts an a learning experience. Thanks

Stephen:
“If we’re not somewhat forgiving here, we’ll end up like the Republicans, artificially taking our party out of sync.”

I’m sorry, but I have to disagree. I think this group has proven time and time again that they don’t deserve our continuing loyalty or any more of our forgiveness. Indeed, I think we’ve given them too much of that already.
In my view it is their actions that have been taking our party out of sync for far too long. This group of cowardly DLC “moderates” continually weaken the Democratic position. They are eagerly and often needlessly allowing themselves to be played by the GOP’s silly bullshit antics that are intended to distract this country from the real issues, and hide their own failures. Additionally this group has been blatantly selling out our liberal principles for a very long time, while shamelessly doing the bidding of their corporate partners and/or masters, and clearly on behalf of their own self interest. I think voting against the first amendment and condemning a group like Moveon who has worked so hard and raised so much money for our party should truly be the last straw.

Stephen Daugherty- Just how many pieces of silver

needs to be given, to keep some of these Democrats

loyal to their party? Of the three cross roads,which

will you choose? [a trick question]

Here’s just an interesting little “f.y.i.”…..
http://www.usalone.com/out_of_iraq.php

Sorry, this should have gone with what I just put up….

It’s Time To Draw A Line In The Sand In Iraq

NOW IS THE TIME TO RALLY AROUND THE INITIATIVE TO GET OUT OF IRAQ

The most remarkable thing about the Petraeus coached testimony on the
status of the failed occupation of Iraq was Republican senators using
their hearing time to TESTIFY THEMSELVES about the good news and
wonderful progress there. Why was he even there if only to have words
put in his mouth, not just by the White House but by Congress itself?
According to every impartial judge, like the GAO, the truth is that
there has been NO reduction in violence and the situation continues
to deteriorate.

OUT OF IRAQ ACTION PAGE: http://www.usalone.com/out_of_iraq.php

But finally now, at least in the House, there is a growing movement
to finally have Congress put its foot down and say no more. As of
today, 81 members of the House of Representatives have signed on to a
letter drafted by Out of Iraq Caucus Chairs Reps. Lynn Woolsey
(D-CA), Barbara Lee (D-CA), and Maxine Waters (D-CA), to the White
House, declaring that they will appropriate no more funds for this
war except to redeploy and protect our troops.

This is the best opportunity we’ve had so far to rally around an
initiative, to thank those who have already joined in, and to
encourage all others to sign on as well.

There can be absolutely no doubt that when we speak out in sufficient
numbers, Congress ACTS. This was proven yet again a small while back
when a million people (many perhaps not even citizens) demonstrated
against an immigration bill, and within 24 hours it was dead on
arrival in the Senate. Who could witness that and seriously maintain
that Congress won’t listen to us? Any such thought is a insidious
lie, promoted only by sad defeatists and those who would con us out
of our own participatory democracy.

OUR VOICES DO COUNT WHEN WE USE THEM!

As demonstrated by the recent drop of the popularity of Congress
ANOTHER 3 points to 11 percent (in a passively conducted poll), you
are not alone in being dissatisfied or even angry about what’s going
on in Washington. At the rate they are going they may have a ZERO
percent popularity rating by Christmas. But what most of the
currently remaining 89 percent have NOT yet done is SPEAK OUT
ACTIVELY to demand policy change. That is the only thing that moves
Congress. They know how unhappy we are. They are just waiting for
enough of us to tell them what to DO.

OUT OF IRAQ ACTION PAGE: http://www.usalone.com/out_of_iraq.php

So even if you are already speaking out, and we are asking ALL of our
participants to make it their particular mission to not only submit
the action page in this alert, but please also use the friends
section of that action page to invite everyone else you know to do
the same thing. Only if we mobilize every possible voice can we
expect Congress to comply with our demands, because until we MAKE
that demand in larger numbers there is nothing for them to be
expected to comply with.

Time and again we heard Democrats last week calling for Republicans
to have the courage to vote for the end of the occupation. But where
is THEIR courage to cut off funding, except for the purposes of
ending an occupation that can never succeed? There is NO courage that
does not come from us, from our voices telling them they have more to
fear in the coming primary and general elections from an angry
electorate, than they have to fear from being called a name by a
cable news TV talking fluff head.

