Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Democratically Controlled Congress Stands on the Brink of Irrelevance on Iraq

By Joshua Holland, AlterNet. Posted September 6, 2007.


The majority party is preparing to roll over, again, on Iraq.
09062007story
0906207story

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Nobel Laureate Slams the Bible, Calls It "A Catalogue of Cruelties"
Mario de Queiroz

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
As Foreclosure Nightmares Increase, Will More Homeowners Pay Off Their Bankers in Violence?
Scott Thill

DrugReporter:
Lies About Marijuana Drive People to a Much More Harmful Drug -- Booze
Steve Fox

Environment:
Why Max Baucus' 'No' Vote on the Climate Bill May Really Help Its Passage
Jeff Mcmahon

Food:
Despite Censorship By Beef Magnate, Michael Pollan Spreads Message About the Real Price of Cheap Food

Health and Wellness:
Do We Really Want to Enshrine Insurance Monopoly into Law? This and 5 Other Complaints About the Health Bill
John Nichols

Immigration:
NYC Marathon Raises Question of Who Is American Enough?
James E. Johnson, Jr.

Media and Technology:
How Biased Media Can Brainwash You
Melinda Burns

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
4 Ways the Stupak Amendment Deprives Women of Access to Abortion
Jessica Arons

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Fetus-Shaped Potatoes? Going Undercover Inside the Weird World of Right-Wing Abortion Foes
Ann Neumann

Rights and Liberties:
"My Kids Want to Hide Their Identity; They're Scared Someone Will Attack Us": U.S. Muslims Being Targeted
Jaisal Noor

Sex and Relationships:
Instant Sex: Has the Digital Age Destroyed Relationships or Made Them Better?
Vanessa Richmond

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Why Natural Gas Is Not a Clean Energy Panacea
Stan Cox

World:
With Unemployment at 40 Percent, Afghan Teens Enlist in Army, Police
Lal Aqa Sherin

More stories by Joshua Holland

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Next week, Ryan Crocker, the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, and General David Petraeus, the army's counter-insurgency guru, will brief Congress on the Bush administration's claims of progress in Iraq. At stake is not only the upper hand in the political debate over the continuing occupation, but an enormous amount of money -- $147 billion -- that was supposedly conditioned on tangible measures of progress, specifically 18 "benchmarks" attached to the 2007 supplemental spending bill.

According to a report by the non-partisan Government Accountability Office (GAO), only three of those benchmarks have been met, and those were among the minor ones (The White House has promised to "water down" the GAO's findings). In addition to rampant insecurity throughout much of the country, Iraq's political situation is, objectively, a disaster, and most Iraqis agree that U.S. troops cause more violence than they prevent.

But despite the reality on the ground, the administration last week threw a Hail-Mary pass, announcing that it would ask for another $50 billion for war-fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan through next Spring. That's in addition to $147 billion already requested for the two countries.

There's no reason to believe the administration won't get it -- consider how many times congressional Democrats have uttered some variant of "It's time we stopped giving Bush a blank check for Iraq" as they signed a series of blank checks for Iraq. Bush has proved that he can continue moving the goalposts again and again without being called on it by the media, and Congress has shown that it will let him, even eight months after the Democratic take-over of Capitol Hill.

It has become a game. The reality is that there is no $50 billion supplemental, and there won't be for several weeks (if at all this year). The stories about the new funding request are White House "plants," announced on the eve of the much-anticipated Iraq progress report in order to show confidence in the face of waning public support for the occupation and, more importantly, to divert the national conversation from the failure of the troop escalation -- a failure that should lead to a debate about how to exit Iraq with the minimum of damage -- to a new debate about whether higher troop levels should remain until next spring. You don't have to look too hard to see the goalposts moving.

It's much like the surge itself, a stop-gap measure that nobody seriously believed had a chance of changing the ugly situation in Iraq. It was, however, spectacularly successful in distracting the country from its post-election discourse about ending the occupation, focusing instead on the now-familiar argument that war opponents should wait until September's progress report. At that point, the tacit understanding was that Congress would rise up and demand an end to the war if the 18 benchmarks weren't met. Now that September is here, we're supposed to focus on the next shiny object.

The Democrats are reacting to this charade by conceding the battle before it begins, with Michigan's Carl Levin offering to remove a deadline from the amendment he and Jack Reed, D-R.I., co-sponsored (the deadline was already riddled with loopholes) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid offering to "compromise" with Senate Republicans by dropping his already watered-down demand for a spring "withdrawal."

As Dick Durbin, the senate majority whip, told the Chicago Tribune, "When it comes to the budget, I face a dilemma that some of my colleagues do." He opposes the war, but "felt that I should always provide the resources for the troops in the field."

That mean throwing good money (and lives) after bad. Here's the reality of the "surge":

  • Iraqi civilian and U.S. and Iraqi military and police deaths are up

  • The Iraqi government is tottering, and there is credible talk of an impending coup

  • The Iraqi people, still without regular electricity and water and fearing for their lives whenever they go out to buy groceries, want the United States out

  • 40 percent of the middle class has fled the country


For more details, see "A Preview to General Petraeus' DC Dog-and-Pony Show" in AlterNet's War on Iraq special coverage.

What all this means is that unless the Democratic majority makes a dramatic turnaround and stops playing along with the White House -- a risky move, but one that's within their Constitutional authority -- they, along with the entire institution, will no longer be relevant voices in the debate over Iraq.

Consider, after all, that the "Petraeus" report is being prepared by the White House; that Petraeus is a reliable partisan who's inspired talk of a GOP presidential run and who wrote an op-ed on the eve of the 2004 elections in which he promised that the momentum was shifting in Iraq and said that local security forces were improving every day; that Petraeus has said that he "softened" the intelligence community's assessment of the security situation in Baghdad, while he's told people privately that he needs ten years to put down the insurgency.

That Congress is treating the report as a serious and impartial analysis of the situation in Iraq is essentially an acknowledgment that the Republicans have a working majority on issues of war and peace, regardless of the fact that the Democrats control the agenda. Significant majorities of Democrats have voted to end the occupation (to one degree or another) on different occasions so far, and each time one or two dozen "Bush Dog" Democrats crossed the aisle to kill the efforts to get out of Dodge.

