Confirmed: Iraq Timelines Dropped
Confirmed: Iraq Timelines Dropped
“Congressional Democrats relented today on their insistence that a war spending measure sought by President Bush also set a date for withdrawing troops from Iraq. The decision to back down, described by senior lawmakers and aides, was a wrenching reversal for some Democrats, who saw their election triumph as a call to force an end to the war.”
“We don’t have a veto-proof Congress,” said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader.
Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the House Democratic majority leader, said the new bill was still being assembled, but he acknowledged the political reality facing Democrats. “The president has made it very clear that he is not going to sign timelines,” said Mr. Hoyer. “We can’t pass timelines over his veto.”
UPDATE: The AP notes, “Reid and other Democrats pointed to a provision that would set standards for the Iraqi government in developing a more democratic society. U.S. reconstruction aid would be conditioned on progress toward meeting the goals, but Bush would have authority to order the money to be spent regardless of how the government in Baghdad performed.”
UPDATE II: Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) releases a statement: “I cannot support a bill that contains nothing more than toothless benchmarks and that allows the President to continue what may be the greatest foreign policy blunder in our nation’s history. There has been a lot of tough talk from members of Congress about wanting to end this war, but it looks like the desire for political comfort won out over real action.”
UPDATE III: Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) will reportedly oppose the funding bill:
It will split the Democratic caucus in half, with as many as 120 Democrats voting no. Among the nays, I’m told, will be House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who will have negotiated a bill that she thinks is the best option for House Democrats but which she personally can’t support. Most other Democratic leaders are expected to vote in favor. Still, if only 100 Democrats vote yes, the amendment will require at least 118 Republicans in order to pass.
“Some will say no, some will say yes,” the official involved in the negotiations said of rank and file Democrats. “It’s not a perfect bill. Nobody got what they wanted. But it is the beginning of the end of George W. Bush’s policy in Iraq.”
Also, the House leadership is promising “to return to the timelines — and other measures designed to pressure Bush to withdraw from Iraq — in the Defense appropriations bill for the next fiscal year. ‘We’ll be able to write a lot of policy in appropriations that Bush won’t be able to veto,’ says the official.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Pathetic.
It's time for IMPEACHMENT.
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:39 pmI agree, it's pathetic that Bush won't accept the will of the people! ITMFA!
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:40 pmTo the leadership of the Democratic Party. "No Balls" You should've kept fighting. The people demanded it. You're nothing but appeasers at this point.
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:43 pmUgh.
All the MSM will talk about is this.
Wonder if they'll even mention THIS.
Bomb Plot Thwarted at Falwell's Funeral Aimed Towards Protesters
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:43 pmThe city of Detroit voted over the last week to tell Congress to impeach President Bush and Vice President Cheney. So, too, did the Massachusetts Democratic Party and the Vermont Progressive Party. Here in Wisconsin, the Walworth County Democratic Party did the same, reminding us that even in the more conservative parts of this state, there are still believers in the rule of law.
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:43 pmvery very depressing.... But, this may cause the most anti war candidates to go to the top of the line.
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:43 pmwhat an enormous load of bollocks... someone help me out here... i teach leadership... can you point me to someone who is a REAL leader...? seriously... preferably in the u.s. but it doesn't have to be... i sure don't see any in congress, with the possible exception of russ feingold...
And, yes, I DO take it personally
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:44 pmI feel Betrayed.
I believe time has come for a Three Party political system in this country.
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:44 pmThat just SUCKS. What a f*cking waste--don't they understand why they were elected in November? They might as well just shove their collective heads up Bush's ass and have done with.
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:44 pmGod forbid the Dem leadership stand up to a politically weak and overwhelmingly unpopular President
That the Dem leadership pitched the libs over the side in order to suck up to the GOP leadership is vile beyond words
The Dem leadership is far too interested in the likes of what Joe Lieberman thinks about this war, as opposed to what their voters think of this occupation
At this point, anyone who still votes to give W whatever he wants is just as complicit in the needless deaths and maimings of US troops and Iraqi civilians, as surely as if they would have pulled the trigger or set off the IED's themselves
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:45 pm“We don’t have a veto-proof Congress,†said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader..."
So, you answer is to give up and send him exactly what he wants! LAME DEMOCRATS!!
So what if you don't have a veto-proof Congress. Keep sending him bills that ask for what you want. ONE AFTER THE OTHER. Let him keep vetoing them. Don't give in so easily.
This government is a total joke!
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:45 pmThe Democrats have betrayed the American people.
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:45 pmTime to start getting serious or wer'e going to lose this country. I'm had it. No one is showing any b-lls.
F--k the Demcrats and Harry Reid. It's time for the people to step in and impeach the bastards. Obviously, it's our only recourse.
This is crushing. I am so angry
As President, George W. Bush swore an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States". Other members of the executive, legislative and judiciary branches, as well as members of state and local governments and all civil and military officers have sworn a similar oath to "support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domesticâ€.
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:45 pmAnd the Charade de les Democrats continues. I wonder when you liberal dupes will figure it out. Oh, by the way, go back and read Al Gore's speech from September 23, 2002. Mmmmm. Can you smell it? Smells like betrayal.
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:47 pmI just assume vote Ron Paul... is it a wasted vote? I dont know... but I DO know my last three votes for the democrats was a waste.
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:47 pmI'm done with these pussies. I called my senators Obama & Durbin and my representative Schakowsky today to let em know that I would prefer to vote for a republican because at least they stand up what they believe in. Screw 'em.
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:47 pmthey gave him a bill w the money and he didnt sign it. Way to fold and we all lose . What a waste of time getting them elected to lay doawn to king Bush. You democratic leaders are losers. We gave you the powerand you blew it. Why dont you all just go joi the repubs
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:48 pmWorthless, spineless, gutless cowards. Completely complicit and enablers of a war criminal. Will never get my vote again!
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:48 pmTime to stop voting for both Republicans and Democrats people.
The system is just plain broken.
Time to start voting for Libertarians maybe.
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:48 pm“We don’t have a veto-proof Congress,†said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader.
So!!!
You could have simply not voted for any funds and SHUT THE WAR DOWN.
Instead, Democrats, as the saying goes, "YOU BOUGHT IT, YOU OWN IT."
Might I suggest:
http://www.peaceandfreedom.org
as an alternative to the Two-Faces of the Same Party System we currently have.
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:50 pmThe Democrats won on round 1. They got the Republicans on record for September. Just image if the Republicans won in 2006 we would had no debate. No matter what; the American soldiers will die for a war of choice by a Republican President.
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:50 pmJames, cool.