WE MUST SPEAK FOR THE TROOPS WHO CANNOT SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES

Is there anything more despicable than members of Congress stuffing
words in the mouths of our troops who are NOT allowed to speak out
for themselves? Have you ever heard the military expression,
“Permission to speak freely, sir?” Our military personal are PUNISHED
for speaking out against this insane war policy. They are demoted,
fired or worse. The chance of a member of Congress coming within 100
miles of a dissenting soldier in Iraq is about nil. In fact, when
they visit the green zone talking points are even distributed about
the “good news”, to be spoon fed to gullible visitors.

So first they gag our troops, and then a senator tries to tell us
they’re all just saying, “Let us win.” But to the contrary we know
that if they were allowed permission to speak freely, abused as they
are by multiple successive deployments, many of them grossly misused
National Guard volunteers, they would overwhelmingly say, “Get us the
hell out of here already!”

And soldier or not, nothing excuses the self-serving complicity of
General Petraeus. He is known by his fellow officers as a
bootlicking, ladder climber, who has collected his mounting stars
with his willingness to act as a political operative for the White
House, to promote their lies no matter how disreputable.

So when George Bush gets on TV, and exploits the grief of the
survivors of our dead troops to say we have to continue sacrificing
more of them, he is trying to lay on their shoulders responsibility
for being INVESTED in his own sick mission. The only people invested
in this policy are those who voted for it, and continue to defend it
so shamelessly. And milking a captive audience of suffering loved
ones for cheers for yet more vengeful blood lust is beneath contempt,
even for a pathological demagogue.

AT LEAST 40 SENATORS ARE BEYOND REDEMPTION ON IRAQ

Some had hoped that enough Republican senators would come to their
senses by September to turn around the Iraq policy. But instead we
have seen no movement despite the self-evident and inevitable failure
of the “surge”, which was never a military strategy in the first
place, only a marketing scheme to lull the American public into
another year of a doomed occupation.

It is clear that at least 40 Republican senators will vote lockstep
to the bitter, desolate end, the football analogy equivalent of a
“Hail Mary” pass. We strongly suspect that even those who side with
the Democrats long enough to get votes up in the high 50s would NOT
do so if they thought the vote might actually succeed, for example as
we saw Warner suddenly turn tail this week and reject a measure he
had previously supported.

OUT OF IRAQ ACTION PAGE: http://www.usalone.com/out_of_iraq.php

What this means is that the only way to stop the endless and
escalating blood flood anytime soon is by refusing to appropriate any
more money EXCEPT to bring the troops home. That does not take 67
votes in the Senate or even 60. It only takes 41 votes there and a
majority in the House. We must bring maximum pressure on the House
this week to take a stand to stop the insanity. They are all facing
reelection next year. They all must understand that failing we the
people AGAIN will make primary challenges a determined certainty in
the first instance, and right behind that jeopardy of their chances
in the general election.

It is not our job to advocate for or against a particular candidate.
That is YOUR job, when that time comes.

BUT IN THE MEANTIME, IF YOU LIKE KUCINICH ON THE ISSUES LET HIM KNOW

We would be remiss not to ask who other than Dennis Kucinich has
shown more courage to speak out against the Iraq disaster before it
even started? If you are asking yourself what you can do to encourage
Dennis to continue to stand strong on the ISSUES, why not make a
contribution, if you are so motivated.

DENNIS KUCINICH CONTRIBUTIONS:
http://www.usalone.com/donations_kucinich.php

Please take action NOW, so we can win all victories that are supposed
to be ours, and forward this message to everyone else you know.

If you would like to get alerts like these, you can do so at
http://www.usalone.com/in.htm

Or if you want to cease receiving our messages, just use the function
at http://www.usalone.com/out.htm

usalone117b:39955

Powered by The People’s Email Network Copyright 2007, Patent pending,
All rights reserved

Stephen D., you make excellent recommendations about what Dem’s should do to marginalize Republicans. But, you ignore the cannon which Dem’s give the Republicans, the Democrats insistence on open borders and promoting illegal immigration. If Democrats would get serious about border security and national security by advocating closing our borders to all but who we choose to let in, Dem’s could get their cannon back from Republicans. But, with the near guarantee of another terrorist attack within our borders, and Democrat’s championing wide open borders, it seems plain Republicans are going to fire that cannon straight at Democrat’s reputation on this issue at the next terrorist incident, and the public will cheer Republicans for having fired it.