We're seeing a caucus that is controlled by fear -- fear that the hawks who were responsible for the disaster in Iraq will shift the blame their way; fear that arguing against U.S. militarism will make them look like wimps, or traitors, in the eyes of voters; fear that they'll be proven disastrously wrong and be held responsible for the often fancifully exaggerated consequences of ending the occupation that the hawks whisper about in excited tones; terror that the wrong move could cost them the electoral advantage that everyone agrees they'll have in 2008 or, worse, prompt a right-wing backlash like that which ushered in the Reagan/Bush era after Vietnam.

But calling out the Democrats for their feckless support of the occupation isn't enough. Opponents of the war face a perfect political storm in DC that transcends party politics.

The backdrop is a presidential race in which the leading Democrats appear to be intent on proving that they can match their opponents' mindless belligerence, and the leading Republicans feel that they have no choice but to embrace Bush's war or face the wrath of GOP primary voters.

The debate has also been influenced by a massive propaganda campaign that's allowed the White House and its backers to claim success in Iraq out of thin air. As Greg Sargeant pointed out in a must-read item, if one looks at "the totality of media's performance this summer on the Iraq debate, it becomes a good deal clearer just how awful it's all been -- and just how complicit these failings were in helping to shift the debate" on the Iraq "surge."

CBS Evening News' anchor Katie Couric said this week of Iraq: "We hear so much about things going bad, but real progress has been made there in terms of security and stability." The contrast between Couric's bubbly credulity and Walter Cronkite's famous 1968 broadcast in which he concluded of the Vietnam war that the US was "mired in stalemate" couldn't be more pronounced.

At the end of the day, Washington's strategic class is frozen, unable to concede defeat because to admit that the U.S. project in Iraq has failed is to admit that in the 21st century, the most powerful country in the history of humanity can be humbled by a small dysfunctional state whose armed forces it destroyed more than a decade earlier, a country that it spent 12 years slowly and leisurely strangling under some of the harshest sanctions in history before shocking and awing it a second time, dismantling its government and hanging its erstwhile dictator in the process.

To admit that is to beg the question of whether maintaining all that costly hard power is really worth it in the first place. Leaving Iraq means begging the question of whether America is comfortable with its neocolonial policies, and that's a debate that Bush -- like every imperial-minded U.S. president since Thomas Jefferson -- wants desperately to avoid.

Ultimately, while Congress is sidelining itself on the most important issue of our time, it will be the Iraqis -- Iraqis from across the country's political spectrum -- who will eventually force a U.S. withdrawal, either by negotiation or by violence, just as they kicked out the Brits before us and the Turkmen, Ottomans and Safavids before them. The tragedy is that a little bit of courage on the part of our own law-makers could go a long way towards making that inevitable withdrawal a lot less painful than it is likely to be.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: iraq, democrats

Joshua Holland is an AlterNet staff writer.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Cupie Cutie Journalism
Posted by: gazooks on Sep 6, 2007 2:25 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The "coincidental" presence of Katie Cupie during Bush's "secret" visit illustrates well the collusion of major media, in this case CBS with the Administration's objectives. They can't reign in their Chief Foreign Correspondent, she's too high profile now and it would be a bit too obvious why to dump her. So, trump her with mighty Cupie! Right.

CBS's Lara Logan, the most credible, courageous, and committed, network journalist currently, (she can't help it if she's beautiful), who regularly has CBS editors shitting their pants and censoring her reports due to their persistently accurate content contradicting the bullshit from the co-opted ranks of virtually all other reporters from major commercial sources.

Bush was giving away the game invoking VietNam. Like with Nixon's "Peace With Honor" it will take the best part of the next decade or longer, if ever, for the US to extract.

By then, there may be no "free press" left at all, and a Baghdad in Brooklyn.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The actual series of events on 911 Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» RE: Cupie Cutie Journalism Posted by: Lauren
Great Article!
Posted by: MindyB on Sep 6, 2007 2:29 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well said! How can every member of Congress get a copy of your article on their desk? I think your analysis is very much to the point, and something our elected idiots need to see.

Although the article may be "too long" for the short minded elected idiots, you didn't use many "big" words, which can mean that at least those few with some brain matter in their skulls might just understand the important points you address.
Thanks! Please send this to Congress!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Great Article! Posted by: bikerdude
STOP THE WARS: CONGRESS MUST END THE FUNDING
Posted by: michaelo on Sep 6, 2007 3:29 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
STOP THE WARS: CONGRESS MUST END THE FUNDING
A SIT-IN WITHIN THE HOUSE - FILIBUSTER IN THE SENATE

Its Pentagon budget time in Congress and its time for the members of the House and Senate who claim to represent the best interests of the people of the United States, who claim to oppose Bush’s military globalization policy to show up and put up. Failing to stop “the surge,” failing to pursue a cut-off of funds, and failing to proceed with impeachment, the Democrats have failed the American people who put them in the majority: they are dancing the dance of cowards.

A new strategy is necessary: the activist citizens of the United States must demand that the Democratic leadership in the Congress and Senate of the United States immediately begin a sit-in within Congress and a filibuster in the Senate until funds for the war in Iraq are cut-off and the President and Vice President are forced to swear off on a war against Iran.

See Story at linked text

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

When the truth hurts.
Posted by: Sojourner on Sep 6, 2007 4:35 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The congressional votes to get change in Iraq do not exist. The Senate does not have the 60 to stop debate and force a vote. The Demo majority in the House is too thin to guarantee anything. Bad news from the field, and by all measures it is bad news, is not enough to provoke citizen resistance.

Guess what? The incompetence of the American electorate to choose the leadership we need has now been matched by the incompetence of the leadership we chose. We have been fooled because we are fools.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: But don't let it hurt you. Posted by: Sojourner
» RE: But don't let it hurt you. Posted by: ray burchard
» RE: you let it Posted by: Lauren
» RE: When the truth hurts. Posted by: Jeanne
the focus shouldn't be on the funding, it should be on the lives that will continue to be lost
Posted by: Suzon on Sep 6, 2007 4:51 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
as long as the occupation continues. Funding is such an innocuous word, bland and technological.

Stanley Milgram found that people involved in harming others find psychological refuge in discussing the technology or methodology involved. (This can be seen in discussions of what constitutes torture or chemical warfare.)

