Anyone Still Think Dems Are Serious About the Iraq War?

by David Sirota, Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 12:00:37 PM EST

It's pretty obvious that progressives and the public are being totally shut out of the Senate, and that they are allowing the war to go on - Matt

If anyone still thinks Democrats are even mildly close to respecting the mandate of the 2006 election and close to getting "serious" on the Iraq War, please see this:

"Democrats are considering cutting President Bush's $142 billion budget request for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan next year by $20 billion, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad said Thursday." - AP, morning of 3/1/07

VERSUS

"Just hours after floating the idea of cutting $20 billion from President Bush's $142 billion request for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan next year, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad was overruled by fellow Democrats Thursday. 'Our caucus feels strongly that we should go with the president's numbers' on 2008 war costs, Conrad said." - AP, afternoon of 3/1/07

I repeat my earlier assertion that Democrats are not serious about ending the war, or even trying to slow it down. The only thing they seem to be serious about doing is undermining the serious people like Jack Murtha in their midst, and doing a "kabuki dance" with the progressive movement whereby they pretend to be serious only to keep the progressive movement's resources flowing their way. In the process, they are very grossly embarrassing themselves and the people who worked so hard to deliver them a majority.

Update: The latest poll--from Fox no less--shows that a plurality of Americans are in favor of cutting off funding to end the war. Remarkable how such a politically suicidal position is also the most popular position in the country on Iraq.

Tags: appropriations, budget, Democrats, Iraq, Kent Conrad, supplemental, war funding (all tags)

  • 71 Comments
  • 0 recs
  • Share
  • Permalink

Comments

71 Comments

Shadow_head_small
not to raise a sore subject

but this kinda of bullshit is why I voted Nader in 2000.

by Carl Nyberg 2007-03-01 12:03PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: not to raise a sore subject

That's a surefire route to failure, as opposed to working through the primary process.

by Matt Stoller 2007-03-01 12:05PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: not to raise a sore subject

The anti-war movement played ball with the Dems in 2006 and it looks like the Dems played us.

by Carl Nyberg 2007-03-01 12:08PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: not to raise a sore subject

Um, no.  We knew what we were getting.

by Matt Stoller 2007-03-01 12:26PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: not to raise a sore subject

Well, I was hoping for SOME checks and balances.  I it's basically looking like "business as usual".

All we can do is keep trying to get the message out and expose the republican-lites that we all know are the problem.  We gotta get Senators and Reps NAMES on record... push push and push.

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2007-03-01 12:52PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: not to raise a sore subject

We got a lot of good antiwar progressives elected in the last election and it did change the house.  It just takes longer to change the senate because only 1/3 are up for election every 2 years.  

In order for third parties to work you have to change the winner take all system, and you will never do that with the republicans in office.

by Dameocrat 2007-03-01 12:40PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: not to raise a sore subject

Cause that's worked so well in that past... You want to have an effect? Deny them your vote altogether. Make sure they know it and make sure they will lose an election badly because of it. Then you'll have made your point. It's time to starve the establishment beast.

by SoulTim 2007-03-01 12:10PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: not to raise a sore subject

Losing in the general just moves them further to the right.

by fwiffo 2007-03-01 12:29PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Won't work


  If every single blog-reader in the country withholds his vote from the Democrats, and every single opponent of the war stays home on Election Day, and the Democrats lose a ton of races they would have won otherwise, the media narrative will be, "Hillary didn't bash gays hard enough."  And the Demn establishment will believe it.

 

by Master Jack 2007-03-01 01:26PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Won't work

Why must you focus on the worst-case scenario, when the best case scenario is that the Dems get the message, come back with determination, and we end the war sometime in 2011?  That's the absolute best we can hope for if our "strategy" is to throw the 2008 election.  It's a wonder more people aren't on board.

by Steve M 2007-03-01 01:32PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Won't work


  Did the Dems get the message in 2004?

 In the runup to the Iraq war, the Dems caved to the Republicans on EVERYTHING. Their reward was a bloodbath in the 2002 midterms.