Why are Democrats so blind on this issue? How is it possible for Democrats to fail to recognize the incredible power 9/11’s attack garnered for Republicans via public opinion. And how another attack will again make heroes of Republicans in the public’s eye, if Democrats fight secure borders as the next attack unfolds?

PART C—

Stephen, as I infer the intent of your points regarding the backlash on General Petraeus, I would agree that from a practical standpoint, the attacks may be of questionable significance. However, General Petraeus has a mind of his own and should have put himself in a better position if he wanted to avoid criticisms regarding the credibility of his “September” report on the status of Iraq.

How many more American generals with intellect, integrity and character will so readily place their lives, careers, and reputations on the “alter of George W. Bush.”

It is unbelievable to me that Petraeus would actually think he would escape any different fate than any other quality individual that is even remotely linked to the Bush administration. Who does Petraeus think was responsible for the dissolution of Tony Blair’s political career? Has he not figured out that George W. Bush is the forebear of the professional grim reaper? God bless the Republican Congress responsible for the 22nd Amendment—no matter what their motives were at the time, LOL. GWB for 12 years…YIKES!! What a horror flick that would make.

The very fact that he is now the top General in Iraq should have served as evidence to him that principle, character, good intent, and integrity have absolutely no stronghold in the Bush administration. How could he possible believe he would somehow escape being ground up in the George W. Bush “terrorist” machinery? Perhaps he was not paying close attention to the political events leading up to his own appointment as head of the military command in Iraq.

That he is being attacked now, because of his boss, should not be surprising to him. It is hard for me to feel sorry for him in that regard—not to mention the pesky little annoyance known as freedom of speech.

Like all people of character, intellect, and integrity directly or indirectly associated with the Bush Administration, General Petraeus was sought out because Bush could use these high-minded qualities politically to give life to his Iraq agenda and ensure that he could pass this mess on to someone else.

Back when the “Surge” strategy was being revealed, I posted a very similar claim about GWB (check the WATCHBLOG archives if you dare). At that time, I had not done my homework on General Petraeus and the conception of the actual “Surge” strategy. Ironically, I was hastened to do so when a participant in this forum with whom I frequently (instinctively) disagree on most political and social issues CORRECTED (i.e. he was right I was wrong) the “facts” of one of my posts concerning the “new way forward in Iraq plans and General Petraeus’ role in its conception.

SUMATION: There is no doubt, in my mind at least, that General Petraeus is honorable and believes in the fundamentals of the “Surge Strategy.” It might surprise some of you to know, that I fundamentally support his strategy as well—BUT FROM THE SAME ACADEMIC FRAME OF REFERENCE WITH WHICH IT WAS CONCEIVED. From a military standpoint, I think it has had a degree of success in very very very limited portions of Iraqi society. In addition, the basis for its success, irrespective of how small the gains have been, has less to do with American military action and more to do with enabling Iraqi citizens to control their fate and environment. While I agree with many of the tenants of General Petraeus’ Surge and Secure, I question whether it is the responsibility of the American military to execute such missions.

As you pointed out, Stephen, American diplomacy used to accomplish the same thing without exacting the toll on the American military that has occurred because by some horrible means George W. Bush was able to get a hold of the highest political office in our Country.

David:
“How is it possible for Democrats to fail to recognize the incredible power 9/11’s attack garnered for Republicans via public opinion.”

That was only the case when the public didn’t know that George Bush did NOTHING AT ALL to prevent 9/11. It took a long time, but now almost everyone understands how horribly this administration fell down on the job, and Republicans no longer have such incredible power over public opinion when it comes to handling the threat of terrorism on American soil.

“another attack will again make heroes of Republicans in the public’s eye,”

No, they’ve tried to propagandize themselves as heroes in the public eye ad nauseum, but with no good reason. After Katrina, the public has no longer been buying into the bogus idea that only Republicans can protect the American people from terrorism or natural disasters, and help and guide them through such times of crisis.

“Democrats fight secure borders as the next attack unfolds?”

The Republicans had the Presidency, the House, the Senate, and a Majority in the Supreme Court and didn’t do one damn thing about border security, but now somehow that’s supposed to magically be the Democrats fault?