Mightn't better decisions be made if we turned all House and Senate buildings over to the guys in Walter Reed?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We Need Help and Now is a Strategicly Opportunistic time
Posted by: MAT2 on Sep 6, 2007 5:04 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i just signed the most recent moveOn.org petition to our elected reps regarding the upcoming debate on war funding. This action like many others locally and nationwide are great and earnest efforts to bring about some positive change or end our current military, political and societal quagmires.

the main problem we as members of the activist communities have is that we put a great deal of effort and commitment into our actions but often the ultimate results of our actions are not strong enough to alter the fundamental root issues causing the various scenarios of desperation and conflict locally and globally. the solution is two fold:

1) we have not yet gained the support of masses; it's a numbers game and we don't have enough people who are both informed and active in being catalysts of change. fortunately, we have a great opportunity on the dawning horizon. as many of you realize, there is a great and rising number of disaffected citizens here in the US. these are the people who we need to get on board because they have, perhaps, the greatest motivation to create change. i'm referring to the economically depressed, culturally repressed, racially oppressed and the emotionally demoralized. these are the folks who are suffering the worst consequences of the 'me' society and are need of most hope.

i'm also talking about the folks in 'generation next' who are starting to learn from the mistakes of society and their parents; they also tend to have more conscious communication skills. we can help inspire the segment of this population who are still held complacent by fear or ignorance, but still have a sense of hope. Typically, this population and the disaffected population are folks who have more time to put towards actions/initiatives if given the resources. these are the people who we need to recruit and provide resources of action to.

2) the peace and progressive movements are fragmented, in conflict with each other and fail to reflect united presence and therefore fail to inspire a broad sense of confidence to motivate folks into actively joining in the many efforts that exist. i have am experimenting with an idea that may help give iconographic and visible presence of unity while supporting the concept of individual and group democratic opinion and freedom of choice. i'd hope that there are other folks out there who are also paying attention to this to this critical issue. if we want to bring the best out of our nation, we have got to find a way to come together to most efficiently utilize our energies.

my personal statement from the moveOn petition:

Clearly, any continued or further military aggression by the U.S. in Iraq and the middle east, in particular, will further undermine our national security and continue to widen the gap of conflicting interests among governments, religious institutions and global class structures. The more conflicts there are, fear and oppression there will be at home and abroad.

If you facilitate this process with selfish intent or complacency, you will be responsible for ushering in a new era characterized by a continued diminution of global prosperity, sustainability, the ability to live humane lifestyles and peaceful resolution of conflict among individuals, communities, cultures, religions, races and governments.

Of course, should this looming dark era become reality, the probable global societal reaction will be creation of the permanent police state. I sincerely hope that your better judgment and sense of humanity will prevail in your upcoming decision-making on my behalf.
-sb MyAmericaToo

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why not make an offer they have to refuse?
Posted by: votingvet on Sep 6, 2007 5:13 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What if Reid and Levin and the rest create a bill to raise taxes to provide the $50 billion (and also to pay for the $500 billion the neocons have already stolen under the guise of this "war")? I'm serious, now. Just write up the bill, raise the taxes of the top 5% -- especially the Paris-Hilton trust fund rich who pay only 15% of their capital gains -- to 50%, kick in another 10% for the next echelon, and 5% for the next, and so on.

And tell Bush that if he doesn't sign the g--d--- bill into law, he gets nothing, not a cent, not a sou, for his war.

He won't sign it, of course, but, jeebus crispy!, it would make a point that even Fox's dregs would have a hard time missing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
Democrats and Empire-lite
Posted by: peacelf on Sep 6, 2007 5:17 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I see article after article like this. A break down of what the Dems didn't do and a sense of shock that they refuse to cut off funding. No mention of empire till the last paragraphs.

How much longer will it take before Dem supporters realize that the Congress they voted for IS NOT going to get us out of Iraq. With the exception of presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich and a handful of Congress, Dems are just as much entrenched in imperial politics as their more blatant counterparts, the Repubs.

I think we all easily forget that it was seven years of Clinton era sanctions against Iraq that killed a half million people, many children, in Iraq. A greatly weakened Iraq made it possible for the U.S. Desert Storm forces to invade Iraq and gain control in two weeks.

And, now, everyone seems surprised when they learn Hillary is not going to completely withdraw our troops if she becomes president. She refuses to set a time table because she needs to keep her imperialist options open.

I guess it's difficult to face up to the fact that we all benefit from empire and neocolonization, so we soften our arguments because we know that without the U.S. exploitation of (both U.S. and Third World) workers and resources we pay world market prices for oil and goods.

All I'm saying is let's call it what it is (Imperialism) and lets take the timber out of our own eye before we remove the specks from our leaders.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You are right, and Posted by: socialpsych
» Sure, hope it helps. Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» RE: Sure, hope it helps. Posted by: Lauren
The Neocon Party has two arms: Republican and Democrat
Posted by: LMNOP on Sep 6, 2007 5:18 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's high time to stop thinking of the Democrats as anything other than the other arm of the Republican Party, the only party making policy in American government. We should refer to the Democrats and Republicans as the Neocon Party to avoid confusion or perpetuate the illusion of a two-party system or a democracy.

What possible defensible answer is there for the Democrats to the question of why they are aiding and abetting the felonious neocons? And why is nobody asking the question?

Since Nancy "Benedict Arnold" Pelosi and the Democrats first disavowed their constitutional duty to present a check and balance to the now nearly Unitary Executive, I have wondered why even liberal America seems to have rolled over and acquiesced to the reality of Democrats consorting with the enemies of the Constitution, accepting some lame explanation of their weakness as legislators or their instinct for political self-preservation.

Bullshit! The Democratic Party is playing the same role in this drama as the corrupt cops that have been bought off by the mob and turn their back to the mob's criminal activity.

The American left (which, incidentally, no longer includes the Democratic Party) is in effect nonexistent. And the American people are no longer a factor. Clearly, nothing that the American people want matters to this government. So, why do we continue thinking about the Democrats like they are on our side? The Democrats are no more interested in democracy or the

The Democrats are reacting to this charade by conceding the battle before it begins, with Michigan's Carl Levin offering to remove a deadline from the amendment he and Jack Reed, D-R.I., co-sponsored (the deadline was already riddled with loopholes) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid offering to "compromise" with Senate Republicans by dropping his already watered-down demand for a spring "withdrawal."

Obviously, nothing will change no matter how many petitions are signed, protests staged, or Democrats elected. So, first, recognize that the Democrats are the Vichy regime to the Republicans Nazis. They are your mortal enemies, not your salvation.

And second, if the American left cannot organize itself into a competitive political entity (new party) that can win elections in sufficient numbers to control the agenda, then you'd better get used to a conservative oligarchy populated by aristocrats not subject to law whose purpose is to rob and otherwise exploit you, or to getting the flock out of this third world banana republic on steroids.