 So, duly chastised, the Dems really did stand up to Bush in 2004, did they?

 Well, one of them did. He was dealt with in Iowa.

by Master Jack 2007-03-01 01:42PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Huh?

Russ Feingold didn't run in 2004

by Valatan 2007-03-01 03:56PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Dean

  He stood up to the pugs. The other Dems HATED that. And dealt with him accordingly.
by Master Jack 2007-03-01 04:02PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Dean

I know who you were talking about.  But Feingold's opposition to the war was a lot more meaningful, and much less noted, than Dean's.  

by Valatan 2007-03-01 04:11PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: not to raise a sore subject

Do you have to use a Grover Norquist phrase to make your point?

by Valatan 2007-03-01 03:55PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Speaking of the Primary Process

Edwards is the one serious contender supporting what Sirota calls "serious" antiwar people in Congress.

Matt, I know you're no Edwards fan, but you have to admit that he's taken the strongest antiwar stand of the Big Three. He, unlike Hillary and Obama, supports Murtha and defunding the war.

by david mizner 2007-03-01 12:11PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Speaking of the Primary Process

Ok, that's great.  I just don't trust him anymore.

by Matt Stoller 2007-03-01 12:27PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Fair enough

that's your call, of course.

but does he not deserve praise when he takes a good position?

Wouldn't there be a greater incentive for others in Congress to take a bold stand if activists gave credit to pols who support defunding?

by david mizner 2007-03-01 12:31PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
trust?

matt - i don't trust any of them (clinton, obama, edwards....). indeed, i see no reason to trust almost all politicians.  sorry, i got tired of feeling betrayed.

that said, i do believe in staying engaged in the electoral process. i need my representatives to do the right thing (even for the wrong reasons).... that would be enough.

and the senate dems are NOT doing the right thing. they are screwing up politically and morally - again.

by selise 2007-03-01 01:02PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: not to raise a sore subject

I agree, Matt.  I also voted for Nader in 2000 and it was a mistake.  It was in a state that did not matter, but still a mistake.  We have to change the Democratic party from within.

by littafi 2007-03-01 01:05PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Are we really going

to waste this thread debating Nader?

by david mizner 2007-03-01 12:13PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Are we really going

I hope not.

by Matt Stoller 2007-03-01 12:28PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Anyone Still Think Dems Are Serious About the

I am so sick of this crap.  If they don't want to get serious about getting us the heck out of Iraq, they can all pick up weapons and get over there to fight.

by mlr701 2007-03-01 12:16PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Anyone Still Think
C'mon, be realistic.  We can't do much in the Senate.  We have only 49 votes, if that.
Some of the Democrats and Bernie are doing the right thing.  They deserve better than this.
by jallen 2007-03-01 12:18PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Anyone Still Think

The people who deserve more respect are the people being killed.

by Matt Stoller 2007-03-01 12:28PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Anyone Still Think

Yes, and there are Democrats that are trying to stop them from being killed.  That some Democrats are holding up the process shouldn't detract from the efforts of those who are trying to end the war.

by jallen 2007-03-01 01:55PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Obviously

Sirota wasn't talking about all Dems in Congress--he's talking about Dems in Congress as a whole, and it's impossible to answer his question in anything but the negative.

What's Atrios's bit? Simple answers to simple questions.

by david mizner 2007-03-01 12:33PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Anyone Still Think

it ought to be enough to fillibuster any appropriations bill that includes funding the war.

by selise 2007-03-01 01:04PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Anyone Still Think

budget items cannot be filibusted in the Senate, according to senate rules.  this makes the Dems seem even wimpier.

by jgarcia 2007-03-01 02:05PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Anyone Still Think

They control the committees.  

Why not just strike the war funding in committee?  

Why not force Bush to veto the appropriations bill over war funding?  

This is what a majority is supposed to earn you.

by Valatan 2007-03-01 04:02PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Anyone Still Think

Why not force a couple of 49-51 votes in the Senate, then?  It would make the Republicans look horrible, and justify the dems asking for move help in the Senate in 2008.