John, Adrienne,

Great quotes, many from some of our greatest leaders. It really makes one wonder about our current crop of candidates for President.

The tension between politics as compromise (“the art of the possible”) and truly wise, just, and effective moral leadership has always been there. I just wish I could be positively surprised instead of shockingly disappointed in our elected leaders for a change.

But after all, it is the people in a democracy who must demand better. If we are more concerned with the cost of gasoline, or the latest cable-crap TV show, or cell phone ring tone, or a single issue above all else, than our people and country and what our leaders do in our name then we will get what we deserve. Are the American people truly concerned and equiped enough to deal with this war, with mushrooming entitlement programs, corporate hegemony, illegal immigration, and an unjust health-care system? Why do civics courses and lessons seem to show up less and less in our schools?

This administration shows no faith in the American people and treats them like sheep to be kept fed and happy. We need to ask why? Schwarzenegger (moderate) gets elected governor of California on the back of an unpopular but necessary increase in car registration fees to prior levels in a state with crumbling infrastructure. Bill Clinton (moderate liberal) was voted out of the governor’s office for similar reasons where he learned his important political lesson and once again got elected governor. This administration (strange ideologues) knows reinstating the draft is a non-starter, no matter if they really believe this war is vital to America’s security and it would be necessary.

Being informed in a democracy is not only necessary but difficult and time-consuming but we as a nation, in the information age of all things, seem to be running the other way. In the meantime, OUR government starts wars resulting in hundreds of thousands of people dead as we wonder aloud, “Why do they hate us?”.

PART D—

Stephen, your point regarding the Dems getting over their crisis of confidence is well stated and well taken.

I don’t believe, however, “it is a simple as that.” Barrack Obama has continued to hammer this point, the Dems that “supported” this war from the beginning made a big mistake.

Unless they come clean about their actual motives and/or fallibility, they are not going to be able to step away from this Iraq mess any more the GWB wants to step away “on his watch” as he puts it.

The majority of dems—even to some extent, my political icon Bill Clinton—got American military blood on their hands when they supported the “Iraq War.” Now a variety of semantics have been employed to explain away the dems grave mistakes over this decision. From my standpoint, the Dems decision to “vote for the war” stems from one of two things (that may not be mutually exclusive):

1. Dems who voted for the war in Iraq did so to avoid potential political fallout from the brand of “anti-american” soft of terrorism, etc. with utter disregard for the lives of our VOLUNTEER military personnel. By my way of thinking, unless they apologize (with true sincerity) they are no better than GWB with respect to this issue.

2. Dems who voted for the war in Iraq did so because they are as STUPID as George W. Bush is. In this case, that kind of profound stupidity would immediately disqualify them from receiving my vote for anything for which I might be able to vote for them. The Constitution of the United States does not explicitly list very many requirements to become President. Essentially, you have to be born in this country, be a citizen and resident of this country, and you have to be 35 years old. It certainly does go into any details concerning ones academic or professional accomplishments, ones intellect, etc. As part of the voting electorate, it is the responsibility of the American voter to make such assessments of a candidate’s ability to function competently and responsibly as President of the United States if so elected. I am of the belief that the “founding fathers” had some notion that the electoral college would compensate in some way for any potential lack of judgment and good sense on the part of the American voter. If that was there intent, how WRONG they were. No electoral college, no George W. Bush in 2000, no Iraq war in 2003, no 4,000 dead American soldiers and even thousands more permanently wounded as a consequence of the lunatic ideologies of George W. Bush.

The fact that I am certain and a have always been certain that George W. Bush is a total intellectually barren moron is what disqualified him from receiving my vote for president in the first place, NOT the fact that he was the republican nominee.

SATIRICAL ASIDE—I’m not proud of this fact now, but I voted for his father. My excuse is that I was young, didn’t know any better, and it was the first election in which I was eligible to vote. To those whom I owe an apology for that errant vote, here it is. I hope you will accept it and forgive my naivete. I don’t feel nearly as bad as one of my brothers who actually voted for the current George Bush—but he learned from his mistake and corrected it in 2004. Since Bush was appointed to the presidency in 2000, it made it easier for me to forgive my brother’s stupidity LOL.

Adrienne said: “The Republicans had the Presidency, the House, the Senate, and a Majority in the Supreme Court and didn’t do one damn thing about border security, but now somehow that’s supposed to magically be the Democrats fault?”