So, let's not talk about getting the Democrat's attention or cooperation. They're not interested in you or in limiting this war. And let's not talk about the mistakes being made in Iraq. The plan is to create a quagmire that funnels our tax dollars (and only we, the middle class, pay the nation's bills since the Bush tax restructuring) to cronies. That is apparently the plan. Petitioning to the Democrats is a waste of time. They are the enemy, too.

Is there any doubt that Petreus will lie and say that the surge is working despite failing almost all criteria supposedly established by the turncoat Democrats, and that they will accept the lies and lack of progress, then give Bush whatever he asks for? Is there ANY DOUBT? If not, why are we talking about looking to the Democrats?

That Congress is treating the report as a serious and impartial analysis of the situation in Iraq is essentially an acknowledgment that the Republicans have a working majority on issues of war and peace, regardless of the fact that the Democrats control the agenda.

What does this tell us?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» It Tells Us That Money Talks Posted by: farmertx
» You cannot polish a turd Posted by: LMNOP
» Forget revolution Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: Forget revolution Posted by: Lauren
Petraeus: ten more years ?
Posted by: DrXyzzy on Sep 6, 2007 5:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
According to Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, General Petraeus has already said the U.S. will be in Iraq 9-10 [more] years - video here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» General Zaius Posted by: LMNOP
War is a big government program
Posted by: BJT on Sep 6, 2007 5:52 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's important to note that wars are big-government programs. The philosophy that you can reshape the world with government force is something the Neo-Cons learned from Woodrow Wilson (D), Franklin Roosevelt (D), and Lyndon Johnson (D). I would not expect a Democratic Congress or a Democratic President to be significantly anti-war. They believe too much in the philosophy that government is the best means by which to solve society's problems.

That is why I advocate Ron Paul. Don't get me wrong, I like it when I hear guys like Obama or Kucinich say things about getting out of the Middle East and ending the war, but I find Ron Paul the most convincing because his anti-war stance is firmly rooted in his overall philosophy, which he has held consistently and has written about in great detail over the years (Ron Paul Library).

I do happen to be a libertarian, or a paleoconservative, or whatever you want to call it. I believe that the poor are best taken care of when you empower them to dig their own way out. By ending corporate welfare, and putting an end to the draconian taxes on the poor and middle class imposed by the IRS, and returning to a monetary system that motivates savings and fiscal responsibility rather than ever-escalating debt, we can create a society that has practically eliminated poverty.

Ron Paul is the only one I feel I can trust to carry out that kind of freedom-based agenda.

Once again, that agenda comes necessarily with an anti-war stance, because there is no reason to saddle the American people, the middle class, the poor, and the economy in general with an expensive war and an expensive far-flung empire.

(This post was not paid for by any campaign. I'm just a guy in South Bend trying to win a few minds.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Oh NO..Another Ron Paul Advertisement! Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» The Fed is not a goverment entity. Posted by: Illiteratilumen
The Democratic Leaders
Posted by: swissliberal on Sep 6, 2007 6:01 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
try desperately to avoid the presidency. And if they try hard enough they will succeed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Democratic Leaders Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: The Democratic Leaders Posted by: Lauren
Ron Paul is the only candidate who will give us freedom
Posted by: Maggieb on Sep 6, 2007 6:06 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Loved the above post because Ron Paul's voting record proves his stance on ending this invasion and giving us our rights back. His message is so clear I fear it is too simple, since most posters here are just loyal to blindness and cannot cross that line.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

johngary
Posted by: johngary on Sep 6, 2007 6:18 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Republicans are more clever that the Democrats by a factor of ten.
The following is their obviously deeply thought out game plan, part of which was revealed by George W's recent off the cuff remark, commenting how he was gaming the next election.
First Republicans in their plan concede the fact that they will lose the '08 election.
So, they are positioning the Democrats into being in power when we suffer an ingnominious defeat in Iraq. That is the brilliant idea behind all this stalling and deceitful propoganda that things are actually getting better.
The Republican political strategy centers around blaming the defeat on the new '08 Democratic President and Congress.
After the '08 election and ingnominious withdrawal, they will go on an unending media propagand campign hamering how weak the Democrats are on National Defense, and how they lost the War WHICH THEY, THE REPUBLICANS WERE ON THE VERGE OF WINNING, how the Democrats are about to lose the War on Terrorism, and how badly this Country needs Repbulican strong military leaderhip against the horror of the War on terrorism.
In '08 they will have passed the hot potato of THEIR defeat in Iraq to the Democrats and assurred themeselves of at least another 20 years of control and if sucesful a total neo-con dictatorship.
Score one for the genius of the neo-cons and their Goebbel like popagandists!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: johngary Posted by: Lauren
» RE: johngary Posted by: Constitutionalist75
Fresh Peace for the Middle East
Posted by: metamind on Sep 6, 2007 6:23 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's time to re-visit the ideas in this 37 min. video which I produced for my Senate campaign last year. Impeachment is not merely a good idea ... it is a requirement to end the occupation of Iraq. We need to hear the truth. It's not about removing the President and Vice-president. It's about "setting the truth free."

The Republicans want an endless occupation of Iraq. That's why there has been very little "political progress." They are focused on military domination of the region and "capital conquest" in Iraq.

Please forward this to others. Almost 5,000 people have watched this. The ideas are excellent and need to be heard by the people.

We need a new strategy in Iraq.

Steve Moyer
http://stevemoyer.us

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ruling Class Isolation
Posted by: lonl on Sep 6, 2007 6:48 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Democrats' unwillingness to fight the Republicans on the war is not a matter of fear of isolation before the electorate.

Rather it is their imperialist backers' unwillingness to drop the imperial project in the middle east, short of being forced out by military losses and/or massive unrest at home. The US' imperialist ruling class still clings to the hope that it can bring off further generations of world dominance even as that project becomes more and more untenable. In pursuit of this aim it has resorted to unprecedented levels of managed news and coordination of the two "mainstream" (read "primary imperialist") parties' war policies.

All this is perfectly clear to more people than ever before. What doesn't seem to be that clear is that the main way US citizens can make a difference at this time is by being in the streets, as during the resistance to the Vietnam war.