Or, Reid come sup with a couple of extra votes, and it becomes a 51-49 vote.  

So, we either embarrass the Republicans or we end the war.  

win-win.

Can the Dems just try being a fucking left-wing party once in my lifetime?  Just once?  If it doesn't work, we can go back to this centrist absurdity.

by Valatan 2007-03-01 04:00PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Anyone Still Think
Be realistic? On sites like this? Don't be ridiculous!
q:What do you call a John Bircher who becomes a liberal?
a: A blogger!
pULL THE PLUG ON SKEPTIC06!
by spirowasright 2007-03-01 04:05PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
History agrees with you...

The sad and sorry truth is that until we reach the threshold needed to overcome a filibuster or a veto, the funding cut off will be a vainglorious political suicide.

Cutting off funding was extremely popular in the Vietnam era, but the Dems have been vilified for 30+ years as "weak on defense", "hate the troops", and "limp-wristed liberal girly-men". Trumpeted through the corporate dominated media created by Saint Ronny, this has been the basic propaganda device leading us to the brink of destruction we now face. Reid and Pelosi have confronted this every day of their professional lives and are determined not to let it happen again. "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Pelosi and Reid remember.  Their caution protects the slim chance we still have of reinstating the Constitution in this country.

This is a classic case of the good opposing the perfect. I suggest we accept the pragmatic reality of limited progress and work to elect more progressive Dems in the next round.

by PovertyOutlaw 2007-03-02 10:18AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Anyone Still Think Dems Are Serious About the

Who are these fellow democrats?  Can anyone name some names?

It is disappointing, but it's obvious they are afraid of the "defunding the troops" argument, with reason.  I understand the fear, but I reject it as an excuse.

Thanks,

Mike

by lordmikethegreat 2007-03-01 12:26PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Anyone Still Think Dems Are Serious About the

Suggest action or quit with the mindless bashing already.

So far, the void of ideas presented by this post has generated the brilliant suggestion that we should all vote third-party to show the Democrats what happens if they piss us off.  So, uh, this is why constructive suggestions rather than gratuitous bashing are the way to go.  This post reads like something Bob Brigham wrote.

by Steve M 2007-03-01 12:33PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Fair point

Where to go from here? No good answers.

It seems to me, however, that to start, the netroots and other parts of the base should be calling on presidential candidates to take a bold stand. The two people with the great media megaphones right now are Hillary and Obama. Their strong stand--if they backed Murtha or, better yet, Feingold--could make a big difference. Can you imagine if Obama gave a speech in which he said that we must cut the funding from Bush's war? Cover of the New York Times, and we've got a whole new ballgame. I don't understand why Obama is not taking any heat--none--for his weak position. Hillary's only getting a little bit. The message should be: support defunding, or forget about our support. This is the most important issue, and Obama, who was right at the begining, is now wrong, and his being wrong with impunity.

by david mizner 2007-03-01 12:45PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Fair point

I like the way you think.  Two of the three leading contenders are actually in the Senate right now and have the capacity for action, not just words.  But it starts with the bully pulpit and it's disappointing for the people who can command face time on the evening news any time they want to play it safe on this issue.

But we need to get the candidates' ear rather than simply making mournful blog comments.  We need to confront them at candidate forums, we need to drop petitions on their desk, we need to do something to push them towards speaking out on this issue.  What should we do?

by Steve M 2007-03-01 12:53PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
One of the problems

is the pessmism. Most Dems I talk to think there's no way that troops are going to start withdrawing under Bush, (and they may be right.) Even if Dems found the courage to, say, filibuster an appropriations bill, it would set off all sorts of political and legal battles that Bush could likely drag out to the end of his term.

But there's a chance that Dems could stop the war, and it'd be nice if they at least said this, that this can be done, that it's doable. There's no urgency or optimism.

But I'm just gabbing here, offering nothing specific. It's hard.

by david mizner 2007-03-01 01:26PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
The Murtha plan would be a good start

 What's the single biggest paralyzing factor behind the Dems' complete inability to leverage public opinion into at the very least reversing the momentum on the Iraq war?