Ahh, so you defend Democrats doing nothing as well? I think you missed the point entirely. With only 2 parties, a protest vote goes to the party NOT in power. Remember that Independents didn’t by and large vote FOR Democrats, they voted Against Republicans.

That flip can flop just as easily if another attack occurs while Dem’s champion open borders.

David R. Remer-
Look, you’re making the mistake Republicans make about Democrats on Terrorism: that just because we don’t advocate the zealous measures they do, don’t share the high anxieties you have, that we aren’t willing to make improvements and create a workable policy that will reduce the problems at hand.

But let me point out something: many of the hijackers came into this country by legal means, and if they had any immigration problems, it was once they were in our borders. The Border-centric strategy would not have stopped them.

No, while we do need to improve border security, internal security is the better way to handle both those who have already come into the country, and those who will inevitably get through as things go on.

The trick with security is that it needs to also be security from government and from excessively costly defense that grant diminishing returns, if it is to preserve our way of life. I would rather have a few illegal immigrants manage to get into this country and stay, than to give in so much to fear that we spend money on little else. Mind you, that’s just a few. Those who manage to successful in illegally immigrating should number not in the hundreds of thousands, but in the tens, the regular thousands if we can help it. I’m not scared of immigrants overpopulating our country; the numbers, even now, are dwarfed by population gains of years past. No, I too worry about the person who gets in this country. However, if we fail to prevent that coming in, our last line of defense is internal security. We need investigators who can follow up on those who overstay their visas, or whose names come up with unsavory associations.

Please don’t mistake the non-flammability of my hair on this subject for my being soft on it. I just think it’s mostly brought up to scare people, and by people who are scared of legitimate demographic changes that bring minorities further into their lives.

As long as America is economically powerful, it will draw immigrants here. If we work things right, as I’ve described in other posts, we can minimize the problem of illegal immigration, and at the same time not sacrifice their value as hard workers. Only with the kind of policies I would support, they wouldn’t be low-wage labor competition, they’d be documented and legal, drawing the same check a regular citizen would, and with prospects for becoming more productive, and more integrated into society.

A response from fear, I believe, will bring what we fear to pass: isolationism will turn their communities into enclave. Merciless legislation will give them no incentive to renounce illegal immigration. Walls will get Americans focused on the wrong lines of defenses. We need to think more creatively on this, respond more to the drives and motivations that keep the problem going, dealing with those instead of wasting time, money and effort on brute-force “git tough” measures.

But all that aside, the Republicans would be firing this shot with a broken cannon. All rhetoric aside, they’ve done worse than nothing in their time to manage the problem of illegal immigration. They’ve actually made things worse than they were in the Clinton years, doubtlessly on account of those contributors who had a lot to gain from cheap labor. The SwiftVet Story, in fact, might have a connection to the issue, as one of the lead funders of that venture is a homebuilder. Bob Perry, among other homebuilders, are alleged to use a lot of such labor.

From my perspective, its a matter of not turning the whole thing into a question of immigrant bashing, or anxiety about the effects of immigration, which have generally turned out very little like the alarmists have pointed out. There are plenty of PhD’s and Doctorate holders who can list ancestors that many of the Eugenicists in the 1920’s claim would breed like rabbits and flood the land with degenerate blood. Immigration is inevitable here, the question is how we manage it.

If it’s all the same to you, I don’t have much sympathy for those who use illegals to reduce costs. I’m not too much of a market fundamentalists, but I do believe staying in business is not a right but a privilege, and that circumventing the labor market prevents it from doing its job to set wages properly. Illegal immigration to me represents an economic problem for the proper spreading of the wealth, not only for those who live here, but also the workers being exploited as low-paid labor.

The trouble with Republican economics, in my view, is that it’s elitist, and uses false promises of allowing everybody to make more money to make sure that the elite can concentrate their wealth more and more with less and less obstacles in my way.

I’m sure that if you delivered an integrated case to Democrats based on such principles, you would not find yourself rebuffed on advocating greater security.

David:
“Ahh, so you defend Democrats doing nothing as well?”

No, it’s just that the Democrats way of dealing with this problem is definitely going to be different than the way the GOP has framed and dealt (or rather, not dealt)with