The Sept. 15 action in Washington, sponsored by a number of grass roots organizations including Iraq Veterans Against the War, looks like a good place for any number of us to resume, continue or join in with that resistance.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

changes to FISA
Posted by: drblack on Sep 6, 2007 7:31 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When the Dems allowed the tyrannical soviet style changes to FISA that is when they became republicans...by stealing American Freedom and ignoring the Constitution.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why the surprise?
Posted by: zooeyhall on Sep 6, 2007 7:42 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't see why all the surprise and wailing about being betrayed by the Democrats, on the part of Progressive sites like Alternet, about the Democratic party's wimpiness on confronting the Iraq war fiasco.

After all, the Democrats were chanting the war cry as loudly as the Republicans back in 2003.

Also--many Democrats are benefiting just as much as the Republicans from war profiteering.

I really hate to break it to the people who placed so much hope in the Democratic party: you are in denial. The Democrats are just as much keyed into the corporate power structure as the Republicans.

There is no opposition party in the U.S. anymore. We need a viable third party now more than ever.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Why the surprise? Posted by: outsideagitator
» RE: Forget about parties Posted by: Techubus
» RE: Why the surprise? Posted by: Conservasaurus
The Virtue of Selfishness and Greed
Posted by: shangrilalad on Sep 6, 2007 8:01 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Virtue of Selfishness and Greed

Ronald Wilson Reagan was a living god to millions who needed a living god. He affirmed and praised their core values of racism, intolerance, selfishness and greed to the point of turning them into virtues. It was an easy sell because millions with covert disdain for Christian Values had been awaiting a new hardheaded, tough-love messiah. A Conservative Republican God who would scourge the land of liberals, egalitarianism, compassion and reason. Reagan was all that and more.

Reagan also appealed to fierce armchair religious warriors eager to smite dark-skinned welfare cheats and communists everywhere, in the name of god and the bottom line. Never a warrior himself, though he pretended to be, Reagan lived by backstabbing, cunning and stealth. A power-lusting smiling charmer, he sent death squads south of the border to murder peasant farmers who thought they could choose their own form of government. Following a century long tradition of hysterical anti-Socialism, he preached the state religion of Capitalism, approved by Almighty Plutocrats.

Anti-Communist to the core, he preached a dogma based on the Domino Theory, a belief that Communists were trying to take over the world one country at a time, by force. Which is exactly what America was doing under the banner of Capitalism and Democracy. Yes, peasant farmers were rebelling all over the world, and still are thanks to Capitalism.

Fear and hatred of socialism is so deeply ingrained in the American psyche, it’s faith based, unconscious, and unrecognized as irrational. Selfishness and Greed are so appealing, they sweep aside all other concepts, like Christianity.

.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Last November
Posted by: willymack on Sep 6, 2007 8:19 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Many of us were placing our hopes and voting our opinions on those who we thought would rescue us from a dictatorial regime, headed straight down the shute(and taking us all with them), only to find out that we'd been bamboozeled by traitors who were "Democrats" in name only! No wonder rove and his suckass buddies were giggling on the eve of the "election"! One sad lesson from this tragedy is this: Even if the "election" results can't be rigged, the "opposition" can-and just as effectively. Does ANYBODY out there still think we're living in a free country?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Last November Posted by: gregii
» RE: Last November Posted by: outsideagitator
If I've said or posted this once...
Posted by: sausage on Sep 6, 2007 8:25 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
By now people may be getting tired of my response to the situation in Iraq but it is simply the truth of the matter, as I see it.

American forces will never leave Iraq until, and unless, one of two events occurs: Either a defeat in detail of U.S. forces by the Iraqi insurgents, or a mutiny by a majority of U.S. troops against an illegal order.

I hear and read rumors that our soldiers and marines in Iraq are close to mutiny but news accounts of low morale among the troops has been a constant almost since day-one. About the only "real" unit wide mutiny occured in October of 2004 when the Army Reserve 343rd Quartermaster Company... refused to drive seven unarmoured fuel tankers on what they considered a suicide mission.

Since then no reports of any combat unit refusing an order. Corporate media self-censorship? Perhaps. But I think not.

As for U.S. forces being defeated in battle by an insurgent force. Well, now, this is has possibilities. Why with all the "good news" coming out of Iraq's Anbar Province about the formation of a Sunni-dominated sepoy army and constabulary force, whatever could go wrong?

Obvioulsy the Brainiacs in the Pentagon and the White House forgot that: "[T]he men in the Republican Guard are mostly Sunni Muslims initially recruited from Hussein's home region of Tikrit." Tikrit is in Anbar Province. And Pentagon and White House Brainiacs also forgot, according to a May 04, 2003 report in Time by Terry McCarthy:The evidence that TIME's team collected indicates that relatively few members of the Republican Guard were actually killed in the fighting...In Baghdad, according to a high-ranking Republican Guard officer interviewed by TIME, troops were actually instructed to desert. So where did they go? Home to Anbar Province?

So elements of U.S. Marines and army are happily re-equipping and training the engine of their own destruction. Of course this may take years. After all the post-World War II anticolonialist wars of liberation were at the very least 50 to 100 years in the making.

And let us not forget the permanent military bases, as commented on by Norm Solomon at this Web site nearly two months ago.

And so I leave you with a couple of cheery thoughts:Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said he would like to ensure a long-term U.S. presence in the Middle East to fight al-Qaida and deter aggression from Iran.(Seattle Times.com, Sept 5, 2007)

...[I]f the issue (withdraw from Iraq) is framed as continuing a policy that has had military success(i.e. "security" in Anbar Province, s), the pressure will shift to the other side. [House Democratic Whip James] Clyburn conceded that if the issue were framed that way, he would have a hard time persuading Blue Dog Democrats to vote for withdrawal.(USNews and Word Report.com, Michael Barone, Sept. 2, 2007)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Huh?
Posted by: InsertNameHere on Sep 6, 2007 8:29 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What do you mean, '...stands on the brink...'? These guys have been watching the brink in their rear view mirrors for quite some time. In fact, they are in danger of lapping said brink.

Whatever corporate, self-serving hypocrite that the Democrats can muster to the presidency will immediately reverse themselves once in office and continue the Iraqi slaughter unabated. Guaranteed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not to worry boys. Just remember...
Posted by: TT5 on Sep 6, 2007 8:40 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the USSR:)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A Myth Called "Hit The Streets"
Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive on Sep 6, 2007 8:40 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The lawyers reading this post please correct me if I'm wrong!
The constant cry by our posters for those who want to change the system by "hitting the streets", or "sitins at Congress" have to examine the new laws on the books that prevent groups (2 to 30) of people from gathering or marching down a street...and they are numerous. Especially in DC.