 It's the fear of the "not supporting the troops" talking point. It's an inane, inaccurate talking point, but it's there.

 So Jack Murtha crafted a plan that pre-empted that talking point very effectively. He tied war funding directly to REAL "troop support" -- armor, training, rest. At last, the "conservative" Dems had an anti-war bill they could get behind without having to worry about the inevitable Republican smears that drive their world.

 And the blue-dog Dems blew it off. They nixed a bill that supported the troops, because they were afraid of being characterized as not supporting the troops.  

 It's insane on the surface. Unless, perhaps, it never WAS about "supporting the troops" anyway. That was just a convenient excuse.

 Murtha's plan was meant to rip off the mask and call the Republicans' bluff on the "support the troops" mantra. Apparently the Blue Dog Dems were worried it would call their bluff, too.

 So the Democrats, thrust into office to do something about Iraq, are proving to be abject failures at their mandate.

 But who knows. Maybe we'll get lucky and the voters won't notice.

 

by Master Jack 2007-03-01 01:36PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
It should

have preempted charges that Dems weren't supporting the troops, but it didn't, the GOP still unleashed the charge, and to their infinite shame, ever fearful Dems backed away from Murtha.

But I agree with your point; it was crafted in a crafty way, and Dems should have supported it.

by david mizner 2007-03-01 01:48PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Yes, it should have

 But the Democrats left Murtha -- a CONSERVATIVE Democrat -- hanging out to dry.

 The Republicans were going to unleash the noise machine no matter what the Dems did. WHY WEREN'T THE DEMOCRATS READY? The Republican Noise Machine didn't suddenly emerge yesterday. Why weren't the Dems flooding the talk shows and the airwaves explaining why the Murtha plan was great?

 Because they were never interested in stopping the war. That's why.

by Master Jack 2007-03-01 01:53PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
what the Democrats are interested in

OK, first you have to get it out of your mind completely that the majority of Democrats want to stop the war.  There are a good number who do seriously want to stop it, but they are not really running things.

I don't quite see what is wrong with Murtha's proposal, other than it keeps getting bashed in the media.  

To change the current mentality of the leading Democrats we have to keep them out of the circle jerk that is known as beltway politics.  To do that, we need to make "anti-war" a position that is considered something less than wild-eyed by the powers that be.

It means a much bigger movement than we have thus far.  

The problem with Nader is that he really doesn't give a crap about much other than himself.  He has been happy to make deals with Republicans left and right to undercut Democratic candidates.  Basically he's an anti-Democrat these days.  In the big picture, I don't see how this helps us.

To get the anti-war movement moving even further ahead, we have to consistently support the type of candidates we did in 2006 while consistently opposing Democratic "centrists" who run against us as much as they run against the Republicans, if not more.

The ultimate problem here is the corporate money.  The corporate interests are global, and to dominate globally they believe that the US has to constantly be flexing military power abroad.  (Whether they are correct or not is another matter - this is the mentality they have.)  These people have a lot of money and money translates into noise in the political arena.  This is why our "leaders" are acting like timid mice - they fear the noise more than any backlash from the voters they are supposed to represent.

by RickD 2007-03-01 02:32PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Yes, it should have

Your assumption that the Democrats have an awesome message machine that emerges when they truly care about something is, tragically, unsupported by the evidence.  The Republicans are simply better at message and sloganeering.  It's a matter of skill, not of will.

by Steve M 2007-03-01 03:29PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
And why is that?

 Actually, it IS a matter of will.

 The Democrats COULD have a strong message machine if they wanted to.

 They apparently don't want to. Clinton. Gore. Cleland. Dean. Kerry. Murtha. All viciously slimed by the pug noise machine.

 And yet the next instance of progress the Democrats show in building a message infrastructure will be the first one.

