Democrats & Liberals Archives

Fed Up With Cowardice and Duplicity

I am fed up and more than ticked off by most of the Congress and by the Democratic Presidential candidates. Remember the expansion of the Bush’s illegal wiretapping?

Remember the temporary expansion of the FISA extension than Representative Harman was passed based on hyped security threats? WHY are the Democrats passing these attacks on civil liberties and Constitutional protections?

This just makes my jaws ache. For our elected representatives, and in particular the Democrats, to vote for these things is not an issue of "fear." If they are willing to destroy our rights because they are "afraid," then one must assume that they actually believe that Constitutional abridgements are "necessary" for our security. Bull. A total surveillance society (in other words not the one we thought we were living in) is not safer, and it certainly does not have the wall of privacy that is needed for a free citizenry.

While I appreciate Harman stepping up and speaking about this, it is just pure cowardice that our elected representatives would throw away our Constitution because they were scared. Apparently, that was a fairly self-serving fear, because the "hyped" threats were to Congress. COWARDS and fools.

How many times can the administration lie, deceive, obscure, cherry pick, and "hype" before the Dems wake up? What ever happened to "Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me?"

Or how about the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007 that passed the House on September 25, 2007? That is the bill to declare Iran's Revolutionary Guard (their military) a terrorist organization. Excuse me? We want to declare a government's military as a terrorist organization? Seems to me that the U.S. is on very shaky ground there. What about the School of the Americas now known as the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation? You remember SOA is the one that trains Latin American military and police in torture, supression of "insurgency" and other means of controlling an "unruly" population? Since this is part of our military, should it be considered a terrorist organization? Or what about the CIA? The U.S. has an fairly long list of "helping" certain factions to power, arming "insurgents" to overthrow their government, etc. In fact, the U.S. has been aiding "dissidents" inside Iran to take over that government. Sounds like any of those might make the U.S. ripe for claims that we are state sponsors of terrorism. In fact, we are even arming and training "insurgents" (or those formerly labeled "insurgents") in Iraq.

The list could go on and on, but I'll just add one more that sticks in my craw - the hyped indignation about's add prior to the Petreaus report. What pray tell happened to free speech? Why are our elected representatives taking time to "condemn" free speech? Why did they not do the same for Max Cleland, John Kerry, or John McCain. Shall we really get into personal attacks and defamation of character? Yet a number of Democrats in both the House and the Senate somehow felt they need to spend time and breath on some sort of display of false patriotism.

I am tired of the cowardice of Congress. I am tired of Democrats supposedly taking a stand while too many seem to be voting right in lock step with the Republicans. I am tired of excuses that are totally off the point. They can all - Dems and Republicans - start representing us, or they can get the hell out of Washington. That same message needs to be sent loud and clear to the Presidential candidates. We (and by that I mean the almost 75% of citizens of the United States) do not want more of what we have seen and experienced for the last seven years.

Who Voted How?

Link for Senate Roll Call Votes

Link for House Roll Call Votes

Posted by Rowan Wolf at September 29, 2007 10:18 AM
Comment #234820

It’s called politics. Same shit different party.

Posted by: KAP at September 29, 2007 11:25 AM
Comment #234825

Rowan, your article dances around the source of the problem. The source of our problem is not politicians. The source of our problem is US. The fact that government is not acting responsibly and efficiently, only means the voters need to force politician’s hand.

The fundamental problem is the people do not have accountable control over their democracy and politicians. I recommend we solve the fundamental problem and vote out politicians who fail to chart a common sense pragmatic course for our nation’s problems, sending a mandate to their replacements that we expect common sense pragmatic solutions or they too will be a one term politician, REGARDLESS of Party.

Let’s quit blaming government for the voter’s deficiency in demanding accountable and responsible representation. Let’s put the blame where it belongs, on the we the voters, and address the source of the problem, voters voting incumbents back into office again, and again, despite failed results.

Our democratic republic system is failing as a direct result of voters failure to make informed and self-interested voting decisions, choosing the short cut easy solution of party identification voting instead, as if either of the Parties had interests other than reelection. The fact that both Dem. and Rep. parties are all about reelection puts the power to make government responsive in the hands of the voters.

It is time we voters educated each other on this fundamental problem and solution. Politicians want our votes, we want responsible common sense government which they are not providing, THEREFORE, it is imperative that we voters refuse to give incumbents our votes, giving our votes instead to challengers on the condition they provide common sense responsible government. And if they don’t, they too will be removed from office.