Gatherings of more than 3 people with signs must obtain permits (iffy thing) and gather ONLY in designated places quite far from any major viewing place. The Cops just laugh when they see this. Arrests may still be made.

I suggest much larger crowds (100 plus) with signs and notices to the press/TV and expect arrests. To offset the cost, first collect money from those who want to back this demonstration. This allows for fines, travel, food.

My point... ORGANIZE then PROTEST!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

25ghostcommander
Posted by: 25ghostcommander on Sep 6, 2007 8:42 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First there was Baghdad Bob, then Baghdad McCain, Baghdad Lieberman, and now Baghdad Couric. Who will be the next Baghdad Bob?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The agenda of Empire in the Middle East, and the fake democracy at home:
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Sep 6, 2007 8:42 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is a very obvious solution: complete nationalization of Iraqi oil, including a major role for Iraqi oil unions. The U.S. military packs up and leaves, and a U.N. peacekeeping mission is sent in. Start diplomatic talks involving all of Iraq's neighbors - Saudi Arabia. Kuwait, Iran, Syria, Turkey, and Jordan.

More simply: the U.S. abandons its imperial agenda in the Middle East, the one that has shaped U.S. policy in the region ever since the end of WWII. Sounds inconceivable, doesn't it?

Let's take a look at these 'benchmarks for success' in the GAO report from Joshua's article:

"According to a report by the non-partisan Government Accountability Office (GAO), only three of those benchmarks have been met, and those were among the minor ones (The White House has promised to "water down" the GAO's findings)."

The main benchmark that the US Congress and the Bush Administration are so upset about, i.e. the reason Hillary and Levin called for the ouster of Maliki, is the hydrocarbon law, which hands control of Iraqi oil over to international oil corporations and the investment banks that control them. The vast majority of Congress is in alignment on this - the last thing they want is an independent Iraq in control of the world's second largest oil reserves. The vast majority of the coporate media is also in alignment on this.

Face it - it's no longer a domestic democracy that we live in, it's an imperial Empire whose survival is almost entirely based on control of global oil movements via economic or military pressures. The rise of the Bush Administration represents the transition from economic and covert military control to direct military control, along with the collapse of domestic democracy.

The Democratic leadership simply believes that they could do a better job of managing the Empire than the Republicans. They seem to be saying that if they had been running things, the 'benchmarks' would already have been passed, and they can point to their previous successes in Bosnia and Kosovo as evidence of this.

Again, see Ben Lando's piece for UPI: http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/61691/

Here's a quote from Kenneth Pollack, ex-CIA under Reagan Bush, ex-NSA under Clinton and Jr., and now at the Brookings Insitute, from his Iraq war propagada text, "The Threatening Storm":

""Although it is likely that deaths from an invasion would number in the high hundreds for U.S. military personnel and the high thousands for Iraqi civilians, if things did not work out the way we expected them to (a not infrequent occurrence in war), we might suffer several thousand American military personnel killed and several tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians killed. Of course, we could end up with a virtually painless victory if things worked out better than we expected, but we should go into this with our eyes open to the worst-case possibilities..." Yah.

Another choice quote: "Iraq retains a residual biological warfare program and a stockpile of filled munitions, almost certainly including missile warheads. It has also converted a number of L-29 jet trainers into unmanned aircraft that can disseminate both biological and chemical agents."

The same kind of BS about Iran is now being presented by the very same actors who were behind the lies about Iraqi WMDs - James Woolsey, Dick Cheney, conservative think tanks, and the corporate media.

Meanwhile, the imperial program in Iraq is proceeding, with support from all the Republicans and most of the Democrats - see Iraq to privatize electricity, UPI

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What does it say about
Posted by: veive on Sep 6, 2007 8:55 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
a Congress that allows the strongest contender ever for the worst president ever title to keep on having his way? Reid and Pelosi, Stand By YOUR Man. He sure as hell isn't OUR man.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

But You All Will Vote For Then Every 2 Years
Posted by: shinseiji on Sep 6, 2007 9:26 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Forgetting that the "lesser evil" grows ever greater with each succeeding election...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Troll Alert! Posted by: johngary66
Worst Congress in American History...!
Posted by: TJ-stars4peace on Sep 6, 2007 9:45 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Congress Demo-rats and fascist Republican hypocrite Taliban alike are useless and will allow Bush to attack Iran long before they can address or bring any real numbers of our Troops home from Iraq..

This will go down in history as the worst Congress in American history even worse than those in the pre-Civil war era..!

This Congress will allow and be a part of Americas ruin as the leading world power and the deaths of millions upon millions which will result after Bush's attack upon Iran and the worlds response to it..

Iraq, Iraq was just the pre-game show to this presidents urge and obsession to bring about Armageddon..

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Troll Alert! Posted by: johngary66
Gen. Petraeus Is Fixing To Betray us
Posted by: DennisDalrymple on Sep 6, 2007 9:47 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not only is Gen. Petraeus about to betray us and his oath to uphold the Constitution with his phony report sustaining Bush's Iraq policy, the US Congress is betraying the American electorate that placed them in the majority. It seems we'll have to double our efforts to throw more members out of Congress, including most of the presidential candidates.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What? General Betrayus? Posted by: Ripcord
Last Chance
Posted by: Constitutionalist75 on Sep 6, 2007 10:52 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Democrats refusal to impeach Cheney & Bush sounds the death knell of American democracy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Troll Alert! Posted by: johngary66
» RE: Troll Alert! Posted by: Constitutionalist75
Know or alledge? (knowledge!)
Posted by: alternetrose on Sep 6, 2007 11:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Our government and the malfunction of "for the people, by the people" clearly on display in Washington DC for all to watch, is explained in a new book by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt entitled The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy; sadly, a revealing document. I suggest reading this before you decide what must or can be done to produce change.

Meanwhile, seek out candidates whose political contributions are not traceable to AIPAC. The influence of this lobbyist movement is rampant in our government, throughout our political, military and the American corporate communities.

IF the American people support the candidacy of those who are part of the AIPAC community it is that they are ill-informed resulting from reliance on the press to tell them whom to vote for, and to inform them of the issues and solutions. Main stream media (check that- corporate media) will NOT.