 This has been the case for so long, it's pretty apparent that it's intentional.
 

by Master Jack 2007-03-01 03:36PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: One of the problems

cannot filibuster budget items.  see my post above.

by jgarcia 2007-03-01 02:07PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Senate primaries.
      I'm glad we were very active in Senate primaries (and I'm not talking just about Lamont) in the 2006 cycle.  We need to pick good Democratic Senate candidates for the 2008 cycle, or we will end up with domination from the un-serious Reid-Baucus wing  of the Senate.  For example in North Carolina, do we want to support Easley or Brad Miller.  It's pretty obvious Miller is the Progressive candidate.
       Does anyone think that things would be better if Durbin were in control?  Is this a Reid problem, or is the problem more widespread throughout the Senate Democratic Caucus?
by cilerder86 2007-03-01 12:35PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Senate primaries.

You have to be realistic about the Senate.  It's not going to do anything strongly anti-war in the next two years.  Lieberman isn't the only problem there, but it is a major one.  Much as the netroots like to talk about how the Organizing Resolution would maintain Democratic control even in the face of a Lieberman defection, I suspect that Reid doesn't really want to test that theory.  Let's keep in mind that the Republicans in the Senate are so nutty that, just last year, they were threatening to break the rules of the Senate simply for a Supreme Court nomination.  Do you think they wouldn't do that to get control of the Senate?

And with Senator Johnson out of action, just what kind of power do you think Reid could have with a 49-Senator "majority" facing a 50-Senator "minority" backed up by an opposition VP?  

by RickD 2007-03-01 02:36PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Use the power of your purse!

Stop funding the DSCC!

by optimusprime 2007-03-01 12:40PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Use the power of your purse!

That's a given.  Fund only individual candidates.  The party apparatus is not representing the majority of the country, much less the majority of its own party.

by RickD 2007-03-01 02:37PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Until there is a draft--or a War Tax

Maybe Dems should ask Bush to pay for this war--with a War Tax.

And they shd make a limitation on number of tours--force a draft.

If people are affected--like a draft or War Tax,  then people will act.

Congress does not have the courage to act because the people are not clamoring for it.  People need to noisily lobby their congressman especially the ones that are not serious.

List all congressman according to their attitude to Iraq War--Shame  and expose these congressmen who are not acting to the will of the people.

What happened to Kerry's plan--there was this ad and even ad for jobs?

by jasmine 2007-03-01 12:44PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Anyone Still Think Dems Are Serious About the

Tell me how the Democrats stop the war short of using the nuclear option. Somebody fucking tell me!

by ECLE 2007-03-01 12:50PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Anyone Still Think Dems Are Serious About the

Oh, I don't think they can stop it.  But I do think they should try.

Something the Democratic party has not been doing for decades is trying to accomplish anything when the odds are against them.  The conservative movement built its strength from the 60s to the 80s by forcefully espousing unpopular ideas until they reached a point where a previously-laughable idea was moving through Congress.  

Did anybody seriously think the estate tax would be revoked?  The idea was considered laughable even in the mid-90s.

The only way to keep the movement forward is to keep pushing, even when instant progress is not a given.  Think of a football game - the running game works best after three quarters of wearing down the opposition.

by RickD 2007-03-01 02:40PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Anyone Still Think Dems Are Serious About the

Impeachment.

by darrelplant 2007-03-01 10:33PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Feingold gets it!

More like this, please!!

think progress:

Feingold Warns Congress: Oppose `George Bush's War' Now, Or We'll `Start Owning' It

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/01/fein gold-bush-war/

by Astraea 2007-03-01 01:27PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Democrats:Iraq::Republicans:Abortion


  In Iraq, the Dems have found the "permanent" issue to dangle in front of their base, with no intention of ever doing anything about it.

 Except it's much less likely to work for the Dems. Too many critical thinkers in the party.

by Master Jack 2007-03-01 01:39PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Dems serious?

OBAMA and MCCAIN say, "3000 soldiers lives....WASTED!" Truly amazing!!!

by DfD 2007-03-01 01:50PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Ending the War

I can't say i'm surprised that we are going nowhere trying to end this in Congress. The House made some strides with the Murtha Plan, which was both morally and politically a great idea, and its a shame that there is not more support for it. But I think this comes down to a cultural issue with Congress. Generally, in the House of Reps, most members view their job as little more than getting re-elected, as many much more intelligent people than me have written about.

The Senate is obviously a bit different, but shares the same lack of will for doing anything at all significant, which could possibly lead to getting defeated.

The lack of will to challenge the president in matters of war and peace is not new, its been present for many years and has resulted in a new balance of power between the executive branch and the legislative branch that Bush is enjoying the full benefit of. I doubt that much will happen in the senate as a result of the votes, so concentration must be focused on the house where the rules should allow Pelosi, et al, to jam whatever they want down the throats of the GOP. It must be clear, that their job security demands that they do something substantial, and non-binding resolutions will not suffice for substantitive action. We need to work to convince our reps and Senators that the only "safe" action on the war is to take action.

by bjschmid 2007-03-01 01:55PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Anyone Still Think Dems Are Serious About the

For sake of argument let us say the dems defunded the war tomorrow (can't be done, just no votes for it) and this forced the withdrawal of US forces.

Most Americans would approve for the next 6 months.  But chaos and civil war would continue in the ME.  Each day the right-wing noise machine would be in high gear pointing out the Democrats treachery.  After a few years of this relentless pounding, most Americans would begin to believe it and the right would yet again seize total control.

If we had the votes I would push for immediate withdrawal.  But we must realize that if we are successful in that task, we will have to pay a political price.  Happened after Vietnam and after WWI in Germany.  Progressives simply arn't strong enough to prevent that from happening again here.

by syvanen 2007-03-01 02:18PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Anyone Still Think Dems Are Serious About the

Um, rightwing parties did not do well after WWI.  FDR had four terms and more than a hundred seat majority in Congress and had five supreme court picks.

Also, post Vietnam and Watergate, the Dems had over hundred seat majority again.  It was Carter who fucked-up and got Reagan.  It has NOTHING at all to do with Vietnam.  It was all about the economy.

by jgarcia 2007-03-01 06:32PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
really?

The Republicans controlled the white house from 1920-1932 and Congress from 1918-1930.  I would think that that qualifies as doing well after WWI.

by Valatan 2007-03-01 06:48PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Anyone Still Think Dems Are Serious About the

Nixon/OPEC screwed up the economy.

by jallen 2007-03-01 10:34PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
IHistory backs you up

The sad and sorry truth is that until we reach the threshold needed to overcome a filibuster or a veto, the funding cut off will be a vainglorious political suicide.

Cutting off funding was extremely popular in the Vietnam era, but the Dems have been vilified for 30+ years as "weak on defense", "hate the troops", and "limp-wristed liberal girly-men". Trumpeted through the corporate dominated media created by Saint Ronny, this has been the basic propaganda device leading us to the brink of destruction we now face. Reid and Pelosi have confronted this every day of their professional lives and are determined not to let it happen again. "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Pelosi and Reid remember.  Their caution protects the slim chance we still have of reinstating the Constitution in this country.

This is a classic case of the good opposing the perfect. I suggest we accept the pragmatic reality of limited progress and work to elect more progressive Dems in the next round.

by PovertyOutlaw 2007-03-02 10:15AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Sorry..reply to jgarcia

My comments are not going to the right place in the thread.     AAAAAAAARRRRRGGGGHHHH!

by PovertyOutlaw 2007-03-02 10:22AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Told ya so...

Is anyone really gullible enough to believe that we were going to pull out of Iraq by virtue of Congress?

Reagan laid down the marker when he invaded Grenada: Congress is the President's bitch when it comes to the War Powers.

All the Iraq authorization in 2002 did was give it to the President in writing.

Worse, as long as Bush doesn't veto the Dems' domestic agenda, Harry Reid fully intends to thank him in private for trading dead soldiers for a miminum wage hike.

It's how shit gets done.  It's how shit will always get done.  This game has been played since the beginning of the Republic and the tune has never changed.

What do you think the Missouri Compromise was?  How about Taft-Hartley?  Why do you think civil rights leaders got literally buried?

Seriously.  This is the way the world works.  It is run by cruel, stupid people who will beat your ass every day because the will to act trumps the desire for justice.

by jcjcjc 2007-03-01 02:59PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Told ya so...

Noone in congress never decided to challenge the Grenada invasion in the courts, if I recall.  The War Powers Act has been upheld in the courts, but I still think there are a lot of issues in this area that really aren't established as being constitutional or not.

by Valatan 2007-03-01 04:09PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Yes they're serious

Holding back on funding will embolden those attacking Americans in Iraq right now...and it will only result in greater danger to our Military members.  Additionally, our military is stretched very, very thin...and holding back money for Iraq only results in money being switched from other DoD funding pots...stretching the military even thinner.

by JohnAZ 2007-03-01 07:18PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Yes they're serious

Whaaa???  Stay the course?  Really?

How do you "intimidate" a suicide bomber?  More troops and more money?  Yeah, that'll have those suiciders shaking in their vests.  By far the best way to "embolden" a suicider is to put more troops within walking distance of the bomb factory in his garage.  This is just stupid, plain and simple.

Our military is stretched thin BECAUSE they're still in Iraq, long after being even slightly effective anymore.

The idiots who have been wrong for too too long are STILL IN CHARGE!  Get the idiots out of the way and let someone else drive the bus for a while.  No one, I repeat, NO ONE could do a worse job than the idiots at the helm.  How long do they get to be so wrong?  McCain's Freudian slip says it all: our soldier's live are being WASTED (he said it, not me).

Wake up, people.  More money and more troops is moronic.  Pull the money.  Pull the troops.  Bush, Cheney and the gang of liars need to shut the hell up.  Their credibility is LONG gone.  Their judgment is certifiably insane.  Get them the hell out of the way.  Impeach.  Prosecute the liars.  Listen to the generals in the field, don't keep firing them until you find one that agrees with your certifiably insane position.

Again, how many times do they get to be wrong?  At the cost of how many lives?

by congressive 2007-03-01 10:18PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Dem$ Are Serious About the War

Rich politicians only give a rat's backside in the months running up to election.  The Dems just give better lip service to the working poor, i.e. the biggest "growth" demographic in America.

Corporo-fascism knows no party lines.  It never has been about liberal versus conservative.  It's always been rich versus poor, and the rich have all the guns.

by congressive 2007-03-01 08:28PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
So? What do we do next?

So its come down to this: all the activism, all the MovingOn, all the phone calls to potential voters produce little more than a flash in the congressional  pan.

That horrible inertia and cowardice remains and sits toothless on the sideline while the even more horrible disdain for human consequences and measurable benefits just keeps living out its ideology from the white house.  This is why I won't work directly for or with Democratic party organizations.  This is why I read myDD and otherwise throw my lot in with unaffiliated netroots progressives.  God, am I dissapointed with this pace of change!

What can I do? I have chipped in my small dollars to buy denouncing ads, to shore up a few of the myriad protests and promising candidates. I have written letters to my congresscritters and delivered Hundreds of letters from other progressives to their offices begging to end the war.  

I am not defeated yet, not in spirit, but what is the most effective action now that the tools tried have proven blunt? Does this Smaug have no missing scale in its armor?

by greensmile 2007-03-02 07:28AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
General Strike?

How about organizing a general strike for next Christmas?  

Strike either by not going to work or boycotting gift giving.  Black armbands signify participation.  X mas cards:  Support the Troops! Boycott X-mas! Peace on Earth! Boycott Christmas!  Make them available in .pdf format so that no one can commercialize.  Just print them out and mail them.

This would threaten the money boys and get press.  I think with such a high percentage of the public opposed to the war, we would have a good participation rate.  

by PovertyOutlaw 2007-03-02 10:02AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Oppose the 2-party monopoly.

At least a Nader vote is one true to your beliefs, because the mainstream democratic party doesn't really care about progressive values, it only pretends to at election time to get the progressive votes and money. Just like the 94 "contract with America" repubs were soon corrupted and betrayed the promises that got em elected,the 06 Dems have ALREADY begun the same sordid process today.

by uricehe4 2007-03-02 08:43AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------