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:51 pmSo the dems don't have enough votes to override a veto huh?
Well the repubs don't have enough votes to hand Bush a blank check and it's Bush that is refusing the money offered.
I say shame on the Dems for backing down. They tried to defund the war and failed....so just keep sending bills with timelines and let Bush defund it for them.
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:51 pmDemocrats in sheeps clothing. I toldja.
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:53 pmClearly the will of the people have not been voted for as promised. These folks are still worried about future campaign ads "They did not support the troops"because of lack of funding.
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:54 pmWe need a complete new congress, campaign finance reform so money does not buy leadership.
What percentage actually want US to stay in Iraq? The rest of the world and 70% of the US pop want US OUT. So we stay, another 1,00 lose their lives so those running for congress next year will not look bad.
We can’t pass timelines over his veto... well, can you pass anything over anyone's Veto ?
any way, those who needs score point had scored enough, I guess !!
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:54 pmAnd if Feingold was for real, he would throw a big enough wrench into the works to shut it all down. So even Fiengold's chest puffing is all fake shit until he grows a pair and actually DOES something about it beyond sending our press statements.
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:57 pmIt's really a shame that they can spin Bush's actions into troop support and Dems' into troop abandonment. How the &^!* can the republics' propaganda machine succeed in turning black into white so successfully?
The talking point which should be pushed is: BOTH branches of congress passed a bill which had MORE funding for the war than was called for. Funding to give the troops the equipment and armor that they NEED and that the previous republic congress denied them. It is W, and ONLY W who is abandoning the troops. He ALONE vetoed the bill that provided funding. He and he alone is preventing our troops from returning home. He and he alone is responsible for the continued deaths of our young men and women.
He has refused to compromise on this issue one iota.
He, the decider, alone, has decided to kill our troops.
E Pleb Neesta
GODISNOWHERE
Blessed are the cheese-makers.
--Monty Python's _Life_of_Brian_ (Or: how I learned stop worrying and love the Jihad)
If HPV vaccination promotes promiscuity, then confession promotes sin.
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:57 pmThe people who are saying that they would never vote Democratic again after this are engaging in too much of "cutting off the nose to spite the face".
At least we're having debate on the subject - if we start refusing to vote all it's going to do is hand the government back over to the Republican party in 2008.
Do you really want ANOTHER four years of one-party Republican rule?
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:58 pmAs President, George W. Bush swore an oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United Statesâ€. Other members of the executive, legislative and judiciary branches, as well as members of state and local governments and all civil and military officers have sworn a similar oath to “support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domesticâ€.
A democracy Highjacked - shining example for the world - great
Vote Bin Laden next he would sort America out - really
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:00 pmFeingold is all talk as well. Until he shuts down the Senate (via filibuster if he has to) he is just blowing smoke. Issung a press statmenet means nothing Russ. DO something about this.
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:02 pmIt's going to get much worse before it gets better. Sorry, knowing what I know about human behavior, and the reality that most Americans don't know any better, and/or don't want to know, is the reason.
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:02 pmThe voting populace has been impeached. You and me. They pointed that impeaching machine in the wrong direction. Dorks.
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:03 pmSTICK TO RON PAULS IDEA - REVOKE THE INITIAL AUTHORISATION ITS RAN OUT
According to the original authorization (Public Law 107-243) passed in late 2002, the president was authorized to use military force against Iraq to achieve the following two specific objectives only: “(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq ; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.â€
I was highly critical of the resolution at the time, because I don’t think the United States should ever go to war to enforce United Nations resolutions. I was also skeptical of the claim that Iraq posed a “continuing threat†to the United States.
As it turned out, Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, no al-Qaeda activity, and no ability to attack the United States. Regardless of this, however, when we look at the original authorization for the use of force it is clearly obvious that our military has met both objectives. Our military very quickly removed the regime of Saddam Hussein, against whom the United Nations resolutions were targeted. A government approved by the United States has been elected in post-Saddam Iraq , fulfilling the first objective of the authorization.
With both objectives of the original authorization completely satisfied, what is the legal ground for our continued involvement in Iraq ? Why has Congress not stepped up to the plate and revisited the original authorization?
This week I plan to introduce legislation that will add a sunset clause to the original authorization (Public Law 107-243) six months after passage. This is designed to give Congress ample time between passage and enactment to craft another authorization or to update the existing one. With the original objectives fulfilled, Congress has a legal obligation to do so. Congress also has a moral obligation to our troops to provide relevant and coherent policy objectives in Iraq .
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:04 pmReid misses the point. We don't need a veto-proof Congress. We need a Congress that respects the will of the people. All Congress has to do is NOT PASS A SPENDING BILL for Iraq. Or keep offering the bill that Bush vetoed. Congress HAS the power...but refuses to use it.
They are now complicit in the senseless slaughter in Iraq. We'll need someone else who to honor the will of 70% of the people...and bring our troops home.
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:04 pmThey are all a bunch of pathetic hacks. How much brainpower does it take to figure out that not passing a spending bill would force an end to this debacle? But nooooo, the Dems want to play politics with death and destruction - let Bush have his way and dig his hole even deeper, with the blood flowing the entire time.
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:05 pmStop attacking Democrats over this. Bush and Republicans refuse to end this war. Dems sent Bush a timeline, and he vetoed it. What can they do? Like Reid said, they do not have "veto-proof" majority. Dems only hold a shaky 1 vote majority, and that includes White House ally Joe Lieberman and Tim Johnson, who is still rehabbing from his stroke.
If you want Bush stopped, vote in MORE Democrats, don't criticize them all the time for Bush/Republican blunders.
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:05 pmThe troops are dying. This bill will cause more to die.
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:06 pm#6- Had enough
Good point. The hope is that the media will finally give more exposure to Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel and Ron Paul instead of those who are so willing to give this administration carte blanche in their desire to keep making war.
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:07 pmAs opposed to "two" party Republican rule?
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:08 pmSome thoughts for you fine souls to chew on:
1. Since most of the world's populace believes there is a God, does that mean there is one?
2. Since troops have died in every single war, does that make every war wrong?
Oh, and now apply your answers to all the talking points you're regurgitating here and look in the mirror. You should see a moron.
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:09 pmIn a time of OVERWHELMING support for ending the war now and less than 30% approval rating for bush, the Democrats caved.
They showed they are spineless and lack the courage to do what is right. Anyone in the Senate or Congress still allowing this war to continue with bs bills like this, are also CRIMINALLY guilty of this war.
I am not getting out of the Democratic party. I am simply voting out all those who don't adhere to democratic values nor listen to We The People.
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!
End the war now! Impeach the selected prez bush and VP cheney!