Learning about candidates willing to bring change, in the form of returning our government to the people, is in the people's best interest, BUT this is NOT in the 'best' interest of corporate America, and is NOT in the best interest of the very wealthy or professional politicians.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

dick
Posted by: rtmyth on Sep 6, 2007 11:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The power elite want continuous war; they get it. Congress and the Admin are the power elite, along with ceos, special interest groups, lobbys, pacs, AIPAC, Forbes 400, etc. The masses have no influence.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: dick Posted by: outsideagitator
As democracy fails,
Posted by: Constitutionalist75 on Sep 6, 2007 12:35 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the former USA will probably devolve into spheres of corporate influence. The book of some years ago: "The Nine Nations of North America" by (Joel Garreau) described a number of regions that could logically become self-reliant and semi-independent, but instead it appears the corporations will try to carve up the continent and probably go to war against each other in the process, similar to what happened to Italy after the collapse of the Roman Empire. Horrors.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Screw the Petreus Report. Rattle Pelosi or we're screwed!
Posted by: common intelligence on Sep 6, 2007 12:41 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Any failure of the Demo.s to affect The Bush Regime lays on Nancy Pelosi. She has the "Gavel". She can put a stop to the whole "dog and pony show". So can impeaching Cheney.

All the opposition would have everyone believe Iraq needs the US to stablize massvie terror in and beyond Iraq. But we have to remember, Iraq's problems have been escalated and increased by the US. Saddam Hussein had a stability happening until Bush's vengence was accepted by congress. Sad that it was the way it was. But sadder yet that we have done more damage to Iraq and done more to increase instability than we have to stabilize it. National securty is a joke. We have less than we ever have. Freedom to move aound the world is thin.

Cutural differences will not and can not be changed for eons. It just will not happen less we drop the friggen "bomb". And the Republicans will never make the world accept or believe their doctine even at the demise of all of humanity.

In reality the reason for staying and being untold or mentioned at all, except when I report on the blogs is ECONOMY!

Our nation's economy depends on the trickle down/growth model which is ate the root of our "national security". This is what is ment by "our "national interest" (actually the corporate/capitalistic interest).

Without $50 billion dollars every three months being pumped into it and The fed dumpimping $200 Billion+ in fiat money there is noway to keep any semblance of "growth happening (they way the want it to).

Spending any of those kind of funds into the country domestically can't happen because China won't support it then!

This country is on the verge of economic collapse. Unless someone comes up with a plan for an alterative economic system, all of the Middle class will steadily be reduced to "2nd world " status. Now you all wondered where that was because we are are told of the 3rd world and assumed we were the 1st world, well prepair to be duped...opps, you already have been!

Point is War is currently the the only thing keeping the US financially alive ( at whose expense?!). Do you really think that Bernake is the boss and can manipulate the economy by throwing money (made from thin air) into the housing market and that will keep the economy going? Where to?

The BS continues...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

SPEAK THE TRUTH
Posted by: Missing Piece on Sep 6, 2007 2:18 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
WE ARE IN A RESOURCE WAR.

NO DEMOCRAT WILL PULL ALL THE TROOPS OUT BECAUSE WE NEED THAT OIL. LOOK WHAT HAPPEN TO CARTER WHEN HE TRIED TO WEEN US OFF OIL.

YOU BETTER BUCKLE UP BECAUSE REALITY IS ABOUT TO SHOW ITSELF TO US.

Peak oil by 2015 and your supporting the terrorists everytime you fill up. So don't get pissed when democrats don't pull the troops out unless your willing to stop using middle east oil. Research it and you will quickly figure out the the powerful have been worried about this since U.S. oil production peaked in the 70's. This is why the neocons took down the twin towers and most obviously world trade center 7. To get the americans to back occupying resource rich countries.

Just incase you still want to believe main stream media, (which tells us only what we want to hear to they can keep high ratings). Then let me restate the ugly truth:

Our government took us to war on false pretenses, even 9/11 was an inside job. They then used it to occupy afganistan so they could build a natural gas pipeline. Also to invade Iraq to privatize oil. If you think this is somehow horrible then think about what you would do to a politician that allowed gas to cost 20.00 dollars a gallon. Also think about how important oil is to our military. Take a long look in the mirror and ask yourself what your leaving to future generations. Only truth can make a democracy work.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: SPEAK THE TRUTH Posted by: Glennk1949
» RE: SPEAK THE TRUTH Posted by: Constitutionalist75
» RE: SPEAK THE TRUTH Posted by: Missing Piece
» RE: SPEAK THE TRUTH Posted by: Constitutionalist75
» RE: SPEAK THE TRUTH Posted by: Missing Piece
» RE: SPEAK THE TRUTH Posted by: Constitutionalist75
Personal legal ramifications - Accessory to War Crimes
Posted by: mgloraine on Sep 6, 2007 3:21 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Elements of this Bush administration deliberately, premeditatedly, started this war using known fabrications regarding WMD. Every aspect of this war of invasion and conquest for profit has been thoroughly despicable, but it has also been illegal in every respect. Every death resulting from this conflict has been a murder for which George W. Bush and Dick Cheney need to be held personally responsible. Every penny squandered on this boondoggle has been a theft for which Bush and Cheney must pay, starting by having their ill-gotten family fortunes including all secret offshore accounts confiscated.

Of course, there's plenty of blame to go around, and all of the gargoyles and toadies who are taking their share of the stolen money and retiring to their ranches (Rove, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, Tenet, Jeb Bush, George H.W. Bush, Sandra Day O'Connor, and all the other scum-bags) are clearly accomplices who also need to be arrested and relieved of their stolen personal wealth. And then they must answer for the death and mayhem they have unleashed against humanity with War Crimes Trials.

Congressional collaborators at this late date are ignoring the obvious daily atrocities while conducting business as usual, haggling over earmarks and other pork-barrel issues while our sons and daughters and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis die for NOTHING. This is criminal negligence at best and active aiding-and-abetting in its more common form, Dems joining in the feeding frenzy along with the instigators.

But nothing will stop any of them (Congress or BushCo) as long as there are no negative legal repercussions for any individuals. Every last one of them will blame someone else and no one will be held responsible for the biggest crime spree since Hitler and Stalin.

The looming shadow of War Crimes trials must be brought to bear to bring Congress' priorities in line. There needs to be the very real prospect of going to jail and losing all personal property for everyone involved in starting this war in the first place, coupled with a very real probability of accomplices after the fact facing serious penalties as well. Congress-people continuing to feed the Crime with more and more money are those accessories after the fact, casually trading human lives for money and power, just like Bush and Cheney.