This is after all, PRECISELY how our Founding Fathers and our U.S. Constitution intended that our form of government SHOULD work. Let’s get on with it! VOID Incumbents whose results of sitting in office fail to provide solutions. Vote for challengers instead. It is what we voters were meant to do all along.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 29, 2007 1:15 PM
Comment #234826

You’re so right Rowan….but our frustration level is near the breaking point with no relief available in the near future. ( Well, speaking for my self, anyway. )
I’m afraid we’re in this at least until the next elections, or very possibly beyond if there is little change. Congress has been given their marching orders, but with it populated the way it is, we don’t have the numbers to get some of these things through. It isn’t a cop-out, it is just fact. We can’t get any movement out of that 25% base Republican representation, and the rest who are blocking movement, just don’t have the ba**s to do the right thing.
In the meantime, this level of frustration has lent itself to plain old apathy out here with the voters. We can only beat our heads against a brick wall for so long, until we realize after we stop that it just feels better!! Maybe you could offer some suggestions to re-invigorate the masses…

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at September 29, 2007 1:19 PM
Comment #234839

Don’t bother with the Democrats. It’s the Republicans we have to make politically radioactive. Expose the inane military policies that have left us unready for any other war than Iraq. Expose all the times they’ve said that the best thing was to stay the course, only to have other results, other sources prove them wrong.

Turn their political blockade of the senate into a gamma-radiating pile of nuclear waste. Show all the sympathetic and necessary laws Republicans have blocked to make us look bad. Emphasize the harm their partisan politics has done. They have handed us every bit of political ammunition we need to win against them.

And don’t wait for the politicians. We didn’t wait for the politicians to come to our side on the war, we did what we thought was right, and they came to our side eventually, and found it politically advantageous. If we want them to go further, we must leave little doubt in their minds that the safe course is with us, not against us.

Nows not the time to mope over the fact they’re disobedient. Nows the time to get the belt and start yelling after the little sons of bitches to get back here. Figuratively speaking.

The Republicans have decided to play politics, I suggest we turn that fatal decision against them. Right now, they’re paralyzing everybody with visions of what happen if we don’t stay indefinitely, trying to make their position look realistic. Realistically, though, the military position they’ve put us into is untenable. The time has come to say:

I know we all want to win, we all want to save the people of Iraq, but the way this war has gone, the way the Republican have lead it, they’ve made those goals impossible for us to attain by military force, and propping up the government currently in place and arming all sides of this civil war have all but made the political victory necessary to secure the country impossible. There’s no more good to do in Iraq, the time has come to admit that before America pays more and more of a price in its own security. and international power.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 29, 2007 3:47 PM
Comment #234841


When the Democrats running for president were asked if they would guarantee they would have troops out of Iraq by 2013 which ones gave that assurance?

To my knowledge only Bill Richardson did.

The Democratic candidates showed themselves to be worthy of Dancing with the Stars. They are more than happy to hang what half of the country would interpret as a loss on a Republican president as long as HE is in office. But they also know that if we just walk out we will be back- on their watch.

While you’re making people radioactive you might think about that.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at September 29, 2007 4:17 PM
Comment #234854

Lee Jamison-
I will happily make such a long term presence in Iraq radioactive. My God what a monumental F-Up. We’re working with insurgents to kill other insurgents, after which, they’ll go back to killing us.

We’re not winning, we’re just coming up with a fancier, more surreal, more painful way to lose.

And yes, we lost. We didn’t remove WMDs from Saddam. They weren’t there to be removed. We didn’t remove the terrorists, we destroyed the law and order that was keeping them out without replacing it. We didn’t create a Democracy, we created a war zone that demonstrated to the world how easy it is to bog down American forces in perpetual, pointless warfare.

We didn’t get breathing room for Iraqi’s to get their act together, we got breathing room for Bush to avoid ending the war he screwed up so royrally on his watch. Did you know that your fellow Republicans looking to compromise with us on the war actually offered the proposal that we only start the withdrawal after Bush has left office? Points for honesty, negative points for good sense. We’re tearing the heart out of our military to prop up a bunch of ungrateful bastards in Iraq out of fear that leaving will make our mess worse.

Well, I’m sorry, but my observation has been that the mess has been getting worse steadily since we started this war, and since Bush couldn’t be good enough to halt the downward spiral when we had the power to climb out of the dive, we don’t have a lot of choice now about losing it.

I think we’ve lost, and I don’t much see the good sense in carrying on this Bullshit. I’m sorry for the Iraqis we’ve let down, but good God, how many of them do you think are actually sorry for us at this point?

No, don’t get me wrong, we should do our best to mitigate the damage, but I don’t consider staying to be the best kind of damage control.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 29, 2007 5:56 PM
Comment #234859

Here’s an FYI…just came in email..

From: The Pen
Date: 9/29/2007 3:23:27 PM
To: xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Now Read The Truth: Lieberman-Kyl DEFANGED Because of YOU


It has taken a couple days for the actual disposition of the
Lieberman-Kyl amendment to leak out, but in FACT, the two most
offensive paragraphs (3 and 4), which we were objecting to so
strenuously as amounting to a declaration of war on Iran, were
REMOVED IN THEIR ENTIRELY prior to the vote. Which means we WON.

Yes, you did it, with your TENS of thousands of emails and phone
calls to Congress this last Monday and Tuesday. We are so proud of
our participants on this one. Claim your win.

What was left was not great, but ultimately it means nothing with the
actual teeth of the amendment extracted, not that that’s any excuse
for those who voted yes (or did not vote at all). So the Senate
called some people a terrorist organization. Big deal, it’s not
binding anyway, no more than their groundless and hypocritical
condemnation of MoveOn a week ago. And for those who may say this
gives Cheney and Bush an excuse to do anything, this White House
doesn’t think it needs an excuse to do anything, that’s the whole
POINT of impeachment.

Once again this PROVES that activism works. We beat them back this
time in a major way, folks, and why? Because we actually spoke out,
that’s why! We dismissed the voices of defeatism and took action.
Fancy that, participatory democracy works. Are the evil ones going to
give up? Of course not, and that’s why we’re not going to give up
either. Let’s say it together, we’re going to keep ON speaking out in
even greater numbers.

There are many dirty secrets in Washington, but the biggest one of
all they are trying to keep may be that when you write and call in
mass numbers, members of Congress tremble, shaking in their socks,
especially in the House where they have to get reelected every two
years. Oh, sure, sometimes they send us their form letter responses
trying to sluff us off, trying to con us into thinking we are not
having an impact. But we know the truth, which is that they work for
us, and we do have the POWER with our personal messages to enforce

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at September 29, 2007 6:35 PM
Comment #234867

It’s becoming increasingly obvious that the Democratic leadership is playing their far-left anti-war base like a fiddle, tossing them a rhetorical bone every now then (and never failing to cash their checks) although they have no intention of substantially changing our current policies in Iraq if elected.

By “Democratic leadership” I mean primarily the Hillary Clinton campaign and its allies. The left wing doesn’t like to admit it—and at times they don’t even seem to be aware of it—but Hillary Clinton OWNS the national Democratic Party. She WILL be the nominee. It’s all but set in stone at this point, and while she tells people to vote for her because she will “end the war in Iraq,” she won’t actually promise to end it by 2013. Or any date for that matter. When it comes down to brass tacks, there’s little difference between Hillary and Bush: both say that the war will be over when Iraq is stable enough for us to leave.

I’ll most likely be voting for the Republican candidate, whoever that is, but as opposed to other areas, I’m not terribly concerned about what a Hillary presidency would mean for our Iraq policy. Every indication is that she’d continue to do pretty much what Bush has done. And a positive development to come out of this is that Democrats could not continue to falsely maintain that Iraq is a Republican instead of an American effort.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at September 29, 2007 9:02 PM
Comment #234871

I really can’t argue with David’s regular posts to use our voting rights to kick out those politicians that pander and lie to us about their positions.

I think there is real frustration with trying to work through our law makers to only have them negotiate to even. In my industry, we are always pushing for changes as a business and over 20 years I have learned to deal with compromise. Senior managers in my career always told me to just deal with it. That you take what you can get. I always liked to win, and never understood why each side settled for half of what they wanted. Eyes wide open, it is the politicians forcing us to accept their half and half legislation because they (1) want to stay in office (2) don’t like telephone calls from angry constiuents (3) are too busy with special interests and ear marks to make time for my issues.

I don’t always like the assertion that we have to vote with our feet in these blogs, and have no answer for how we start getting more representative legislation and views from our legislators.

Perhas this very blog, and others, are the start of something we’ll discuss 20 years ago that created the transparency needed to force more legitamate legislation that is more representative of one side or the other, rather than a dumbed down verson of both sides.

Posted by: Edge at September 29, 2007 10:15 PM
Comment #234891

First, opposition to the war has not been a merely far left phenomenon for quite a long time. Look at the Webb Amendment. You guys accuse him of trying to drag down the army’s ability to fight by increasing the dwelltime and decreasing the tours, and obstruct the measure in senate.

Then what happens?

Army Chief of Staff George W. Casey Jr., who is scheduled to testify today before the House Armed Services Committee, intends to move as quickly as possible to grant soldiers more relief from the war zone, having argued that the troop rotations of 15 months in combat and 12 months at home — required by the buildup of U.S. forces in Iraq and the conflict in Afghanistan — are “not sustainable” for the Army.

Source: Washington Post.

This has been the story of this whole damn war. That’s why it’s unpopular. As for why there hasn’t been a substantial change of policy? I think that’s a self serving question for a Republican to ask, given the fact that Bush has already vetoed a number of Democratic proposals to begin bringing troops home, and the Republicans are prepared to filibuster anything that starts pulling troops with due haste.

What does it say about your policies that Manpower problems alone will require that a brigade a month start coming home from Iraq, that no matter how bad things get, those policies mean the end of the surge by next summer?

You guys say you support the soldiers. But I have seen guard and reserve units deployed to Iraq, recruitment standards dropped, time in country raised, and time home reduced in the meantime. As this war has obviously turned into a long term commitment, what puzzles me is that Bush didn’t long ago start an expansion of active duty Army and Marine numbers. That’s what I’d do, instead of spending sixty billion for a missile defense system that can’t hit the broad side of a barn.

You folks are not taking care of business. You’ve had almost two full terms to come to terms with the logistical needs of expanded military deployments. But all I hear are excuses, and rationalizations as to why none of that was necessary. And now, these are the results: a lost war, a broken army, and a commitment that’s sucking the life out of our readiness to face any other enemy. And to do what?

If you read that soldiers blog, the insurgents they were dealing with more or less promised to their face that when they were done beating down al-Qaeda, it’d be back to business as usual. That, of course being, them killing our soldiers once again.

There’s your great victory: we’re training the enemy to kill us more efficiently. Or each other. But since our mission was to bring them together so everybody could sing kumbaya,the surge can’t be said to be bringing us closer to victory. But that was to be expected. Instead of acknowledging that this was a political problem that would require them to hammer out some kind of deal as we made an orderly withdrawal, you stuck us deeper into the mess, as if propping up the government with more troops would make it less dependent on us.

Iraq, in short, will never be stable enough for us to leave, not even after this surge is done. Even then, we’ll still have 100,000 soldiers in Iraq, and that will still be too much to sustain. By your own arguments, you needed more soldiers to secure political developments, you’ve had all that you’re going to get, and everything goes downhill from here, in terms of deployments. So where does that leave the war? Is is it more aimless staying of the course? If we can’t sustain the surge (which wasn’t effective to begin with), what’s the point of maintaining all those troops there, especially with America vulnerable?

I don’t like the choices your administration has given America, but we will have to chose between Iraq and America, and I hope we have enough sense to choose our country’s security as a priority. That was the point of all this in the first place.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 30, 2007 1:23 AM
Comment #234902

Stephen Daugherty - Due to the fact that the first

construction work done in Iraq, was to start building

a pipe line from their oil fields all the way over

to an open sea port. At the same time their was a

massive project, “The largest Embassy ever to be

built in history.” This was all started even

before the water an electric was being taken care

of. Than there was the fact, twenty five acres

of all kinds of military equipment were piled up

with out being destroyed, an three bunkers of C-4

explosives were left, even after ABC News

reporters showed the military where they were.

ABC went back three days later an found that all

the Government Seals had been broken off, an of

course all the C-4 was gone an not by the Military

So much for common sense.

Posted by: -DAVID- at September 30, 2007 5:56 AM
Comment #234903

Rowan Wolf - There is the plausibility that both
Pelosi and Reed have relegated their responsibilities to President Bush! I personally
do not believe that either of them have what it
takes to become a true Statesmen or Stateswomen
an there are many others in both the House an the
Senate who I respectively, would not say were
the brightest bean in the bag.

Posted by: -DAVID- at September 30, 2007 6:35 AM
Comment #234906


Thanks for the link to Dude’s blog. You hit the nail on the head when you said,:

“We’re not winning, we’re just coming up with a fancier, more surreal, more painful way to lose.”

People forget a corollary to WWII. We helped to create Hitler by punishing Germany after WWI. Why doesn’t anyone get why Bin Laden has doctors and other educated men following him? Even moderate Muslims understand the truth of his twisted reasoning. They are tired of Western manipulation.

The things that will diminish Bin Laden and his ilk are for us to stop foreign interference and adventurism, and to focus on independence from oil. The oil companies are not our friends. Instead of a war on terror, a war for environmentally clean energy, and spreading that technology to China and India, will dry up their r’aison d’etre.

Posted by: alien from the planet zorg at September 30, 2007 7:57 AM
Comment #234911

alien said: “The things that will diminish Bin Laden and his ilk are for us to stop foreign interference and adventurism, and to focus on independence from oil.”

alien, I don’t think leaving the Middle East alone will stop bin Laden anymore than letting Hitler take Czhekoslovakia prevented WWII. bin Laden and his al-Queda must be destroyed, broken up, and rendered impotent to the point that recruits no longer are attracted to joining.

I have seen this far too many times where a person finds success through intimidation and goes on to ever more heinous forms of bullying to get what they want. Nothing rewards and strengthens behavior like success. al-Queda must not be allowed anymore successes.

Invading Iraq was a monumentally stupid act. Invading Afghanistan to hit al-Queda and take dwon the Taliban was absolutely necessary and essential. It is important folks not confuse the two actions as the Bush administration would have us do.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 30, 2007 11:18 AM
Comment #234917

Will we have troops in Iraq in Jan. 2013? I can answer that with a fair amount of confidence and the answer is yes. The really important questions are, what will be the changes in our foreign policy and how will the mission in Iraq change between now and then. Will our troop strength be reduced and our troops deployed primarily on the borders in defacto demilitarized zones or will Iraq be used as a staging area for invasions of Iraq’s neighbors Iran and Syria.

Posted by: jlw at September 30, 2007 1:30 PM
Comment #234936


I think you’re right. We need to look at the numbers. How many Democrats voted for this damn war to begin with? How many Democrats support OUR stance on this war as compared with Republicans?

Yes, it’s disappointing that we Dems can’t accomplish more, AND I’d love to see the “cots” drug out more often in an actual ‘hard ass stance’ regarding the threat of filibuster.

I honestly believe we Dems will get our asses handed to us in the next election just because we’ve played “easy” and “nice” rather than pushing things to the limit. Dam-mit, show us you’re serious! Don’t accept the threat of filibuster ……….. require a filibuster !!!!!!!!!!!!! EVERYTIME!

Otherwise it’s just lips flappin’ in the breeze! And we’re all tired of it!

Posted by: KansasDem at September 30, 2007 7:13 PM
Comment #234938


In the process of reading replies I almost forgot to just thank you. I share your frustration. The straw that broke the camels back for me was that nonsense condemning moveon’s ad.

The fact that even one Dem would go along with that crap is beyond disappointing. But at least not ALL Dems thought we should play media cop. If we lose heart and just give up we’ll see the Republican’ts win again and again.

And I certainly believe that more Republicans = more trouble!!!!!!!1

Posted by: KansasDem at September 30, 2007 8:27 PM
Comment #234946

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” —Benjamin Franklin,

“There may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice, but there must never be a time when we fail to protest.” — Elie Wiesel

hhmm these seemed appropriate quotes

Posted by: john at October 1, 2007 9:25 AM
Comment #234948

“it is just pure cowardice that our elected representatives would throw away our Constitution because they were scared”

Yes, it’s pretty sad how We the People have let our govt use fear to take away our rights.
We gave govt the power to monitor our actions so we will “feel” more secure. Heck, some people do it so willingly because they “have nothing to hide.”
Yes, practicing your 2nd Amendment right is a real bitch nowadays.

Posted by: kctim at October 1, 2007 10:20 AM
Comment #234950

I’m finally glad that the Dems are fed up with their picks for Prez in ‘08…they have been paying lip service to the Dems since they started…

Are they afraid or what?

Posted by: cliff at October 1, 2007 10:32 AM
Comment #234978

I’m sick of hearing about the second amendment from folks. I have little trouble with people keeping their guns. But a little regulation would be nice. Unfortunately, too many folks interpret the Second Amendment with what can only be called radical literalism.

Unfortunately, this correlates for the most part with a sense of the constitution and of national defense that plays to fear and paranoia at the expense of actual security and liberty.

A society that has plenty of freely available guns is not necessarily a free society. Saddam Hussein’s Iraq had guns all over the place in citizen’s hands.

I think the mythology of guns as a means of protecting liberty is overrated. Not without some foundation, but overrated all the same. However, it does serve another purpose, one more political, more cynical. It allows Republicans and other to spin morbid fantasies about liberals undermining the country.

Just as they do when we question warrantless searches. Just as they do when we question the revoking of habeas corpus. Just as they do when we oppose a ruinous military policy in Iraq. Just as some do when we question the merits of the overheated border fence notion.

What we have here is part of the right-wing template for convincing people to give more power to the government. Convince people that they’re under constant threat. Convince people that if they allow Democrats and Liberals to moderate the right’s power-grabs, it’ll be all over.

And, of course, label everything the Democrats do to restrain the behavior of the Republican’s allies in business as socialism and creeping government power. Give with the left hand as you take with the Right.

We didn’t get here overnight. This is the trend of policy and attitudes in the GOP and it’s associated political groups as it has been for the last thirty years.

Gun Rights have been a distraction. While the Republicans have successfully lobbied and fought to suppress gun control, they’ve also pushed for police and other law enforcement officials to become more heavily armed, to take a more paramilitary approach to law enforcement, often enough in response to the perception that they’re outgunned by the opposition.

Governments, at least functional ones, will always have greater firepower than the average citizen. The Rule of Law is what protects us, what keeps the power resting in the hands of the people. Our rights are safe if and only if these people know endangering our rights is a one way ticket to losing support.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 1, 2007 9:26 PM
Comment #234988

Your outrage is almost funny. Oh, the duplicity and the betrayal of it all. If only your unadulterated vision and values could be transferred to our leadership…if only “they” would be as pure in heart and as clear in moral vision as you. What arrogance and disconnectedness on the part of your comfy, armchair at the keyboard a**. The government is a reflection of us…in all its confusion, groping about, ignorance, inconsistency, etc. Are you so correct that, were you the leader, we would finally be morally triumphant, offering justice and peace to all.

Somehow I doubt it. Get off your high and visionary horse and argue rationally and civilly for what you want. Your howl of outrage and assumption of innocence is, in the end, boring and useless…ultimately no one will fulfill your chair-borne vision of the better world and you will always feel betrayed. Perhaps heaven would be a better realm for you.

Posted by: David at October 2, 2007 12:13 AM
Comment #234998

Will we have troops in Iraq in 2013? Yes. A fully sovereign working government? It’ll be a while.

Will we have troops in Germany in 2013? Yes. There was no fully sovereign working government for ten years after W.W.II.

Will we have troops in Japan in 2013? Yes. There was no fully sovereign working government for ten years after W.W.II.

Will we have troops in South Korea in 2013? Yes. If we pulled out today the south would be crushed in a month.

Kosovo? Yeah, yeah…

Those who end war by failing to fight earn for themselves and those who depend on them the peace of the grave.
The Democrats running for president know this.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 2, 2007 10:16 AM
Comment #235011


In each of the Asian countries you have mentioned America is seen as an occupying force. We are in each of those countries because it is to America’s best interests, not to the best interests of the countries we are occupying.
As I have written before, the older generation of folks in Korea, for instance, that were thankful we are there are dying off, and are being replaced by a generation that resents our continuing occupation, regardless of any perceived danger of an invasion from the north.

Whether our intentions are good or not, there is a perception in the world that American troops are stationed all over the planet only to further an American hegemonic agenda. This is pissing people off, and our actions are speaking much louder than our words.

Posted by: Rocky at October 2, 2007 2:16 PM
Comment #235052

Rocky, true and good points.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 2, 2007 8:35 PM
Comment #235080

Good piece, Rowan.
I too am fed up with the cowardice and duplicity of the Democrats. The truth of the situation is as transparent as can be: there simply aren’t enough liberals in the party with a backbone who can to stand up to the GOP at present. Instead, we have far too many “DLC Moderates” who don’t have the guts to do what needs doing.
Stephen, I agree with you too. But I really don’t think we need to make the GOP radioactive. I think that they are already toast. And the bizarre thing is, they don’t even seem to realize that they have done this to themselves. They’ve been so busy pointing the finger at the left for so many years, trying to blame all of their many grievous problems and policy foibles on us, that they actually started to believe that they could somehow convince the entire country that we’re the ones responsible for all of their failings!
It’s pretty funny, but in a rather dark and pathetic way.

Note to the Watchblog manager…
Since comment #234988 seems like an extremely blatant violation of the rules of participation, I was wondering if any warning might need to be issued? And if not, does this mean we all get to answer that particular brand of flamebaitery in kind?

Posted by: Adrienne at October 3, 2007 3:24 AM
Comment #235085


Davids comments are spot on…I don’t think a warning is appropriate at all. He wasn’t dissing a particular person and his comment is very relevant to the post. The exhortation of relevancy cloaked in sarcasm was quite fitting…

Posted by: cliff at October 3, 2007 8:27 AM
Comment #235094

I am sick and tired of hearing distorted views about warrantless wiretapping. Should the concerns over that be ignored in the same way you ignore 2nd Amendment concerns? No.
Regulating guns is fine, you have nothing to hide, right? Well, I don’t talk to terrorists, so why should I care if govt listens to my international calls, I have nothing to hide.
The issues are identical. We the People have allowed govt to take away rights because of our fears and we must work together to correct and stop that from continuing.

You blame Republicans for things you care about and ignore Dems affecting the ones you do not. That is not going to work.
Liberal Dems have pissed on the Constitution concerning the 2nd and the Reps have done the same thing with the 4th.
Shouldn’t we work together to protect both?

Instead of pushing personal opinions onto the populace, we should be pushing the Constitution.

Posted by: kctim at October 3, 2007 10:07 AM
Comment #235099

“Davids comments are spot on…I don’t think a warning is appropriate at all.”

I do. I was once issued a warning in this blog because I once began some comments by saying: “Anyone who thinks…” That was considered too personally insulting by the manager to those who might read my post. I was also once issued a warning because I told someone to “come down off their high horse.”
I figured what was sauce to get my goose, must be sauce for other ganders as well.

“He wasn’t dissing a particular person and his comment is very relevant to the post.”

I believe his comments were directed at Rowan and her article, and if not at her, then at anyone who agrees with what she wrote. In that short post, this individual used the words “you” or “your” eleven times. Other people have been warned repeatedly about using those words in this blog, because that means the messenger is being attacked, rather than the message.

“The exhortation of relevancy cloaked in sarcasm was quite fitting…”

Just because some readers may enjoy what the poster wrote doesn’t mean it doesn’t warrant a comment by the manager. What was said had too much in common with what has earned many other people stern warnings as violations of the Watchblog rules of participation.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 3, 2007 11:04 AM
Comment #235111


Well…I guess someone’s goose got cooked…

Posted by: cliff at October 3, 2007 11:55 AM
Comment #235120

“Well…I guess someone’s goose got cooked…”

Oh, definitely. But really, who likes seeing a double standard?

Posted by: Adrienne at October 3, 2007 1:03 PM
Comment #235199

I believe in the power of the citizenry, though sometimes I am dismayed at if and when a critical mass is aroused enough about an issue to act. There are numerous examples of the people acting - the deluge of mail on media ownership, the modification of the Lieberman bill as noted by Sandra, the outpouring of support after the tsunami that shamed Bush into increasing needed emergency aid; the mobilization of people and economic resources after Hurricane Katrina. There are lots of examples.

I have always been of the opinion that the people must lead because politicians generally don’t have the courage (or integrity) to do so.

I see those sentiments echoed in a number of the comments.

Most of the population, across the political spectrum, are unhappy about the direction of the country and the decision making that is happening. The polls are clear on that. That majority even agrees on what is wrong sometimes - like with the 70% plus public support for an expanded SCHIP.

As for the personal attacks … I do my best to not respond. I am not a “debater” and not into rhetorical, black & white, or punch someone to respond “communications.” I do believe in dialog, and feel that can happen even when people do not agree.

Posted by: rowan at October 3, 2007 11:29 PM
Comment #253292

Good news

Thank you for the informations.

Posted by: kraloyun at May 21, 2008 9:52 AM
Post a comment