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:10 pm#35 Exactly.
Bush had the check in his hand and tore it up because he doesn't want to be told the the people want the troops to come home and bring an end to the worst foreign policy decision ever made in our nations history. HE (bush) DID that. HE tore up the check funding the troops.
Reid is a complete stooge and a waste of skin at this point.
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:11 pmWhy do we support the Democrats again???!?!? When you have a LANDSLIDE of public opinion in support of withdrawal, you STILL back down from Bush? I can't believe the political cowardice of the Democratic party. I thought it was bad enough when they actually voted for this war, but their stupidity and cowardice knows no bounds. It's time for the grass roots to get all these losers out in the next election- Republicans and Democrats alike. .
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:11 pm#41, I'm seeing a moron right now, and its name is DreamCrusher.
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:14 pmAs far as I can see the only silver lining to this awful news is that when it all continues to go to hell in Iraq they won't be able to blame the Dems.
That said, the fact that they're already talking about what they plan to do for the NEXT funding bill is very depressing.
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:15 pmHey Jane...How have you been? When you and Wayne getting that new computer?
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:16 pmIf the Congress had not sent Bush any bill, you know the pentagon would continue to strip other military programs to siphon the money off.
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:16 pmLet them do that, not pass another death enabling piece of shitlegislation.
Now Democrats own the war too!
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:17 pmAnd the Charade de les Democrats continues. I wonder when you liberal dupes will figure it out. Oh, by the way, go back and read Al Gore’s speech from September 23, 2002. Mmmmm. Can you smell it? Smells like betrayal.
Comment by DreamCrusher — May 22, 2007 @ 5:47 pm
Us libs against W's war from the start have been right about every single prediction we made about why it was such a stupid idea
100% correct
Whereas, those who still support W's escalation cannot point to a single pre-occupation prediction of post-invasion Iraq that's borne out ANY of their occupation justifications
100% incorrect
And the REAL losers here are all those US troops and Iraqi civilians who lose their lives, limbs and minds in a completely unnecessary military action
Anyone still supporting W's Iraq crusade supports al-Qaeda, the Taliban and Usama bin Laden, the chief beneficiaries of being able to lead W around by the nose so easily
But hey, lets just see how much longer the USS GOP is willing to put up with the W anchor sure to drag them to an even worse defeat in November 2008 than it absorbed in November 2006
And quite frankly, the Dems need to learn the hard way about why deliberately double-crossing the voters who sent them to DC should cost them their seat at the next possible opportunity
Not exercising strong control over the GOP's leadership and enabling it to turn the most blind of eyes to W's raping of the US Constitution in turn helped the GOP get massacred at the polls last year, so if the Dems wish to learn from history, then gain the knowledge that not standing up to the party leadership when it's clearly out of touch with its own voters will cost politically in the future as well
The Dems may not be able to overcome a veto, but they won't achieve any kind of accountability on W's part by giving him everything he wants
If they can't stand to make W pay as heavy a political price as possible, if they won't stand up to a clearly out of control President and Administration, why should anyone trust them to fight the same terrorists this Administration yawns away and doesn't care about
To give in so completely when the GOP is in complete disarray, and the Administration is in political free-fall is beyond stupid for the Dems
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:18 pm2. Since troops have died in every single war, does that make every war wrong?
Just the ones based on FRAUD and personal gain...
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:19 pm"When you have a LANDSLIDE of public opinion in support of withdrawal, you STILL back down from Bush?"
99% of the people could be against the war, but we'd still only have 49 votes in the Senate (Lieberman won't vote against the war and Johnson is still out-of-commission). It sucks, but that's the political reality right now.
And don't give me this "we can just cut off the funds" crap - that's political suicide because no matter how unpopular the war is, defunding is a sure way to be villified as "anti-troop" in this media. If we do that, we might as well hang out the "Welcome Back GOP" sign on Capitol Hill because WE'LL be the ones wandering the wilderness again.
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:20 pmgod almighty, what a waste of time. it's like last year again, when i'd come home from work every day and be confronted with more crap which gave me palpitations and the urge to get very drunk. what's changed? nothing. reid et al have no idea. spineless wankers.
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:20 pmi'm going to the pub.
Just the ones based on FRAUD and personal gain…
Comment by Gerald Gibson Jr
Or simply, all of them.
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:21 pmburn the whole place to the ground... salt the fuking earth and start over. every last one of these people are worthless shills.
its time for a new american revolution
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:21 pmwe knew in our guts that when the weaselocrats were negotiating with the criminal it meant he still held all the cards, way to hand Mr. 28% all the legitimacy in the world - good job Madam Speaker, let's take impeachment off the table because we are afraid of Bush & Cheney
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:22 pmEvery democrat up for reelection next year needs to be voted out in the primary, just like Lieberman. It's time to clean house, thoroughly.
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:24 pmThe hope is that the media will finally give more exposure to Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel and Ron Paul instead of those who are so willing to give this administration carte blanche in their desire to keep making war.
Comment by Erroll
Could not agree more. I would love to see those 3 rise above the others.
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:24 pmthere is NO difference between the parties. The Dems will appease voters with tough talk but when it comes to it, the same people who finance the retugs finance them.
NOTHING will EVER CHANGE in this country unless and until ORDINARY PEOPLE TAKE CONTROL instead of these rich, white elites who view the rest of us as though we were cannon fodder and slaves.
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:25 pmHere's your blank check Mr. President. Now please stop calling us cowards and traitors.
The Rubber Stamping Dems. Lots of talk and no action. The Senate and Congress are impotent feeding at the same corporate polluted trough.
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:28 pmOh, there you are, Exley, I just responded to you on another thread. Our new computers are sitting in their boxes on our dining room table as we speak. Wayne's mother is moving in with us (help!), and the last two weeks have been insane while we arranged everything for that. Supposedly we'll be hooked up in about 10 days. Don't worry, you guys will have plenty of time to get sick of the two of us once we can blog all night!
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:28 pmthat’s political suicide because no matter how unpopular the war is, defunding is a sure way to be villified as “anti-troop†in this media. If we do that, we might as well hang out the “Welcome Back GOP†sign on Capitol Hill because WE’LL be the ones wandering the wilderness again.
Comment by Trekkie
Politics
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:29 pmI told you that the Democratic party is consisted of wimps. Now do you believe me?
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:30 pmDemocrats don't have the votes to override a veto. But Dubya doesn't GET to veto a funding bill if Congress doesn't SEND him a funding bill. What we need is 41 votes in the Senate, not 2/3 of both Houses. Let enough Democratic Senators filibuster a blank-check bill, and Dick and Dubya would have to "fund the troops" out of their own pocket. Or agree to timelines.