Little George said "If you're not with us, you're against us!"

Well, it's time for the people to say to Congress: "If you're not against him, you're with him!", and let them know that not only will they not be re-elected, but they will be (or should be) held accountable for the same crimes as BushCo, as accomplices.

This is NOT business as usual - the future of our country depends on our credibility as a nation of Constitutional law, and that credibility can only be restored by actually resuming the Constitutional processes which were suspended when the Bush Crime Family seized power.

We need War Crimes indictments underway ASAP!! Who is supposed to be handling that??

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

IT'S TIME FOR THE TRUTH
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Sep 6, 2007 3:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At some point we have to bringour military home. We are going to leave a mess, no doubt about it. But there has been no real progress. It has to get worse before it gets better. It's in the nature of the war that Bush started. More useless strategies and $$ won't make any difference. We should get it over with and if all the politicians have red faces, so be it. We can't allow our men and women to get killed so people can get re-elected and not be embarassed. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: IT'S TIME FOR THE TRUTH Posted by: Constitutionalist75
» IT'S ALWAYS TIME FOR THE TRUTH Posted by: mgloraine
» RE: IT'S ALWAYS TIME FOR THE TRUTH Posted by: Constitutionalist75
This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
stands on the brink?
Posted by: orwellwasn'tdreaming on Sep 6, 2007 5:36 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'd say that just before abandoning Washington for the August recess, they did a swan dive with a two-and-a-half gainer and then belly-flopped into the sludge.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Could it be......
Posted by: Conservasaurus on Sep 6, 2007 6:42 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the dems, when faced with reality, as opposed to election rhetoric where they beat their chest and promise the world, actually see the problem and issues a bit more clearly, and accurately ... and what the actual cost of cut and run will bring, and how feasible it isn't... as anyone with half a brain knew, the dems are still politicians which means you cannot believe ANYTHING they promise.. It's business as usual!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Troll Alert!!! Posted by: johngary66
» RE: Troll Alert!!! Posted by: Constitutionalist75
» RE: Troll Alert!!! Posted by: Conservasaurus
What's the point?
Posted by: 2FedUp on Sep 6, 2007 7:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What was the point of the recent landslide elections for dems if they aren't going to have the courage to do anything to combat the runaway neocon madness which has gripped our country? No need to wonder why there's voter apathy. The only congressman who has showed any "nads"or statesmanship is Dennins Kucinich, but of course he's unelectable because of what? His height? His suits? I wish more people would listen to what they say rather than how the corrupt media ignores or portrays them. American politics is a lost cause, and has been for a long time. American citizens don't want to participate in an effective manner. Most would rather simply respond to blogs & wipe their hands of the historical and crucial issues of our day, thinking they've done their job. But the fact is, the only people who read this bull**** aren't the ones who can effect meaningful change. We're just the whiners. Get off your dead asses and demandingly write to you representatives. If the whole of us who really want change did this, it might make a difference, but I doubt that will happen. We deserve what we refuse to act upon. The next thing, of course is a war with Iran. Is that what you want? I'm sick of this murderous regime.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Anyway it is too late to save this country
Posted by: zyclop on Sep 6, 2007 10:54 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So, in my opinion as a Non-US citizen the best the Democrats could do is really cave in to everything the GOP Neocon Government is asking for AND have no one running for the President job.
Let the Republican Party wreck this country all by themselves.
Thus the Democrats would avoid getting any blame for the impending disaster.
hint: "nucular" devices over time in several major cities.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Troll Alert! Posted by: johngary66
Francis
Posted by: Francis on Sep 7, 2007 6:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When it comes to ME policy, there is only one party in Washington and that is AIPAC. AIPAC says crush Iran. End of discussion. I challenge anyone to cite evidence of democracy in "our" government's operations. There are military officers in Israel who possess more influence over our war plans than do entire regions of American voters. Face it, we are in the throes of a criminal element and there is no getting out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Little Powerless AIPAC Posted by: opeluboy
» Troll Alert! Posted by: johngary66
» Troll Alert! Posted by: johngary66
» JERK ALERT !!! Posted by: Constitutionalist75
gathaiga
Posted by: gathaiga on Sep 8, 2007 7:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The brink" hell, they are over the edge and still falling.....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

luzmejor
Posted by: luzmejor on Sep 8, 2007 8:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Making Congress ineffectual has long been a dream of Republican businessmen and politicians. What better way to accomplish that than by starting another war that grinds on and on, just like the war in Vietnam did!

Republicans treat American government the way they treat their own wives and children. They are the last legal vestiges of an increasingly powerless class that is nevertheless believed to be treated equally with the privileged aging white males they are handcuffed to by law and custom.
Amid all the hysteria about "sanctity" of marriages and the need for men to lead their families is the greater philosophy of the plantation owner's right to treat all other citizens as a legal ward of the closest owner of the land, township, and state they inhabit.

Just as the President gets ready to declare his putative "Divine right of the King," we the people are waking up to their intentions to declare everyone else politically irrelevant.

We have to choose now between temporarily feeling "safe" from terrorists or fighting to retain the Constitution whose laws actually will keep us a free and Democratic society.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: luzmejor Posted by: Constitutionalist75
Just to set the record straight, however, I do HATE AIPAC and think they should be abolished.
Posted by: yellow on Sep 9, 2007 8:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I do think AIPAC does a huge disservice to Jews and the US. They are paranoid control freaks and their activities are fanatical. Attacking every single politician who breathes a word of criticism against Israel is bullshit. They should have to register as a foreign agent. But still they don't represent most Jews. There is such a thing as a vocal minority. And it is usually an unfortunate thing. AIPAC is really an embarrassment.

But I am proud of the NYT. Just cuz they piss off the crackers!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Still NO accountability
Posted by: jontan88 on Sep 11, 2007 10:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Right has been extremely skillful about diverting the public and the media's attention away from the things that make them look bad. When Bush's AWOL issue was under scrutiny, they threw Dan Rather under the bus and the issue became Dan Rather rather than Bush's AWOL. With Iraq, they came up with "Forget about how we got here, let's discuss what to do about it." So Bush gets away scott free again. Free to damage the country and the constitution. No accountability, no justice. Now they want to push the war off to the next administration so the blame for the outcome will be off Bush. The question is, will we let him? The latest Zogby poll says that we probably will let him. Most Americans in that poll believe Petraeus. What a country...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement