I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
But you're not supposed to call anybody a liar. It's nasty. Major newspapers don't allow it. Unless you're Safire.
Tell them...
senator@akaka.senate.gov, senator@biden.senate.gov, senator-bingaman@bingaman.senate.gov, senator@breau.senate.gov, senator@breaux.senate.gov, senator@dorgan.senate.gov, russell.feingold@feingold.senate.gov, senator@kennedy.senate.gov, senator_leahy@leahy.senate.gov, senator@rockefeller.senate.gov, dick@durbin.senate.gov, senator@kennedy.senate.gov, Neil.Abercrombie@mail.house.gov, gary.ackerman@mail.house.gov, rep.tomallen@mail.house.gov, joe.baca@mail.house.gov, brian.baird@mail.house.gov, Mike.thompson@mail.house.gov, Robert.woolsey@mail.house.gov, George.miller@mail.house.gov, Nancy.pelosi@mail.house.gov, Barbara.lee@mail.house.gov, Ellen.tauscher@mail.house.gov, Tom.lantos@mail.house.gov, Fortney.stark@mail.house.gov, Anna.eshoo@mail.house.gov, Michael.honda@mail.house.gov, Zoe.lofgren@mail.house.gov, Sam.farr@mail.house.gov, Dennis.cardoza@mail.house.gov, Calvin.dooley@mail.house.gov, Lois.capps@mail.house.gov, Brad.sherman@mail.house.gov, Howard.berman@mail.house.gov
Henry.waxman@mail.house.gov, Xavier.becerra@mail.house.gov, Hilda.solis@mail.house.gov, Diane.watson@mail.house.gov, Lucille.roybal-allard@mail.house.gov, Maxine.waters@mail.house.gov, Jane.harman@mail.house.gov, Juanita.millender-mcdonald@mail.house.gov, Timothy.bishop@mail.house.gov, Grace.napolitano@mail.house.gov, Linda.sanchez@mail.house.gov, Loretta.sanchez@mail.house.gov, Bob.filner@mail.house.gov, Susan.davis@mail.house.gov, Steve.israel@mail.house.gov, Carolyn.mccarthy@mail.house.gov, Gary.ackerman@mail.house.gov, Gregory.meeks@mail.house.gov, Joseph.crowley@mail.house.gov, Jerrold.nadler@mail.house.gov, Anthony.weiner@mail.house.gov, Edolpus.towns@mail.house.gov, Major.owerns@mail.house.gov
Nydia.velazquez@mail.house.gov, Carolyn.maloney@mail.house.gov, Charles.rangel@mail.house.gov, Jose.serrano@mail.house.gov, Eliot.engel@mail.house.gov, Nita.lowey@mail.house.gov, Michael.mcnulty@mail.house.gov, Maurice.hinchey@mail.house.gov, Louise.slaughter@mail.house.gov, Allen.boyd@mail.house.gov, Corrine.brown@mail.house.gov, Jim.davis@mail.house.gov, Kendrick.meek@mail.house.gov, Robert.wexler@mail.house.gov, Peter.deutsch@mail.house.gov, Alcee.hastings@mail.house.gov, Robert.brady@mail.house.gov, Chaka.fattah@mail.house.gov, Paul.kanjorski@mail.house.gov, John.murtha@mail.house.gov
joseph.hoeffel@mail.house.gov, Michael.doyle@mail.house.gov, Tim.holden@mail.house.gov, Ted.strickland@mail.house.gov, Marcy.kaptur@mail.house.gov, Dennis.kucinich@mail.house.gov, Stephanie.tubbs-jones@mail.house.gov, Sherrod.brown@mail.house.gov, Tim.ryan@mail.house.gov, Bobby.rush@mail.house.gov, Jesse.jackson@mail.house.gov, William.lipinski@mail.house.gov, Luis.gutierrez@mail.house.gov, Rahm.emanuel@mail.house.gov, Danny.davis@mail.house.gov, Janice.schakowsky@mail.house.gov, Jerry.costello@mail.house.gov, Lane.evans@mail.house.gov, Peter.visclosky@mail.house.gov, Julia.carson@mail.house.gov, Baron.hill@mail.house.gov, John.olver@mail.house.gov, Richard.neal@mail.house.gov, James.mcgovern@mail.house.gov, Barney.frank@mail.house.gov, Martin.meehan@mail.house.gov, John.tierney@mail.house.gov, Edward.markey@mail.house.gov, Michael.capuano@mail.house.gov, Stephen.lynch@mail.house.gov, William.delahunt@mail.house.gov
I think we can start with the entire sanctimonious staff of The New Republic.
Remember, the sniveling bootlickers who called us all anti-American traitors for opposing the Bush war? Long past time for them to apologize.
I'm still not over how few dems protested the war. In our protest in Louisville in Feb before the war we had aprox. 300 people. Shameful!
Okay, Atrios, here's the problem with that strategy:
Telling the truth pisses off the people in power. Thusly pissed off, the people in power make your life miserable, shutting you out of meetings, putting tacks on your chair, smearing your good name, that kind of stuff.
And then you can't get re-elected, which is the politician's main goal in life.
Yes, yes, yes, yes, YES!
If Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Lieberman had all come out and said this right up front, President Kerry would now be working with the UN on inserting peacekeeping forces in Iraq (and negotiating with the strongest of the insurgent forces) in exchange for returning to France, Russia, etc. all the contracts that BushCo stole and then gave to Halliburton and Company.
Then a corner really might be turned.
Franken is going to take the Wellstone seat away from Coleman by saying, "Yes, I was for the war in Iraq. Because I trusted Colin Powell."
2008. Minnesota. Be there.
caveat: the main purpose of "most" politicians' main goal in life.
Paul Hackett, Joe Hoeffel, Barbara Lee, etc. aside.
If only, heh?
I never understood Kerry's dancing around the issue. It was so easy: "I supported the resolution for action because it was explicity stated that the United States would be returning to the United Nations for sanction: I, and the rest of the people who voted for this resolution, were lied to. We voted to strengthen the president's hand, not give him carte blanche to promote a war based on falsehoods and wishful thinking."
Right. Is that so hard?
And as for watertiger's comment, Democrats have had a tough time getting elected lately by not standing up and telling the truth. It seems to me that if what you're doing isn't working, it's time to try something else.
And as a matter of fact, in spite of the cowardice of the collaborationist corporate media, the majority of Americans now say that Bush lied to them about Iraq. So why would they not vote for somebody who says what they alrready believe?
And then you can't get re-elected, which is the politician's main goal in life.
watertiger
I thought their main goal was cutting taxes. And making Freedom march. And saving the lives of people in persistent vegetative states. And, of course, protecting the snowflake babies.
Maybe the Dems can gain some traction on the new lies that will be forthcoming.
I like repeated the phrase that we were lied to -- just keep reminding everyone that the President & the Vice President & the Secretary of State & the Secretary of Defense & the National Security Advisor & the head of the CIA lied & lied & lied.
IF the MSM bother to report it (a BIG IF) then people will finally hear (& hear again) that this adminstration lied (repeatedly).
I can't see it losing (like so far we've been winning?)
I don't think they can say it because they don't really believe it. If they say they believed the lies then they look stupid and gullible.
The real reason they voted for war over WMD is because it gave them moral cover and that's all they needed.
It going to take a lot of courage for Bidden et al to stand in open opposition on the issue to the popular wartime president 38 percent and declining approval rating.
The hope is it's not the fucking compromised incumbents but the gals and guys who are going to get elected.
Well, I think everyone was afraid in October that Bush was going to pull an Osama out of the hole, or find a weapons cache, or that there would be an attack that would sort-of-implicated Iraq. And if they shot their mouth off about the war being a mistake they would have been sunk.
It's a lot safer now to say it. The so-called "pro-war" democrats are really risk averse democrats. And if they were really in charge, you know we wouldn't have been there.
Blatantly anti-war dems are either in completely safe districts, for the most part, or like the rest of us, on the fringes of power, if at all.
"What Have We Done?"
by Dahr Jamail
August 5, 2005
As the blood of US soldiers continues to drain into the hot sands of Iraq over the last several days with at least 27 US soldiers killed and the approval rating for his handling of the debacle in Iraq dropping to an all-time low of 38%, Mr. Bush commented from the comforts of his ranch in Crawford, Texas today, “We will stay the course, we will complete the job in Iraq.”
...
When asked what he would say to Mr. Bush if he had the chance to speak to him, Abdul Henderson, a corporal in the Marines who served in Iraq from March until May, 2003, took a deep breath and said, “It would be two hits-me hitting him and him hitting the floor. I see this guy in the most prestigious office in the world, and this guy says ‘bring it on.’ A guy who ain’t never been shot at, never seen anyone suffering, saying ‘bring it on?’ He gets to act like a cowboy in a western movie … it’s sickening to me.”
The other vets with him nod in agreement as he speaks somberly … his anger seething.
One of them, Alex Ryabov, a corporal in an artillery unit which was in Iraq the first three months of the invasion, asked for some time to formulate his response to the same question. “I don’t think Bush will ever realize how many millions of lives he and his lackeys have ruined on their quest for money, greed and power,” he says, “To take the patriotism of the American people for granted … the fact that people (his administration) are willing to lie and make excuses for you while you continue to kill and maim the youth of America and ruin countless families … and still manage to do so with a smile on your face.”
etc.
http://dahrjamailiraq.com/weblog...ches/
000271.php
Those are the coordinates. Fire for effect.
-
Air Enron???
I think we can start with the entire sanctimonious staff of The New Republic.
Remember, the sniveling bootlickers who called us all anti-American traitors for opposing the Bush war? Long past time for them to apologize.
concerned parent | 08.06.05 - 10:48 am | #
For my money, they shouldn't just apologize, they should fall on their swords. Going out of business would be too easy a fate, but its what should happen.
Atrios,
You are right - but have the Dems demonstrated clarity of thought on any of the major issues? I believe the problem lies deep and as you point out, in the core of the party's establishment. Today, Dean points out that the next "us" vs "them" issue will be immigrants. I hope the Dems are prepared for this particular battle which will be played out both in 06 and 08.
I still think it's going to take a little more time to destroy the meme that "against war = gutless wimp".
A lot of people who have bought into the Cowboy George mythology still look at his aggressive warmongering as a net positive -- in spite of the general chaos, graft, torture and mismanagement.
Democrats need to re-establish the good name of peace. Being "pro-war" should be looked at as a stain on your character, as a sign of unenlightenment and a weak mind.
I still think it's going to take a little more time to destroy the meme that "against war = gutless wimp".
A lot of people who have bought into the Cowboy George mythology still look at his aggressive warmongering as a net positive -- in spite of the general chaos, graft, torture and mismanagement.
Democrats need to re-establish the good name of peace. Being "pro-war" should be looked at as a stain on your character, as a sign of unenlightenment and a weak mind.
I don't think they can say it because they don't really believe it. If they say they believed the lies then they look stupid and gullible.
They knew it was a flimsy case. Especially after Blix came up with nothing. Even for those foursquare behind the invasion, the rot was really starting to smell up the place and they were forced to accelerate the pace of events.
They knowingly made the choice to back this thug when all real indications were that he and his cronies were talking out of their asses.
Purely out of political fear, they gambled on looking like fools later if things didn't work oput smoothly.
They lost the gamble.
Father of a 19 year old killed in Iraq on CNN just now-choked up and could barely speak (the boy still had braces on in the photo of him in uniform) Christ I think I'm going to throw up.
"Hoeffel". I remember that guy. 
It's a shame that there's no real race for him to run anytime soon; Allyson Schwartz holds his old congressional seat strongly, and he knew he couldn't beat Casey in a primary against Santorum, which is what he really wanted . . .
WE will stay the course; WE will finish the job.
Hmmmmm: fucking chickenhawkshit bastard.
Here's the thing tho. Once anything in the Federal government gets a budget line, it's almost impossible to remove it. The best example of course was the existence of the Tea Board - founded in approximately 1799, abolished ca. 1992 on the grounds that the US didn't really need a bureaucracy devoted to guaranteeing cheap tea....
The Iraq War has a budget line, personnel, a bureaucracy and letterhead. I wouldn't look for its elimination very soon.
You are right ~ frame it as a lie.
"It's the lies, stupid."
But Dems have bigger problems than this, I think. I was talking to my friend, a union steward and organizer, last night.
He's so fricking pissed off at the Dem Party right now because he, and he's right, says that they ought to be supporting the working people. CAFTA was a major blow to the unions. The fact that even one Dem voted for CAFTA is enough to send some of these hardcore folks over the edge. Joe says whether he votes Democratic in the next election remains to be seen. Serious talk among union folk about supporting a third party candidate. This isn't good for our side, folks. We have to reprimand those Democrats who vote against working people.
And he's pissed at Sweeney, says he's a Stern (SIEU) man. He says the recent split with the AFL-CIO will either be very good for the country or very bad...
I'd like to see a solid debate on unions sometime here, if Atrios ever feels so inclined to post about it.
Just a few thoughts, fwiw...
The peaceniks were right - the chickenhawks were WRONG!
Indeed, all the dems need to say loudly,
"We stood by the president when he needed to show solidarity to the world.. We now realize the WH and specifically the president lied to us and the country about the mission in Iraq and around the world. We now realize they had an agenda that was very different than their public pronouncements."
I do think that the Dems now have something that they haven't had for a long time -- genuine leadership -- blame who you will, under Clinton, the Dem legislators did not support their President & Clinton triangulated & the upshot was a Bush presidency with a Democratic Party that was seriously adrift -- I think we are beginning to see some real leadership (& planning for the future) from Dean & Reid & Pelosi & I think it bodes well for the Party
http://www.commondreams.org/view...s03/0330-
03.htm
Preznit Cowboy
Prior, darlin', I hope you're right.
Populism ain't for chickenhawks!
"We stood by the president when he needed to show solidarity to the world.. We now realize the WH and specifically the president lied to us and the country about the mission in Iraq and around the world. We now realize they had an agenda that was very different than their public pronouncements."
Also, "Despite the bitterness of partisan rhetoric in recent years, we could not conceive that a United States President could risk the lives of our troops and the good name of our country without a valid reason."
From Prior Aelred's mouth to God's ear.
Nice being able to fly in, post about unions, and fly out.
I feel like one of those bat monkeys from the Wizard of Oz.
But the farmers market, and all that fresh produce, is calling to me like a siren.
Later!
Atrios,
I didn't know we were so . . . well-acquainted. A troll stool from the comments section at my home:
nothing on Air Enron?
oh yeah, I forgot, you're too busy tongueing atrios' anus.
Isn't that supposed to be "Air Amerikkka"?
I'm listening to Tony Blair's announcement of deporting terrorists, and man he sounds like a racist bastard. People who have been in Britain 20-30 years and don't speak English, should not be here. Tony, Tony, Tony. Yup, I think there is a coordinated effort to start picking on immigrants.
" I think we are beginning to see some real leadership (& planning for the future) from Dean & Reid & Pelosi & I think it bodes well for the Party
Prior Aelred"
I'm with the good Prior, and also add that we have so many things we never had just a few years ago...blogs and think tanks and media watch organizations and LW radio. I'm still amazed when I can turn on an a.m. radio and actually hear a Liberal voice.
When they begin the push against Iran, will the Dems go along again?
The Pukes can use the same cartoon drawings that Powell showed to the UN.
"When they begin the push against Iran, will the Dems go along again?"
Not if they're smart.
It seems to me that if what you're doing isn't working, it's time to try something else.
Funny. That's obviously never occurred to anyone
in this Administration. We keep 'staying the course' and expecting a different result.
I sure wish Kerry had said that. His tangled explanations made for very poor sound bites. His media consultants were obviously very poor (assuming they weren't ignored).
Dems would do well to consider one definition of insanity:
Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
I am by definition against any Democrat that voted for the war and has not admitted they were wrong. No more excuses.
Yes, that means I am against John Kerry (though I voted for him under the ABB principle), and I am against Hillary Clinton. Much as I'd like to see a good woman president some day, she is not the one.
For me, it's that simple. I knew the vote was wrong at the time, and I am a dumfuk nobody. So what does that make those who had far more opportunity than I to know the truth? Dumfuk somebodies - or pandering sleazebags.
What happened to the times when we voted for people who were actually smarter than ourselves?
Vicki -- I think you're friend is exactly right. Lots of Dems voted against CAFTA but there wasn't nearly enough (barely any) party/blog coverage of the vote until the last minute. And there's been an equally sinful neglect of what going on in the union movement, generally -- way, way too much waiting to see which side the bread's buttered on . . .
Vicki --
I am a Union man through and through -- it just goes with the principle that liberals believe that everyone is better off when everyone is better off -- IIRC, most of the CAFTA Dem votes were from the South (which has always had vicious anti-union policies)
I would like to see some American workers involved in organizing the workers in Central America (which would benefit everybody except the corporations exploiting the poor workers) -- "Workers of the World Unite!" --you don't have to think that Karl Marx was right about everything to believe in international worker solidarity!
It would have been so simple. Would their opponents have screamed, "He's saying he wishes Saddam were still in power!" Sure. And that would have been easily anwered, as well: "That's ridiculous. However, deposing Saddam wasn't the reason for this war. WMDs were the reason the president took us to war and he was lying about the WMDs. Is my opponent suggesting that it's ok for the president to lie this country into a war?"
First focus on restoring integrity to the voting process!!
Fuck John Kerry for throwing the election.
That is all.
"we could not conceive that a United States President could risk the lives of our troops and the good name of our country without a valid reason."
Unfortunately most people still cannot conceive this truth.
No, that's not all.
So many opportunities Kerry had to call Bush a damned liar, and he was too fucking timid to do it. Either that, or he didn't really want to.
First dems must demolish the DLC.
Democrats now have the opportunity to be Nixon to Bush's Johnson.
okay, that just wasn't right...
I agree with EvoMan
As we know, Mencken had some insightful things to say about most politicians:
"A professional politician is a professionally dishonorable man. In order to get anywhere near high office he has to make so many compromises and submit to so many humiliations that he becomes indistinguishable from a streetwalker."
"When a candidate for public office faces the voters he does not face men of sense; he faces a mob of men whose chief distinguishing mark is the fact that they are quite incapable of weighing ideas, or even of comprehending any save the most elemental--men whose whole thinking is done in terms of emotion, and whose dominant emotion is dread of what they cannot understand. So confronted, the candidate must either bark with the pack or be lost...All the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre--the man who can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum. The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
I agree with EvoMan
You think that if US citizens were lied to, there would be a investigation. The press would say something about it and NOT just ignore it.
That Judith Miller would not be going "gleefully" off to prison under the mis-used term of "Civil Disobedience" after writing article, after article of nothing but lies.
Bush is a thug - this week in the Odessa American(TX) - newspaper close to Bush's hometown of Midland, there is this graph that show the death toll in Iraq (it's an AP graph) - last month it says that 700 Iraq civlians died? That's 700 Iraqis - did Saddam kill that many of his citizens every month? The 3 months the graph shows have simiular numbers - is there over 1 million dead Iraqis by now? Certainly the press isn't interest, perhaps because the Keller over at the NYT it was "civil war" so except for a few at the AP who report it as appears the NYT refuses to run it. Better not to lose the privileges of access to Bush's lies.
I can see why Bush opted out of being a member of the world court - what is going on in Iraq is nothing short of mass murder, and here Thomas Friedman was nothing but a cheerleader for this atrocity going on in Mideast. Yes, Saddam was a very nasty tyrant - but Bush's occupation has made it worse that when Saddam was in power for all the people of Iraq.
And press stands silent over the issue of how Bush lied the US into this war for a group of profiteers - setting up financial portfolios speculating for big oil and defense contracting. What Bush is, is a frontman for what is nothing short of organized, syndicated criminal mob members.
Bush is a butcher and his lying at level taht Bush did to all American citizens should be tried as a HIGH CRIME.
But it doesnt appear that why to the NYT, no, Bush is a highly respected person, that Chief Editor Keller wooed, just for the special privileges of helping a criminal president and his criminal administration, particularly Cheney and Karl to lie to all Americans.
And today we find out that those huge church corporations were investing in defense contracting. My Gosh, how Christain of right.
Particularly Presbyterian Church U.S.A. announced Friday that it would press four American corporations to stop providing military equipment and technology to Israel for use in the occupation of the Palestinian territories.
Churchs are investing in defense contracts? And isn't the Presbyteria Church - Bush's Church? They don't care about torture. don't care about how many die in war after all Bush has made that church alot of money.
The more people died - the more the church makes money.
Paul Hachett was right, we have do something to clean up BUSH's lies - because it's not like Bush is going to do anything and if people stop dying the church will have invest in less profitable stock.
In order to really clean up what Bush and churchmembers did, the US would need to prosecute George W. Bush, his administration, and his mob backing, and that would also be all the members of the PNAC.
This war WAS only about oil and never WAS about anything else - Bush knew there were NO WMD and so it comes down to why did Bush lie? For the money. Herbert is right "It's the oil, stupid."
Bush lied and killed all those people for oil companies and defense contractors, not for WMD, not for terrorist and not for democracy.
Demolish the DLC and Diebold.
"I'm with the good Prior, and also add that we have so many things we never had just a few years ago...blogs and think tanks and media watch organizations and LW radio."
Let us not forget the unrestrained and illegal Gerrymandering that is taking place every two years in the repukelican party and the rigged voting machines and the total TV dominance by the repukelicans, and the total explosion of power of the fake Christians and the culture of ignorance.
"we could not conceive that a United States President could risk the lives of our troops and the good name of our country without a valid reason."
Trouble with this phrasing is that it too is a bit disingenuous. I bet there are very few, if any, regulars on this site who, during the feverish run-up to the invasion weren't talking, or at least thinking, that this war stunk to high heaven long before the first bomb dropped.
For God's sake, even Poppy and Scowcroft were trying to talk some sense into that asshole.
The Dem hawks should just come out and say "I casted my vote committing our young people to fight and die in a foreign war, without making damn sure the survival of the United States was at stake. I was wrong."
Atrios: Endorse the sentiment 100%.
On the other hand, that's the most intriguing spelling of "maneuver" I have ever seen. I'm sure you're thinking of "manoeuvre," which is my preferred spelling, but it may be too French if you know what I mean.
Now I'll go back to making The Editors' lives a living hell.
We have seen the template: Schmidt v Hackett
the vote-count yields a Bushevik victory, but close enough that the dullard Dumbocraps HAVE to accept the outcome...
electile deniability is the meme...
Dumbos are SO happy to have been SO close that they're precluded from claiming the fraud which deprives 'em of actually taking the seats...
brilliant fuckin strategy for the care and maintenance of the one-party state...
imho...
.
Here's the problem for the pro-war Democrats, particularly those who voted that way, and talked that way, out of political calculation.
They endorsed not only the war itself, but the political messages that went along with this war. Specifically:
- It's the president call as to whether we should make war or not. Anyone who does not defer to his judgment is unpatriotic.
- Once military action starts, it must continue indefinitely until the generals say it's over. Anyone who disagrees is hoping that our troops died in vain.
The key to the first is that the congressional Democrats who supported the war didn't initiate or lead the war, the president did. And he didn't require their support for the war as much as he required them to support the idea that war/not war is his call, not theirs. In this way, they granted Bush the status of Our Brave Leader without him ever doing anything to earn it.
The key to the second has been in play since the unofficial political mythology of the Viet Nam war hardened into the belief that politicians and the bleeding hearts and artists were the reason we didn't obtain a victory in Viet Nam. The generals were required to fight with one arm behind their backs and the troops were betrayed.
the vote-count yields a Bushevik victory, but close enough that the dullard Dumbocraps HAVE to accept the outcome...
Delay the results of a critical block of votes from a "Republican" area (like Clermont) so victory can be assured and a recount or closer scrutiny avoided.
Stabbed in the back!!!
that was, of course, a tried-and-true rhetorical strategy in 1918 in Germany...
worked then, worked in Nam, will work today, when the cry arises: Who Lost Iraq???
.
i wonder - as bush's war approval drops through 38%, his honesty rating goes below 50%, etc etc - how many people whose view have changed will admit that they made a mistake voting for him? how many of those will work to rectify that mistake?
WGG,
Also, Who lost China?
Also, Who lost China?
Omnes Omnibus - 11:45 am
Truman, cuz he wouldn't let MacArthur go to war against Mao in 1951...
.
Dems don't need to shrilly proclaim the self-evident lies of the adminstration. We all know this and nobody likes being reminded that they were suckered. Instead dems should focus on the truths the war has brought us.
Clearly, short of going nuclear, we can not fight a war on two fronts. Outsourcing army support functions doesn't work well in combat zones. This is a never-ending list and the failures of the adminstration to address these shortcomings does not bode well for the security of this nation. Hiding behind the Rah-Rah mantra of "these are the best trained, best equipted,most couragoues soldiers in the universe" is just the adminstration's way of saying "they don't need no stinking body armor!"
the vote-count yields a Bushevik victory, but close enough that the dullard Dumbocraps HAVE to accept the outcome...
Delay the results of a critical block of votes from a "Republican" area (like Clermont) so victory can be assured and a recount or closer scrutiny avoided.
yes - that is why we will never get them out with a 5-7% victory margin. we have to win by over 15%, maybe over 25%, to make that strategy either mathematically impossible or at least so outrageous that people begin to sit up and take notice - enough people that they can't all be labeled tin-hats.
yes - that is why we will never get them out with a 5-7% victory margin. we have to win by over 15%, maybe over 25%, to make that strategy either mathematically impossible or at least so outrageous that people begin to sit up and take notice - enough people that they can't all be labeled tin-hats.
dirk gently - 11:48 am
Exit polls.
News from the bottom of the Barrel otherwise known as the grassroots:
We who look up and get garbage dumped in our faces knew there were no WMD. Now we are buried in trash and may never be able to dig out.
Our gutless Democrats voted for the war just like they voted for the patriot act, the bankruptcy bill, every single bill for supplementary appropriations for Iraq, abolishing the "death tax," etc. etc.
It is our gutless Democrats that cancelled the primary in Pa. and gave us a right wing candidate. It is our gutless Democrats that urge more right wing candidates to run for office. The Democratic party suffers under the illusion that the left is a "guaranteed voting block."
In a poll taken by the National Journal, Inside Washington 101 members of Congress were asked:
Should the Bush Administration set a timetable to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq.
Republicans (Forty Two)
Yes 0
No 42
Democrats (Thirty Eight)
Yes 13
No 24
Time to empty the trash, crawl out of the barrel and throw the bums out...all of them. Stop making excuses for the likes of Joe Hoeffel, John Kerry, etc. If we knew there were no WMD you can bet your ass they did too.
Check the daily death list. Was it worth it--2000 dead soldiers, countless others injured--25000 dead Iraqis, and some number of private contractors whose deaths and injuries are not being made public. Shouldn't we be mad as hell at our own party. Or are we as cowardly as they are.
When any candidate shows the courage of his/her convictions their poll numbers sky rocket.
Successful Republican candidates are not afraid of issues and the most successful believe in what they are promoting. Santorum comes across as sincere. I don't know what Casey projects.
Newt Gingrich did very well with his campaign, at the end of Clinton's first term, to throw the bums out. I remember the bumper stickers.
We need better candidates and we need them now and that means throwing the Democrat's elective (losing) strategy out and replacing it with something that works.
Hackett almost won probably because he called Bush a son of a bitch. Maybe if he presented a realistic plan to end our occupation of Iraq he would have won. Instead, Rumsfield and Casey did exactly that.
We'll never know.
James E. Powell -- I'm old. I remember the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. I've resisted every war in my lifetime, including the invasion of Afghanistan. Still, as the move toward the Iraq War Resolution played out I tried to stay open-minded to arguments like Kerry's that the authorization was needed to give muscle to UN demands for full inspections and disclosure about Iraq's WMDs.
I can still accept the reasoning of the time, but I think it's time for a lot of folks to admit publicly that they were played . . .
Cheney/Bush/Rove and their cohorts are done with Iraq. They are leaving that particular mess for the dems to quibble over. They will take their billions and run to the next war (er make that spreading freedom), and divert us from those lies by terrorizing us with Osama, again, and by saying immigrants are the cause of all our problems.
They have moved on. No news will be allowed on Iraq, unless the dems wants to quibble over how to bring the troops home. And they don't care if we are putting the truth out there about the lies, because they are now talking about bringing the troops home, after all.
The dems, always a step behind the republican spin.
The vote theft & the gerrymandering are issues, to be sure, but the right wing control of the MSM is a major problem -- which why I like the idea of framing the question in terms of the Republicans lying -- keep pounding that theme & if the MSM reports the fact that the Dems are saying it, maybe the fact that it happens to be true will sink in
W.A.W. Syndrome
"We Almost Won!"
get used to it, because it's the operational mantra of the left for the rest of my lifetime--mebbe 15 years...
.
Exit polls.
Gimlet | 08.06.05 - 11:50 am | #
Exit polling is THE MOST accurate polling that can be done. Everyone knows this. But the networks & cable news altered the polls to match the count. The percentages were small enough that they could be lied away.
jd | Email | 08.06.05 - 11:51 am | #
Agreed - let's swap out the dinos in the primaries, but regardless of outcome get majority status back in the general election.
And, of course, Hacket may have actuallt won. More shennanigins in final reporting....
And, of course, Hacket may have actuallt won. More shennanigins in final reporting....
dirk gently
Whether or not that is the case, the delay, the particular voting district involved in the delay, and the lamest ass excuse I've yet heard for the delay, just look like shit.
Whether or not that is the case, the delay, the particular voting district involved in the delay, and the lamest ass excuse I've yet heard for the delay, just look like shit.
remember how when we said there couldn't possibly be WMD in Saddam's broken down reginme, how the facts were being fixed to promote war, how halliburton was going to clean up, how a vial of talcum powder shown to the security council was not proof of the existance of WG anthrax - remember how we were called tin-hat ocnspiracy theorists, partisan trouble makers, naive peaceniks?
how many times does the wolf we cry have to actually show up before people start paying attention? it is maddening.
It's not just Dem leaders that are tuning out the war, most Americans are as well. Average Joe doesn't want to hear about it unless it affects them directly.
We're losing and no amount of gung-ho cheerleadeing from Bush or Cheney changes that fact. People don't like to associate with losing.
Gimlet, jd, dirk gently -- Yes, exit polls, but also citizen-manned parallel elections, counts of voters entering the polls and poll book audits afterwards. An Ohio group conducted a parallel poll outside a single precinct in Warren Co. during the Hackett-Schmidt election. Turned out that precinct had the highest official Hackett vote of any in the county. Coincidence? Perhaps. But the precinct had only a handful of registered Democrats. A heavy Schmidt vote would have been "believable" had the parallel pollers not put the precinct on notice that they were keeping track.
I don't think all the pro-war types need to flagellate themselves publicly for their stand
Oh, no, I disagree. They need to scourge their flesh, possibly rip out their tongues and eyeballs and in the case of Kevin Drum, Matt Yglesias and so forth, shut. the. fuck. up. with war criticism, as they have ZERO credibility. I think these people should be made social pariahs. They should be shunned in polite society, people should cross the street if they see them down the sidewalk etc.
Nothing short of that would be an abomination.
As for Hoeffel and all those assholes Congresscritters who are now whining "We wuz lied to! Waaaaaaaaaa!", may I gently and respectfully suggest that they fuck right off? I'm a nobody with a computer and DSL and the ability to use Google and I knew it was all a pack lies on 9/12. I knew Bush was going to invade Iraq because the scum at the PNAC fucking said so on the Internets in the late 90's.
No, fuck them and the horse they rode in on. We tree-hugging, dope smoking hippies were right and I've made it my life's mission to never let those fucks forget it. Wankers for eternity, they are.
dirk gently,
>Agreed - let's swap out the dinos in the primaries, but regardless of outcome get majority status back in the general election.<
I thought that too forever. I've changed my mind after Kerry didn't have the courage to deliver his promise and challenge the 2004 election results. He didn't even show up for the vote. The only way we can win is with overwhelming numbers that screw up the voting machines since realistically they probably can't fix them all.
We're not going to do this with your strategy.
And now watching the Casey primary fiasco I'm convinced we need a major rebellion here at the bottom of the barrel.
Throw the bums out. All of them. Someone told a story recently that resonates.
Politicans are like dogs. They like to pretend they are the leaders of the pack but if you turn the corner they will run to catch up with you.
As long as you say that we should elect any democrat they will do nothing.
Once they see that we are mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore watch them jump on board. But first you have have the courage take the chance. We have nothing to lose.
And I'm tired to death of celebrating losing elections. Losers are losers. Ask any baseball fan. 2 points instead of 20 will still get your ass kicked if you're a coach.
Father of a 19 year old killed in Iraq on CNN just now-choked up and could barely speak (the boy still had braces on in the photo of him in uniform) Christ I think I'm going to throw up.
panicbean
yes. my god my god.
If loving you is wrong, I don't want to be right.
As for Hoeffel and all those assholes Congresscritters who are now whining "We wuz lied to! Waaaaaaaaaa!", may I gently and respectfully suggest that they fuck right off? I'm a nobody with a computer and DSL and the ability to use Google and I knew it was all a pack lies on 9/12. I knew Bush was going to invade Iraq because the scum at the PNAC fucking said so on the Internets in the late 90's.
Amen, brother. I'm also a nobody with a pc and google, and I knew there were no WMDs. Anyone who did not make up their mind in advance that there were, and then looked at the situation, should have known as well. I think they did know, and went along anyway. Pusses.
We tree-hugging, dope smoking hippies were right and I've made it my life's mission to never let those fucks forget it.
Damn right, bro!!!
We tree-hugging, dope smoking hippies were right and I've made it my life's mission to never let those fucks forget it.
man, they HATE that, hate it, HATE it, HATE IT!!!
but it's true...
they should all eat shit and die...horribly...
Prior, IMO it goes further back than Clinton; it was actually Tip O'Neill who so resented the invasion of DC by Southern interlopers in the form of Jimmy Carter and his entourage that he persistently, if sneakily, undermined the Carter administration.
There's that North/South friction again.
Once the spinal cord of legislative support is severed from the executive brain, loss of coordination, spasticity, and paralysis is the inevitable result.
Clinton was an effective prosthetic device, like a well-designed wheelchair, although he almost tipped the thing over by getting some slippery schmutz on its wheels.
But the DLC Republican-lite approach at best approximates or simulates effective movement using top-down, outside-in mechanisms. Now that the DLC apparatus is itself rusted out, its joints binding and its springs sprung, all it does is squeak "oil can!" through gritted teeth and kick out at those who would remove the emaciated and moribund body politic from its tender mercies.
Hmmm, in the process of walking my inner Tom Friedman and depositing the above load of mixed metaphors, it occurs to the that a classic term of political discourse might need to be dragged out and dusted off: reform. By this I mean that Democrats could "brand" their candidacy as reform-minded, acknowledging the (dubious) good of the status quo but hammering on the toxic and evil consequences of the Ruling Class. (Not using these terms, of course.)
As Atrios implies, Democratic incumbents are terrified, or at least intimidated, by the brain-stem, i.e. fundamentally irrational, canine loyalty branded "patriotism". Blood always justifies blood, and the evils and abominations of war are most tidily disposed of by tucking them under the flag and disappearing them in a blaze of 21-gun salutes and the music of horn and bagpipe.
Democrats are probably correct to believe that standing up against the folly and corruption precipitating this obscene bloodshed will result in blind and furious opposition. But the lame "me too" approach, in which politicans ally with the people in power and suggest that they are only a few tweaks away from concordance, is bankrupt and ineffectual, not to say contemptible.
One alternative is to openly embrace righteous dissenters like Cindy Sheehan, Sybil Edmonds, Joe Wilson, et al-- and those vets in the article referenced above by QuentinCompson. There are hundreds of horror stories demonstrating how the maladministration and its corrupt policies have hurt and destroyed innocent, decent people.
Not to diss Michael Moore, Jane Fonda, or other progressive celebrities, but a politician who declares that he/she is openly a reform candidate, and courageously takes up the cause of victims of the present regime to make the case for the need for such reform, might gain that critical mass of public support that finally knocks the cold talon of the Ruling Class off the scale.
And if this approach fails, and said reform candidate is rejected out of hand as a Kucinich-class "unelectable", then we're pretty much stuck with the tap-dancing Bidens, Clintons, Schumers, et al. And we're screwed.
Put another way, if reform candidates championing righteous causes are reviled and rejected by the mob crying, "Give us Barabbas!", what hope is there that this nation can recover its legacy as an enlightened republic?
Just spitballin' here, probably missed a few new threads...
As long as you say that we should elect any democrat they will do nothing.
ok, i agree - in most cases. but the way congress works, it does make a huge difference who runs the committees. so Kucinich will never be heard when DeLay is majority leader, but has a chance if some DLC wanker takes DeLays place.
still, on general principal i think you are right, and for at least the 9 who voted yes on bankrupcty, CAFTA, the energy bill AND Iraq, they have to go no matter what.
9-11 shocked america into quiet submission to bush & co.
whoever planned 9-11 for the results it would achieve had the skill of Leni Riefenstahl
Oh bullshit. We knew everything that the pro-war Dems did. And we saw that the war was based on lies way before they voted for it. They went in with their eyes open knowing the consequences.
These people are criminals and war enablers. Period. They should be up on war crimes charges too. Kerry and the rest of them.
But that wouldn't do much for party unity would it?
We don't only have to remove these corrupt assholes from office. We have to make them pay for the damage that they have done. I'm willing to let George off, but Rummy and Cheney need to see some jail time. Along with Libby, Bremmer, and Rove. Evil fucks all.
The problem with demanding a clear exit strategy from our candidates is that the issue is complicated.
Most Americans realize that we have turned Iraq unside down and inflicted great harm and suffering on its people.
For a candidate to simply announce that we are going to pull out (which might make sense to some of us), may strike a lot of Americans as irresponsible and even cruel.
I recently watched a program on C-Span that featured a group of Iraqi women talking about the constitution that is being drafted and how it will impact their lives. They have everything to lose if Sharia is imposed on the country. They were a bright, articulate, and well educated group. What a terrible loss for their country if they are forced out of their professions and their voices are silenced. If we pull out, what happens to them?
I guess Powell's pottery analogy keeps haunting us: We have broken it, now how can we fix it?
I always knew this war was a terrible mistake. Getting in was easy; getting out is considerably more difficult.
If only, heh?
I never understood Kerry's dancing around the issue. It was so easy: "I supported the resolution for action because it was explicity stated that the United States would be returning to the United Nations for sanction: I, and the rest of the people who voted for this resolution, were lied to. We voted to strengthen the president's hand, not give him carte blanche to promote a war based on falsehoods and wishful thinking."
DWD | Email | Homepage | 08.06.05 - 10:52 am | #
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Right. Is that so hard?
Yes. It's very hard. Because it requires me to believe that Kerry actually believed that Bush wouldn't use that authority to go to war.
Only a fool would have believed that. And no, this is not hindsight. I knew Bush was going to war in Iraq the day after 9/11.
What a terrible loss for their country if they are forced out of their professions and their voices are silenced. If we pull out, what happens to them?
the same thing that will happen to them if we stay the course...of course...
the same thing that was envisioned from day 1 of the invasion/conquest/occupation/rape of Iraq...
the plan is that, one way or another, Iraq will never again be a threat to Israel...
everything else is just window dressing...
speaking of women in Iraq-- the writer Haifa Zangana who lives in Britain (half Kurdish; tortured under Saddam; opposed to U.S. invasion) has written of how this new situation in Iraq adversely impacts women.
Bush speaks with outrage over the mistreatement of women from the 'religious terrorist' mindset but he has now created a scenario where Iranian style Islam will force Iraqui women into a social role far different than the social status they had achieved (drs.,professors,etc...) under Saddam Hussein (I know I know he was a brutal dictator).
Today it's really hard to find anyone who was FOR the Vietnam War, though a great majority of people were in favor, up until the time it became clear the war was really lost, starting in 1968.
Success has many parents, but failure is an orphan
I'm sure this is a dead thread by now, but that post is dead on fucking right.
Hoeffel's comment would be even better if he replaced "we were lied to" with "the Bush administration lied to Congress, to the American people, and to the world."
On the other hand, fool me once...
Yes, yes, yes, goddamit yes. Why the hell Kerry and the other Dems who got suckered into this war didn't say this in 2004 and aren't saying it now is beyond me (leaving aside the idiots like Lieberman who still think the war was a great idea). Just hiding their tails between their legs and hoping the subject will go away is not an option. This sort of behavior is what gets Dems labeled as pussies.
I especially like his use of the word "we", as in "I am now convinced we were lied to."
This allows the American people who supported the war to associate themselves with Hoeffel.
This is in direct contrast to trying to paint those for the war as the enemy. In other words, don't attack people's prior position, give them as easy out.
I was against the war for the beginning -- but that is water under the bridge. We need to bring people along now.
To that end, I think it is vital that the Democrats come out for a full withdrawl NOW. Don't allow Bush to be announce a phase out without going on record now that the dems are for a pull out. The way to position this is to say that the job is done, the Iraqis are masters of their own fate, that we can't be blamed for the mess, the Iraqis must solve their own problems. I realize that part of this is BS. But the American people do not like to be told that they fucked up. It is a losing proposition to try and convince people that we were wrong -- no matter how true it might be.
When any candidate shows the courage of his/her convictions their poll numbers sky rocket.
--And they then get attacked or crucified by the corporate establishment in this country, i.e., the corporate media, the leadership of both major political parties, and their corporate and corporate-aligned backers---i.e., the interests that really own and/or run this country.
--Or did you forget what happened to Dean and his burgeoning grass-roots network of 600,000 supporters during the Dem primaries? That movement scared the SHIT out the powers that be.
--This is and always has been a war between the aristorcats and the common man, between the elites and every body else, between the rich and the relatively poor. This is much of the history of American politics from their very inception.
--The genious of the American system is that it has succeeded in obscuring the fact in most peopel's minds that there is such a thing as a class system in this country and that the interests of those at the top are often antithetically opposed to the interests of everyone else. As long as most or a lot of people's minds can be distracted from these realities, or have them obscured altogether, it will be politics as usual.
Sorry, it should read: "Don't allow Bush to announce a phase out without going on record now that the Dems are for a pull out."
I wish we could edit comments!
You are right that people get crucified for standing up -- but you are also right that people get credit for taking a stand.
Where we go wrong is where we take a stand, start to get killed, then back down. Plus, it is all in HOW we take a stand. It is a positive message, for instance. An example: we are losing the war and must pull out the troops (negative message) -- versus -- the job is done, we need to let the Iraqis manage their own affairs, so it is time to let the troops come home (more positive).
This doesn't go as far as saying "we've won, let's blot". But it is not as negative as "we've lost, let's retreat".
I have yet to see a poll that asks this question: "is the violence in Iraq the fault of the U.S?" My answer would be "yes". But I believe the poll would show that over 75% would say "no". How do you convince people that it is time to go if they don't believe we are the problem? By saying that the Iraqis must solve their own problems, that we have gotten rid of Saddam, seen a new leadership elected, and have overseen a new constitution (soon) -- so now it is time to go."
Bush's position would be that it is not time to go -- but I doubt he would get much support from either the voters or members of Congress eager to find a way out of this mess.
"Let's blot"? Sorry for my poor typing this morning. Of course, it should read "let's bolt". Too much good wine last night, I guess.
it would have enabled them to continue their "careers" if kerry had won; since kerry lost, the last thing we should do is run hillary or any other pro war candidate. it's time for a change. it's time for the dlc to concede that it is irrelevant to whatever movement is next, because regardless of the platform, this is the only course.
We voted for the war because we were lied to is exactly the message the dems need to get out there. If they don't they're idiots and deserve to lose.
not just the vote, but the silence afterwards. Kerry said the only reason he voted for the Iraq resolution was to give Bush ammunition to get a U.N. resolution. Bush bypassed the U.N. -- at that point Kerry and others knew they had been "misled" at least re: Bush's commitment to multilateral action, and yet they were silent. "misled" sure; "lied to" better -- but that's not enough.
The question of Bush "lying" about WMD's forces us to ask another question:
Was Bill Clinton "lying" about WMD's?
Bill Clinton said the exact same things Bush did concerning WMD's, and set as our national policy the removal of Saddam Hussein in 1998.
Isn't it more accurate to admit that NEITHER was lying, but instead making assesments bqased on the best evaluaqtion of available intelligence?
And just because Hoeffel BELIEVES he was lied to, doesn't make it so.
www.liberallyspeaking.blogs.com
"The most revealing moment of the entire event came as it was breaking up. Kerry was slowly working towards the door when he was collared by Art Spiegelman. Though Kerry towered over him, Spiegelman appeared to grow with the intensity of his passion. 'Senator,' he said, 'the best thing you could do is to is to just come out and say that you were wrong to trust Bush. Say that you though he would keep his promises, but that you gave him more credit than he deserved. Say that you're sorry, and then turn the debate towards what is best for the country in 2004.'
"Kerry nodded, bowed his head, and said, 'You're right. I was wrong to trust him. I'm sorry I did.' And then he was gone.
"In the end, that is perhaps the greatest obstacle for Kerry to overcome. Liberal base voters never trusted George W. Bush from the beginning, and believed in their hearts that he was approaching the Iraq situation with bad intentions. The fact that Kerry trusted him, and trusted him enough to ignore Senator Robert Byrd's dire warnings of constitutional abrogation of Congressional responsibilities which was inherent in the resolution, makes it hard for those voters to trust Kerry."
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/...3/
121003A.shtml
Democrats don't want to get out of Iraq, they just want to take the Republicans chair. Thier 'cure' for the problem is merely a band-aid.
I don't think people understand the magnitude of just how fucked we are.
Ignorance a couple of posts up is right - you don't have to call Bush a liar. You simply say "Like many Americans, I believed the Bush administration about WMDs, I believed that they would not start a war unless there were no other options, and I believed that they would not be so irresponsible as to lead the nation into war without a viable strategy for winning it. I was wrong, and I apologize. The question now is whether we trust the old, failed leadership of the Republican party or new leadership that can admit that the current strategy is failing and offer new solutions."
The problem is that so many Americans trusted/believed Bush and they need to be given a way to change their support without making them feel like suckers or chumps. No one likes to feel that way, and I don't think we should rely on them being angry at Bush instead of being angry at the messenger.
You supported the war because you believed/trusted the President in a time of war; there's nothing intrinsically wrong with that, but we all have to admit that our trust was misplaced. The Republicans can't turn things around, but we can, because....and then you lay out what you want to do.
Now, frankly, I think we're screwed no matter what we do - but undoubtedly if we can win something (even one house of Congress) and start issuing subpoenas we can get hold of information that would justify modifying whatever plan we put out there if necessary, and cast the Republicans in an even worse light. But we do need a plausible alternative strategy.
And I still don't understand why Kerry didn't start saying something like what Spiegelman told him to say - "Let's not argue about the past; we need to talk about the future and what to do with Iraq now that we're there. President Bush clearly has no plan etc etc etc...."
"I understand the desire of the Democrats to run from the Iraq war." - Atrios.
And the desire of Atrios to use it to smear the military and this administration.
Atrios's America = no moderate or centrist Democrats allowed. Independents or Republicans switching parties to vote in 2008? Not if Atrios can help it.
Thanks for 2004 moron.
What's so frustrating is that this thread is an example of just how out of touch the progressive left is. An entire thread devoted to Kerry bashing about things Kerry should have said, when in fact he said them repeatedly in the campaign. But because the people writing here were so opposed to Kerry's vote on the war they never took the time to listen. I think 2004 was the year when the Democratic Party learned that you can never satisfy the people on the far left, and that we're going to be even more marginalized than we have been in the past. And it's our own fault.
" Atrios,
You are right - but have the Dems demonstrated clarity of thought on any of the major issues? I believe the problem lies deep and as you point out, in the core of the party's establishment. Today, Dean points out that the next "us" vs "them" issue will be immigrants. I hope the Dems are prepared for this particular battle which will be played out both in 06 and 08.
gnb "
In that case the wisest move is to refuse to be drawn into ANY "us v. them" battles, fomented by anyone, anywhere, over any issue. Humanity does not have "sides."
It's lame, shallow and anachronistic to frame any issues as Dem-Repub any more. In international terms, it's now Progessive v. Conservative.
And since the very fundamental nature of the universe is progressive--it does nothing but change--the Conservative pov is dead on arrival, already.
"The question of Bush "lying" about WMD's forces us to ask another question:
Was Bill Clinton "lying" about WMD's?
Bill Clinton said the exact same things Bush did concerning WMD's, and set as our national policy the removal of Saddam Hussein in 1998.
Isn't it more accurate to admit that NEITHER was lying, but instead making assesments bqased on the best evaluaqtion of available intelligence?
And just because Hoeffel BELIEVES he was lied to, doesn't make it so."
But isn't it even more accurate, in hindsight, to say that all our governments, since oh, say, about 1900, have lied to us to use our kids in wars that have always been essentially rackets for Big Business interests? Big Daddy Warbucks?
What a stupid, useless waste of humanity and resources! For WHAT?
I'm a draftee Vietnam vet infantry pointman, just for context...
>--Or did you forget what happened to Dean and his burgeoning grass-roots network of 600,000 supporters during the Dem primaries? That movement scared the SHIT out the powers that be.<
No I didn't forget at all. But Dean isn't exactly dead in the water is he and DFA the organization Dean started has, I believe, about 400,000 members maybe more.
And he's still making strong Deanlike statements as head of the DNC and pissing off the press.
I believe with every fibre of my being that Hoeffel, Kerry, Clinton and others knew damn well there were no WMD but were afraid to pay the political price and vote against the war.
None of those politicians are
stupid and naive. I don't believe for a second that they trusted G.W.Bush.
Many Republicans I know are upset with this war too. They simply don't trust the Democrats and state candidly they don't know what they are about. And, frankly neither do I.
I don't give them the benefit of the doubt and I think its a mistake to do so. I think they are moral cowards.
Until we start to have the courage to demand better we will get what we deserve. Weak losing Democrats.
And those young people in Iraq will pay the price for our cowardice.
Iraq will be with us in '06, '08, '10
and in '12, '14, etc. Vietnam II is going to be around for a loooooooooong time - as long as we keep supporting Democracts who support the war, like Hillary, Biden, and on and on.
bill clinton thinks it's "irrelevant" how we got into iraq. a line echoed by the rest of the vichy scum, provides cover for bush & discourages accountability. of course politicians lying in office doesn't bother him. "big dawg", "elvis", all those reverential nicknames you people have for him, make me want to SCREAM. i can't wait till the rank & file start booing this man.
I agree that this discussion really shows how out of touch and angry progressives are. The rallying cry here is to punish Dems for not calling Bush a failure and a liar, which is NOT what most of the country wants to hear. The progressive left routinely cuts off its political nose to spite its own face and I'm tired of it. I don't know if I'm a liberal or a progressive, but I'm a Democrat.
penelope, there are 2 groups of people:
you either accept being lied to. or you don't.
atrios, wish you had given face to courage.
It isn't that he lied about WMD, it's that he lied about the threat.
We know he lied because we have two of his key advisors (Rice and Powell) on videotape saying Saddam didn't pose a serious threat, that other countries were greater threats.
Now, in order to pump up the threat, he lied about many details, such as the Niger yellowcake, and about Saddam's alleged noncooperation. But the fundamental lie was to say the threat justified invasion -- indeed that invasion was the only solution.
Invasion without justification is, of course, a war crime of the highest order.
>I agree that this discussion really shows how out of touch and angry progressives are. The rallying cry here is to punish Dems for not calling Bush a failure and a liar, which is NOT what most of the country wants to hear. The progressive left routinely cuts off its political nose to spite its own face and I'm tired of it. I don't know if I'm a liberal or a progressive, but I'm a Democrat.
Penelope | 08.06.05 - 8:05 pm
"For me, it's that simple. I knew the vote was wrong at the time, and I am a dumfuk nobody. So what does that make those who had far more opportunity than I to know the truth? Dumfuk somebodies - or pandering sleazebags."
Libby Sosume
Libby, we are on the same page--although you expressed it beautifully. This is the thing I just can't get out of my head. How come I--also a dumf*k nobody knew, and all these guys didn't. Kind of scary when you think about it, isn't it? Has it always been this way, and we just never realized it and/or we were just incredibly lucky?
First of all, the Democrats who are yelling about being lied to by Bush doth protesteth a bit too much. They knew he was bullshitting and they went along for political reasons. Let them have their fun for now, but at this point, I don't give a shit what is a good political strategy. Any asshole from any party that runs again in '06 or '08 and tries to continue to support the war will not get my vote. If I had any say, I'd have them all locked up and tarred and feathered. Put up another John Kerry in '08 and I will not even bother to send in an absentee ballot.
And I dear Penelope am an American, as are you. As an American I recognize a higher truth than slavish adherence to a political party, and it is the principal that we are a nation of laws and no man is above the law. This principal is neither progressive, liberal, Democrat or Republican. It is American and applies to all of us.
George W. Bush intended to attack and occupy Iraq from the day he took office and the case he made for doing it was blatently false. Every politician in Washington had a pretty good idea that the information they were being given was false.
If we have any sense of morality and responsiblity to the young men and women who were sent off to war believing they would be welcomed with flowers and not bullets then we must stop finding excuses for the cowards that voted for it, no matter what party they represent.
Therefore I cannot excuse any politician who voted to attack Iraq and continue to support occupying Iraq. I can forgive them but I cannot excuse them.
Honcho Dems aren't any dumber than we are.
They knew Saddam was no threat. Paper diagrams of WMD factories? Come on. And if the Niger forgery wasn't obvious enough, Joe Wilson nailed that one dead. No, it wasn't that the Dems were dumb. Kerry's a decent prosecutor -- he did a good job on Iran-Contra. So why did Kerry admit he would have invaded anyway (besides the fact that he's a crap campaigner)?
Because we are oil addicts. As such, we had to get a better military presence near, or preferably in, the oil fields.
We were under huge pressure to get our troops and jets out of Arabia -- recall we got them in by lying to the Saudis, with doctored satellite photos, about an imminent Saddam invasion in the early 90's. Recall also that Bandar Bush knew about Iraq Invasion #2 before they told Colin Powell. Two weeks post-Iraq invasion, the U.S. military exited Arabia. Out. And the Saudis, and U.S. Inc., breathed a huge sigh of relief that at least the Saudis hadn't gone the way of the Shah. Not yet.
Bottom line was, we needed a place to put bases into the middle east, to protect the oil supply. Hummers must be sold to the distant suburbanites, whose brainless, tasteless waste is Inc.'s life blood. Where to invade? Iraq was a no-brainer. It was far weaker than Iran, and besides, we had previously tricked our old pal Saddam into invading the neighboring dictatorship, Kuwait, so Saddam was already an international pariah.
Now, how to sell it. What was Inc. supposed to do, tell the American people they needed their daily gasoline, so they also needed to invade and indefinitely occupy scrappy, battle-hardened, anti-American Iraq? And face the snipers and the steady drip of our kids' blood into the desert sands? That didn't poll well. So the most ludicrous lie -- that Saddam was a threat to us -- would just have to do. The cooperation of the Dems wasn't that hard to get. Inc. owns them too. Besides, maybe a takeover of Iraq would actually work, and going along with cocksure neocons sure beats thinking hard and coming to honest terms with big problems. It worked and its still working, sort of.
It's not just that we've grown fat, lazy and stupid, although that's part of it. Clinton shafted our democracy when he handed the media to a few Inc.'s. Anybody vaguely remember during Vietnam, there were protest songs on the radio? Now we have a massively misinformed populace just at the moment when there's one of those harebrained fundamentalist movements coming round again. Remember prohibition? How about the commie jew scare? Now, 60 million households think the smart way to spend the evening is watch "Justice Sunday." Not a good time to exercise our best judgment and do difficult things.
Even so, reality is stubborn. Bush gave us more toil, less oil. Victory is within our grasp. My own district is swing but it did well for the KerraWimp. But the poor sheep still re-relected a 99-term Republibozo to the House, which wasn't that surprising, considering the Dems put up a total loser. We need to put in the time and effort on the local level. The House is the key. Find the candidates, take the House. Impeach the Chimp, put the criminal puppeteers on trial. Then perhaps we can begin to lead the world again. The 2006 elections are about to heat up in earnest and we have the chance to show our best stuff!
If goddamn spineless Democrats like John Kerry didn't vote for the war before they voted against it they then could have reaped the electoral rewards of being against Bush' war crimes from the beginning. Because goddaman fucking Democrats were afraid of looking weak on killing brown Muslims who had nothing to do with Bush's fucking 9/11 they are now triangulating an issue that should have been a fucking win for them if they had a fucking ounce of fucking moral courage.
But they were afraid of looking weak on bombing Muslim women and children, the goddamn fucking war criminals.
"The 2006 elections are about to heat up in earnest and we have the chance to show our best stuff!"
Which is what? The progressives view all other Americans as so out of touch as to be without rights? That progressives are so fixated on one small moment in history that they're going to insist that everyone write "I'M SORRY" on the blackboard five hundred times?
If the only people voting in 2006 were progressives I'd say you had the right attitude. But given that others are also going to be voting - as they did in 2004 - I think you have exactly the wrong attitude. In fact, I can't think of a worse attitude to bring to the Democratic Party than the kind of smug, self-righteous, sanctimonious "I Was Right" snobbery that passes for politics on this blog.
Former Lefty,
THings have gotten pretty bad when you call terrifying Americans who are already devastated by the events of 9/ll/01, with lies about WMD, supporting a war against a weak nation, destroying their infrastructure, looting their museums, filling their country with depleted uranium weapons of American mass destruction, killing 25,000 human beings, 2000 American humans, countless injuries -- and you call objections to this self rightous.
You are not only a former lefty but someone who has allowed your values and morality to become thoroughly corrupted in the name of winning elections. You may not be self rightous but you are definitely not rightous.
And this is exactly why we lose and why the press can accuse the Democrats of not representing values.
The DLC wants us to welcome pro life candidates. Well guess what I do. Being against this criminal war is pro life.
Maybe it is just me: I learned to spot a phoney long ago, but I was never taken in by Bush's stories about why we had to attack Iraq. First of all, he never offered any evidence to prove it. JFK showed ariel photographs to the whole nation to prove his conclusion that the USSR was placing missiles in Cuba. Secondly when one "reason" didn't seem to wash, he thought up another one. This is a dead giveaway that it's all a scam. I am surprised so many people were fooled. Maybe citizens need to require proof of a conclusion before they accept and act on it.
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