-- TP
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:30 pmSo Bush thumps his chest and the Dems, predictably, cave. All they have to do not draft another bill.
This also comes down to the fact that the Dems just can't compete with the neoconservative public relations machine. And because they can't, they are afraid they will lose Congressional seats in '08 because they will be branded as being "against the war."
All this despite the fact that the Chimp has a 28-to-35-percent approval raiting and the Iraq war is unpopular the world over.
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:30 pmDo you really want ANOTHER four years of one-party Republican rule?
Comment by Trekkie
What's the difference. Democrats have done nothing different than the Republicans did. They're enabling the president to get more soldiers killed, nothing else.
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:31 pm#52 Bullshit.
You have ZERO evidence to back up that line of failed chicken-sh*t "thinking".
"We sent Bush the check, he tore it up, he is the one who stopped funding the troops."
It is simply not spin-able if the Dems would just f-ing stand up and say that, over and over when that bullshit canard about "not funding the troops" is trotted out. But please, take another huge spoon-full of chicken-sh*t and convince yourself and us it is really just paté.
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:31 pmOr simply, all of them.
Comment by Juan C
Your a good guy Jaun but I dont buy the peacenik line... crime is real and that is why cops are real... same with wars...
Just because some wars are completely unnecessary that doesnt mean they all are.
This one like Vietnam is a murderous sham.
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:31 pmI am SO MAD... Democrats are truly Republicans lite!!
We elected the D's to get us the SHEOL OUT of Viet-raq.
Now, we get total acquiescence and submission?!?!?!?
This is a truly dark day!
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:31 pm"Don’t worry, you guys will have plenty of time to get sick of the two of us once we can blog all night!"
It'll be good to have you two back, Jane....
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:32 pmthat’s political suicide because no matter how unpopular the war is, defunding is a sure way to be villified as “anti-troop†in this media. If we do that, we might as well hang out the “Welcome Back GOP†sign on Capitol Hill because WE’LL be the ones wandering the wilderness again.
Comment by Trekkie
ok that last comment got cut off....
Politics is NO excuse for WAR... understand? Either we have a REAL imminent threat that we are keeping at bay by waging war which means we should declare WAR.... or we should STOP this crime started by Bushies... it is like being in the middle of a rape in progress and no one can figure out how to stop it???? Just STOP it.... real easy.
There is NOTHING stoping us from hunting down terrorists and pressuring (in a positive or negative way) other countries to help prevent the criminals in their midsts from attacking us.
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:35 pmWhat!!! Surely they're not going to give him ALL the money with no timelines? What happened to only a partial payment of funds requested?
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:36 pmSo Nancy Pelosi has bigger balls than most of the men in the House. We need more gutsy women in office. We don't care what the frat boys of the world say about us - unlike the boys who what to be cool kids. And our manhood is never, never on the line. We know we are biologically superior and besides, we are less likely to want to kill the next generation, because we gave birth to it.
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:37 pmReid, is a pathetic leader. Their should be a vote of no confidence in him as the majority leader. A huge whimp. A betrayer. He always talks tough for a few weeks then backs down. Arizonians must be proud of the YELLOW Bragard who always backs down from a fight.
The majority of the American people are the losers here. And corporate america wins again .
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:39 pmOk, I dont want to be a smart ass or take advantage of this difficult time for a lot of people who trusted members of their party...but is there anyone really surprised?
I mean, what is the difference between elected people who do as little as possible for the general population and a feudal system where only an elite class, chosen by God himself ruled without questioning anyone?
Is it surprising that the same names (a few families) appear in the political arena over and over? Isnt that the definition of an elite ruling class?
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:40 pmThe Dems have no choice. In the end they cannot uinilaterally bring the troops home and as long as the President insists on being in Iraq their hands are tied. Short of impeaching the President. Once those proceedings begin you will see a sharp shift in the "will " of the American people. Yeah they could cut off funding now....but the President will not relent and doesn;t have to as long as he can rob peter to pay paul. The Dems need to accept defeat on this round and get prepared for the next. It is a shame that more American blood will be lost because of this fiasco...but that is why elections matter!!
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:42 pmAll sold out: the worthless corporate Democrats have just caved into the lying election-stealing treasonous Bush and his imperial occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq with their plan to continue funding of these quagmires.
Since the corporate Democratic Party is unwilling to stand up to the bully Bush, we need to create a new political party that is independent of corporations and their endless greed.
Back in January 2006, I made and published a proposal for such a new Voter’s Internet Party. See a link at my web site: http://www.bottlebrushpress.com/votersinternetparty. Or do a Google search for "voter’s internet party."
The text is below:
The Voter's Internet Party: a modest proposal.
To the Editor:
We need to create a new Voter's Internet Party. With every passing day in the 21st century, it is becoming painfully more obvious to all but the most fanatically partisan of us that the vast majority of the Senators and Representatives from both of the two major political parties are irrevocably corrupted by the unseemly influence of major corporations and the wealthy ruling elites. Therefore, we, the vast majority, who want clean honest open government need to form a new political party that will serve our interests, and not those of the ruling wealthy corporate elites. Therefore, may I suggest that we create a new Voter's Internet Party to honor the ideal of a traditional count-all-the-votes democracy.
With widespread use of the Internet, we now have a relatively easy, inexpensive and efficient way to contact and organize the many millions of American voters that have been disenfranchised and disillusioned in the 21st century by the Bush & Co. theft of the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections. The brilliant example of the highly-effective grassroots campaigns of the Internet-based MoveOn.org in the 2004 Presidential campaign has shown that Internet-organizing can be a powerful tool for progressive social change.
Orange. Since orange has been clearly identified in the mass media as the color of protest of election fraud first in the Ukraine and later in the United States, let us use the color orange to help identify our new Internet Voter's Party.
We need our new Internet Voter's Party to help facilitate our country's return to the exclusive use of traditional hand-counted paper ballots. We need to stage thousands of 21st century versions of the 1773 Boston Tea Party by dumping all of the computerized electronic voting machines and computerized electronic vote tabulating machines into the nearest body of water. As long as there are any computerized electronic voting machines and computerized electronic vote tabulating machines used in any voting precinct in the country, there will be Republican hackers, riggers and thugs who will find ways to rig, hack and steal future American elections. Just say no to the use of electronic computerized voting machines and electronic computerized vote tabulating machines in any future elections.
We need our new Internet Voter's Party to demand that all future elections be administeredby professional non-partisan state civil servants, not by partisan political hacks such as the 2000 Republican Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris and the 2004 Republican Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell.
Our new Voter's Internet Party will be grass-roots based on small individual annual contributions not to exceed a maximum of $100 per year. Our new Voter's Internet Party will thus avoid the corporate corruption which has long been the hallmark and the curse of the two large political parties.
Our new Voter's Internet Party will honor the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.
Our new Voter's Internet Party will honor and preserve our natural environment.
Our new Voter's Internet Party will honor social security, labor laws and privacy laws.
Our new Voter's Internet Party will honor a woman's right to choose.
Our new Voter's Internet Party will honor international law, international treaties and international obligations.
Our new Voter's Internet Party will not torture anyone under any circumstances. Our new Voter's Internet Party will consider the Golden Rule regarding torture: If you don't want it done to you when you are in legal custody, then we will not do it to anyone in American legal custody.
Our new Voter's Internet Party will honor the working people of American with good working conditions and a living wage for all.
Our new Voter's Internet Party will honor the public's right to control public airwaves and to thus require public interest broadcasting on television and radio instead of the current arrangement of allow greedy private corporations to dominate our airwaves.
Our new Voter's Internet Party will honor the right to universal health care and universal single-payer health insurance.
Our new Voter's Internet Party will return the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to its traditional watch-dog role of protecting the American consumer instead of its current practice of protecting and enlarging the obscene profits of greedy drug manufacturers.
Yours truly,
James K. Sayre
26 January 2006
Peach Mint is the exciting new flavor for 2007.
Cheers.
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:42 pmHere's your rope, Mr. President. It's Your show now...
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:42 pmI thought it was the neocons that were trying to supress Democratic voters...
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:43 pmComment by $$$$$$
Reid is from Nevada deed.
Although, i'm equally as not proud of Kyl and Mcflipper.
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:43 pmJust because some wars are completely unnecessary that doesnt mean they all are.
Comment by Gerald Gibson Jr
Name one that was "necessary".
BTW, the true left in the world has achieved all social conquests struggling, most of the times, violently against the establishment...so, no, this is not peacenik stuff.
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:44 pm"Reid, is a pathetic leader. Their should be a vote of no confidence in him as the majority leader."
Isn't that what David Broder wrote a few weeks ago? As I recall, TP excoriated him for his comments...
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:44 pmOkay, I can follow some of this. There are two amendments which may or may not pass. 1st amendment is for numerous domestic spending projects favored by Democrats and 2nd amendment hikes the minimum wage. I understand the Republicans might have to hold their noses to pass those. But the bill supposedly funds the war through 30 Sept 2007. I confused. Did Bush's initial request only cover from now until the end of Sept? Or is this a partial payment? I thought Bush's request was for a full year's budget.
Now, if Bush has to come back after Labor Day and beg for more money, I'm not so unhappy. I'm just confused as to why this is being reported this way.
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:44 pmYes Juan, you are correct.
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:44 pmDream crusher you tiny minded ass.
Not all wars are wrong. This one is ASS!
The majority of the world does not believe in your God. Your God is the same one as your hooded freinds!
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:46 pmThis is it for me. Thanks democrats... I am going to go donate money to Ron Paul right now....
To many of us this wasnt a game of politics... it was about right and wrong... honor and dishonor... the ability of a unitary executive to start wars of personal gain just like the roman emporers VS. the American Constitutional way....
I wasnt here because I believe in the ultra lefty team... I wanted someone to stand up for what was right and what was American as my representative.
And after these years of waiting .... all we get is political gamesmanship...BS
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:46 pmI feel sick...I am so angry that I cannot see or focus on what just happened...
Harry Reid has PROVEN that HE IS (in fact) a WIMP! and PELOSI is a loose skirt after all...
I just hope that it demonstrates that we need STRONG leadership instead of corrupt REPUBLICANS and cowardly DEMOCRATS who are more worried about JOB SECURITY instead of ending this war!
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:46 pmMr. Reid, now tell us please which party controls both houses? And you can't do what? Oh you can't not give Bush a blank check because? Blah, Blah, blah, blather, he's the Decider.
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:47 pmName one that was “necessaryâ€.
BTW, the true left in the world has achieved all social conquests struggling, most of the times, violently against the establishment…so, no, this is not peacenik stuff.
Comment by Juan C
WWII
American Revolution
War of 1812
And all wars where an outsider invaded a country and that country had to beat them back... such as Russia against Napoleon.
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:48 pmYou ARE right on this one Exley!
He (REID) called the war correctly, because THE CONFLICT (not war) is LOST!
But this move demonstrates that FEINGOLD should be in charge! I have NO ISSUES with BRODER as it relates to this decision! And I am inclined to agree with him!
Mea cupla...My Friend!
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:49 pmThis is just disgraceful.
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:50 pmHere’s your rope, Mr. President. It’s Your show now…
Comment by marlow
No the democrats just invested in the business of Iraq war of fraud.
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:50 pmThanks, Exley, we're looking forward to it even if you're the only other one who is!
Goodnight, gotta run, time to head home.
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:51 pm"And all wars where an outsider invaded a country and that country had to beat them back… such as Russia against Napoleon."
And the US against Iraq??
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:51 pm"It is simply not spin-able if the Dems would just f-ing stand up and say that, over and over when that bullshit canard about “not funding the troops†is trotted out."
They did try that - it got spun anyway as Dems hating the troops and not caring if they live or die. It always gets spun that way because the biggest media megaphones are owned by corporations who kiss Bush's ring and genuflect when he leaves the room.
And as for my evidence, try a BA in Political Science and FIFTEEN YEARS of studying politics and media impact on politics. Yes in theory we can cut the funds off, but the reality is that doing that is a VERY BAD IDEA.
I want the war over, but you can't expect miracles from a Senate where we have to rely on RG Joe to keep us in the majority.
Now, if you think you can do better be my guest.
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:51 pmAnd the US against Iraq??
Comment by gorn by any other name
Correct. From the perspective of the Iraqis.... Crime is bad... that doesnt make the cops that try to stop the crime bad...
Bushies war is bad... the Iraqis defending themselves is not. If the Iraqis just acted like Juan then they will all be Americas little bitches right now... and Europe would be Germanies little bitches.... and so on and so forth... and there would be NO America.
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:56 pmGerald, was it necessary for Hitler to invade Austria and Poland in order to Volkswagen introduce its products there?
You see consequences. I see causes.
Of course, fighting back an agression, like the Iraqi insurgency does is completely justified and necessary. But they didnt start this war, so, in fact, it wasnt necessary a WAR. Do you understand me?
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:58 pmComment by Trekkie
Its funny how Ron Paul could stand up for what is right in the middle of SC republicans cheering Rudy and he didnt melt into a spineless pool of gel...
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:58 pmI feel betrayed. They were saying, this is what the people want. And we're going to fight for the people.
then backs down and now is going to write a blank check.
They should have sent the same bill back again, and again and again.
And that smug little jackass in the WH is laughing, they won't impeach me. They just did that to the last president. They won't do it again...not now... I can do what ever i want. Like its a joke. And he'll giggle with that sick ass smirk on his face.
And then explain it to us.. ya know, what we don't understand.
The lunatic President G W Bush and the KKK band
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:58 pmMore coverage. This from The Washington Post:
Democrats Drop Withdrawal Dates from Iraq Funding Bill
By Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 22, 2007; 6:18 PM
Democrats reluctantly gave up their demand for troops withdrawal dates in an Iraq war spending package today, conceding to President Bush on their number one goal in a debate that has roiled Congress for months...
War opponents had hoped that Democratic control of Congress would force a swift end to the Iraq conflict. But the package requires Bush to surrender virtually none of his war authority.
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:00 pmDo you understand me?
Comment by Juan C
Yes ...there is NEVER a neccessary war of aggression... you are correct... fighting is neccessary ...in defense... sorry ..I forgot you and I already went over this a few weeks ago ) ...
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:03 pm"Its funny how Ron Paul could stand up for what is right in the middle of SC republicans cheering Rudy and he didnt melt into a spineless pool of gel…"
Considering Ron Paul has about as much chance of being elected President as I have pitching for the Yankees next week, he can take more risks and be more outspoken. Plus, he had to do something to differentiate himself from the rest of the "bomb 'em all and let God sort 'em out" Republicans running.
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:03 pm"Voting "nay" on such a conference bill is the best course of action for those 29 Senators and 169 Representatives who voted for cloture on Feingold-Reid and for the McGovern bill." -- via FDL
That's the NAY caucus, 29 Senators (out of 50 -- 21 hold outs), and 169 Representatives, which includes Nancy Pelosi.
• Blaming Speaker Pelosi for the yea voters in the caucus is unfair and unrealistic.
Since it is pretty clear we are on our way to war with Iran, it is likely that the numbers will get worse, not better. And yet, people here think it's time for impeachment! HILARIOUS, if not so tragic.
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:05 pmConsidering Ron Paul has about as much chance of being elected President as I have pitching for the Yankees next week, he can take more risks and be more outspoken. Plus, he had to do something to differentiate himself from the rest of the “bomb ‘em all and let God sort ‘em out†Republicans running.
Comment by Trekkie
More political gamesmanship.... That is NOT integrity...
Ron Paul has as much chance as anyone... I see the American spirit being like religion... sometimes it can sweep away all the old and bad ... and replace with new ... in a short period of time... That is how America was made...
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:09 pm#85 What crap. I would love to hear exactly what you said and to whom then, because what I laid out up-thread is NOT spin-able. Unless you are a Colmes style idiot.
Furthermore the GOP will say what you say, no matter what. They will literally invent shit to call you a troop-hating islamofascist traitor, no matter what. Even if you fellate Bush while handing him the biggest blank check possible.
You simply don't get it. You sucker punch someone who tries that shit. You get in his/her grill and call them traitorous un-American fu*cknuts who love pointlessly killing our troops while NOT doing what is necessary in going after real terrorist threats.
"Pointlessly killing our troops by occupying a civil war torn country that hates us is not supporting the troops jackass!"
How hard is that to say really?
You call bullies out, you don't pander to them and cave. It really is that simple. Not sure why you never learned this in grade school.
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:09 pmI'm totally pissed off, too. This is bullshit and definitely not what I helped get Dems elected for last fall.
I'll see you all at the bar.
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:10 pm#103 There is no excuse for the Senate to pas the conference report. None. The House is a different beast, but Reid gets ZERO credit because of his fucking this up royally. None.
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:11 pmBoy, you guys seem bipolar. I'm totally confused by the so-called progressive claiming he'll vote Republican in future because they do what they'll say they'll do.
No one has answered my question. Was Bush's request only for funding until the end of Sept? And doesn't this happen all over again in three months?
No wonder the Founding Fathers didn't trust the people. You guys blow hot and cold and hot again with each news bulletin.
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:12 pmMy comment at #105... that was meant to be in response to comment #95, not #85.
Mea culpa.
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:12 pmGerald Gibson Jr, since when was the War of 1812 necessary? You must have been taught some really twisted history.
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:13 pmGerald Gibson Jr, since when was the War of 1812 necessary? You must have been taught some really twisted history.
Comment by david
England attacked US... We picked up guns and joined the battle... you ALWAYS fight back in defense.
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:16 pmThis is still politics and the Republicans still own this war.
I quess its another four months and then probably another six after that and so on....
It does no good playing ping pong with a bill. The senior repiblicans already told bush they will hang on until september.
I'm hope the repiblicans are not celebrating the fact that more soldiers are going to die between now and then.
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:16 pmIf they won't stop the funding, perhaps WE should.
Is there a legal way to withhold paying taxes out of protest? Does anyone know?
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:17 pmNo wonder the Founding Fathers didn’t trust the people. You guys blow hot and cold and hot again with each news bulletin.
Comment by david
BS ... we have been clear for 4 years now... NO wars of fraud... NO wars of aggression... real simple... our founding fathers said... and they were right.
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:17 pm"Now do you believe me?
Comment by Daryll — May 22, 2007 @ 6:30 pm"
No. I wouldn't believe you if you told me that the sky is blue...
There are Democrats who are going to oppose it. The ones who don't get voted out in the next election too. We only got to kick out a portion of the problem last November.
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:19 pm"And yet, people here think it’s time for impeachment! HILARIOUS, if not so tragic.
Comment by Paul in LA — May 22, 2007 @ 7:05 pm"
You prefer to storm the Bastille?
Instead of ridiculing others, why not offer a different solution and back it up with facts? Can you? Or you just get off on being a prick?
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:22 pmI’m hope the repiblicans are not celebrating the fact that more soldiers are going to die between now and then.
Comment by really
I am not asking the congress democrats to be Jesus.... I am not asking them to crusify themselves.... just put there political careers (they all have enough money to live on) on the line... that isnt too much to ask when we are talking about how corrupt the American soul is going to be if we allow this kind of war of agression to go unchecked... with no moral line drawn in the sand....
THIS to me is like the answer about abortion that Rudy gave in one of the debates.... He said "It would be ok." ... The questioner had to ask what would be ok? "Oh either way" .... Well this isnt Mc Donalds or Burger King... this is about core beliefs... are we good guys or bad guys or "It would be ok either way"????
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:22 pm"Ron Paul has as much chance as anyone…" --Gerald Gibson Jr
That's pretty funny, Gerald. You have as much chance, and you're not even running.
As for the War of 1812 being unnecessary? I guess you missed the part where Engliand burned down the first White House.
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:22 pmIf they won’t stop the funding, perhaps WE should.
Is there a legal way to withhold paying taxes out of protest? Does anyone know?
Comment by unbelievable
Technically they have no right to do anything to you if you dont pay your taxes... but tradition dictates they WILL come after you eventually... and of coarse if you have an employer they wont fight this battle on your behalf and stop sending in the tax part of your paycheck.
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:24 pm"you ALWAYS fight back in defense.
Comment by Gerald Gibson Jr — May 22, 2007 @ 7:16 pm"
Gandhi didn't - and won.
There's almost always an exception to every absolute...
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:25 pmAs for the War of 1812 being unnecessary? I guess you missed the part where Engliand burned down the first White House.
Comment by Paul in LA
We were not talking about "unnecessary" wars... we were talking about "necessary" wars.
That’s pretty funny, Gerald. You have as much chance, and you’re not even running.
Comment by Paul in LA
Thats what the British Empire said about the american colonies... of coarse the under dogs lose most of the time...as right or wrong as they may be...
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:27 pmThere’s almost always an exception to every absolute…
Comment by unbelievable
And so it is.
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:28 pm"You prefer to storm the Bastille?"
No, I prefer political efforts that do not empower Bush or the Rapepublicans by playing into their hands.
"Instead of ridiculing others, why not offer a different solution and back it up with facts? Can you? Or you just get off on being a prick?" --unbelievable
How soon will you be attacking me for resorting to insults this time, un? That appears to be your basic schtick.
My point was not 'a different solution,' since impeachment is not a solution BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE VOTES.
You might be able to notice that we don't have the votes by comparing the votes we DO have (21 Senate/169 House) with what is required for impeachment/conviction.
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:29 pm"I guess you missed the part where Engliand burned down the first White House.
Comment by Paul in LA — May 22, 2007 @ 7:22 pm"
Just like the 'Russians' burned down the Reichstag?
It's all the same crap over and over - but we've made history books so boring to middle school students that they never want to read about it again.
Uh oh, I said history - you gonna bash Howard Zinn some more without evidence?
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:29 pm"“you ALWAYS fight back in defense.
"Gandhi didn’t - and won." --unbelievable
Gandhi fought back, and FAILED.
The resulting civil war killed millions during the partition, millions more during the formation of Bangladesh, and which may STILL kill tens or hundreds of millions in a nuclear weapons exchange.
Gandhi is revered for his principle of nonviolent opposition. He is not correctly revered for having 'succeeded.'
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:33 pm"Technically they have no right to do anything to you if you dont pay your taxes…"
Is that written down somewhere?
"but tradition dictates they WILL come after you eventually…"
But if millions of tax payers all stopped at once - well, strength in numbers and they would immediately lose a LOT of revenue...
"and of coarse if you have an employer they wont fight this battle on your behalf and stop sending in the tax part of your paycheck.
Comment by Gerald Gibson Jr — May 22, 2007 @ 7:24 pm"
The government is my employer... But they trust me to fill out my W2 and with 10 exemptions, it would reduce the flow of $ they are getting. If everyone against the war could do this, it might make an impact.
Just a thought. Hundreds of millions of people cannot be helpless...
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:33 pmall i can say is DENNIS KUCINICH....yeah I said it....DENNIS KUCINICH....the only democrat that has a set of ball on the Iraq spending issue.....Bring em home Period. Read his HR1234....all i can say is DENNIS KUCINICH. chech him out.....the only one that is consistently opposed to the iraq war from the beginning. DENNIS KUCINICH, yep thats what i said
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:34 pm"Just like the ‘Russians’ burned down the Reichstag?" --unbelievable
So you are claiming that Madison burned down the White House?
I don't think Zinn is responsible for that one.
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:35 pmGandhi is revered for his principle of nonviolent opposition. He is not correctly revered for having ’succeeded.’
Comment by Paul in LA
You conveniently left out the part about what Ghandi was fighting against ...you know ... the British colonization...
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:36 pm"You conveniently left out the part about what Ghandi was fighting against …you know … the British colonization…"
Of course he was. I didn't mean to imply that he was guilty of the results of collapsing the Raj. He was just not a 'success,' and he would agree with that.
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:38 pmJust a thought. Hundreds of millions of people cannot be helpless…
Comment by unbelievable
Its a bunch of info I dont want to go into right now... its in the Constitution if you use google you will find videos and all kinds of stuff... there were some recent legal battles that the IRS lost...
The bottom line is though that millions wont all at once without some kind of rare miracle moment. Just do to the rules of mass motivation or lack there of...
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:39 pm"No, I prefer political efforts that do not empower Bush or the Rapepublicans by playing into their hands."
Care to elaborate?
I mean, you wanna patronize everyone else's ideas - have any of your own?
"How soon will you be attacking me for resorting to insults this time, un? That appears to be your basic schtick."
I was asking you for proof. I see the answer to my question is NO. You just like criticiszing but have nothing of substance to offer in return.
"My point was not ‘a different solution,’ since impeachment is not a solution BECAUSE WE DON’T HAVE THE VOTES. "
Doesn't give you the right to insult people who think that the process would send a message to Bush. You know - standing up to bullies makes them run away crying?
Instead, you could explain this without being an ass about it (by the way, your nastiness is not an insult - it's a fact. Truth isn't always pleasant).
"You might be able to notice that we don’t have the votes by comparing the votes we DO have (21 Senate/169 House) with what is required for impeachment/conviction.
Comment by Paul in LA — May 22, 2007 @ 7:29 pm"
I never said we did - I just don't like the way you're insulting people by insinuating that they are insane or stupid when they didn't attack you first, and then offering nothing in return as a solution.
Spell out your plan paul and if it's better than impeachment, you might start a grassroots movement... Let's here it...
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:41 pmOf course he was. I didn’t mean to imply that he was guilty of the results of collapsing the Raj. He was just not a ’success,’ and he would agree with that.
Comment by Paul in LA
Well lets just say he won the battle... but lost the war... of coarse the war and peace issue isnt going to be solved by one man... but a British Empire lost its colony because of him...
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:41 pmWIMPY
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:42 pm"As for the War of 1812 being unnecessary? I guess you missed the part where Engliand burned down the first White House.
"We were not talking about “unnecessary†wars… we were talking about “necessary†wars." --Gerald Gibson Jr
I believe I was taking your side, Gerald.
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:42 pmI believe I was taking your side, Gerald.
Comment by Paul in LA
Oops well thats two for me today... sorry.
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:45 pm"Gandhi fought back, and FAILED."
His goal was to free the Indian people from British rule. He did that. Not quite the dictionary definition of failure.
"The resulting civil war killed millions during the partition, millions more during the formation of Bangladesh, and which may STILL kill tens or hundreds of millions in a nuclear weapons exchange."
You cannot blame him for what happened afterwards.
For someone who claims to know so much about history, you sure don't get that civil war tends to follow successful independence revolutions. Not saying it is desirable, but am saying that it wasn't Gandhi's fault.
"Gandhi is revered for his principle of nonviolent opposition. He is not correctly revered for having ’succeeded.’
Comment by Paul in LA — May 22, 2007 @ 7:33 pm"
Yes he is. One of my bestfriends in from Mumbai. I am close to his family there and many of his friends in the U.S. They disgree with you. They consider his non-violence in opposition to British rule to be a HUGE success.
Guess it's why so many people quote him as a beacon of success through liberty, and no one ever quotes you...
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:45 pm"How hard is that to say really?"
In an IDEAL world, not hard.
In the REAL WORLD, where ACTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES, it is damned difficult.
You are the one who doesn't get it.
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:45 pm“Doesn’t give you the right to insult people who think that the process would send a message to Bush."
What message would that send? It would send the message that we don't have enough votes. He already knows that.
"Instead, you could explain this without being an ass about it (by the way, your nastiness is not an insult - it’s a fact. Truth isn’t always pleasant)."
Insults, namecalling, is just that, un. Love how you say 'your nastiness,' when it is YOU who are posting the insults.
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:46 pm"So you are claiming that Madison burned down the White House?"
Only in your demented mind.
"I don’t think Zinn is responsible for that one.
Comment by Paul in LA — May 22, 2007 @ 7:35 pm"
I didn't say he was... Just figured you might like to offer evidence to your claims against him. I mean, he does reference his evidence in his books, thought it only fair that you offer substance as well.
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:49 pm"a British Empire lost its colony because of him…" --Gerald Gibson Jr
In one of the bloodiest independence results in history.
The Raj was collapsing anyhow, as a direct result of WWII, and other (including domestic) factors.
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:49 pmI forgot you and I already went over this a few weeks ago ) …
Comment by Gerald Gibson Jr
Perhaps I wasnt clear the first time. I agree with you. Fighting back is necessary.
BTW, how about doing a general strike?
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:50 pmDemocrats with this one miscalculation just opened the door to an independant bid for the Presidency. BIG TIME!!!
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:51 pmWe are sick of the political mumbo jumbo @ the expense of human life.
We expect Orwellian doublespeak from this administration NOT from the people that are supposed to be fighting for US!!!
"the beginning of the end"??? By giving him the funds w/ no conditions???
Are they outta' their minds???
"I didn’t mean to imply that he was guilty of the results of collapsing the Raj."
People who don't mean a thing, don't suggest it in the first place, as you did.
You said he wasn't successful. That was an implication.
"He was just not a ’success,’ and he would agree with that.
Comment by Paul in LA — May 22, 2007 @ 7:38 pm'
You knew him personally?
He was humble. It doesn't mean he was wasn't successful. He was.
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:51 pm"You cannot blame him for what happened afterwards." --unbelievable
Luckily I don't have to -- that was his own view.
You (I think) called him a success. I think he was a moral success. His actual praxis drove some very violent results, and he himself felt terribly guilty about it.
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:51 pmOK, un, tell us why you think the burning of the White House by invading British troops is comparable to the suggestion that the Russians burned down the Reichstag instead of the Nazis.
Even Zinn doesn't make that claim.
Then you try to change the subject.
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:53 pmI remember an interview on 60 Minutes with Nancy Pelosi (pre- November 2006 election), in which she said that 'Bush would be a lame duck President' after the November election. Looks to me like we have a lame duck Congress instead!!!
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:53 pmCome on Democrats this is NOT what we want!!!
Might I suggest:
http://www.peaceandfreedom.org
as an alternative to the Two-Faces of the Same Party System we currently have.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire — May 22, 2007 @ 5:50 pm
I was wondering how on earth we are supposed to pay for this:
"Double the minimum wage, and index it to the cost of living.
Guarantee the right of all workers to organize and to strike; forbid striker replacement.
Socially useful jobs for all at union pay levels.
Equal pay for equal work, and for work of comparable worth.
A 30-hour work week with no cut in weekly pay; longer paid vacations.
Guaranteed dignified income for those who cannot work.
A Universal Basic Income to alleviate poverty and homelessness."
Until I read this:
"Tax the income and assets of the rich to meet human needs.
Social ownership and democratic control of industry, financial institutions, and natural resources."
And this:
The United States should take the initiative toward global disarmament (BOLD) by eliminating nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Withdraw U. S. troops and weapons from other countries, and reallocate the resulting "peace dividend" for social benefit.
Abolish the CIA, NSA, AID and other agencies for interference in other countries' internal affairs.
Convert from a military to a peace-oriented economy, with jobs for displaced workers.
Kind of makes this impossible:
Self-determination for all nations and peoples of the world, including Puerto Rico and all U.S. territories.
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:54 pmDefend and extend liberties guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.
Looks like we have a lame duck Congress!!!!
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:54 pm"Its a bunch of info I dont want to go into right now… its in the Constitution if you use google you will find videos and all kinds of stuff… there were some recent legal battles that the IRS lost…"
Just asking for input...
"The bottom line is though that millions wont all at once without some kind of rare miracle moment. Just do to the rules of mass motivation or lack there of…
Comment by Gerald Gibson Jr — May 22, 2007 @ 7:39 pm"
I think were long over due for some miracle movement... After all, millions get together on the same day and vote in such protest.
The people are getting frustrated. And as JFK said - when peaceful revolution becomes impossible, violent revolution becomes inevitable.
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:56 pm"What message would that send? It would send the message that we don’t have enough votes. He already knows that."
No... It would be standing up to the bully - calling him on his actions. He's not a rational man - he would be so consumed by it, he would be more maleable. It's what happens to bullies when they are confronted - they back down. Even backing down a bit would be a step in the right direction.
"Insults, namecalling, is just that, un. Love how you say ‘your nastiness,’ when it is YOU who are posting the insults.
Comment by Paul in LA — May 22, 2007 @ 7:46 pm"
No, paul, it is you who has been and is insulting. I am just pointing it out - an unpleasant fact.
Well, we'll catch up later... My dinner has arrived...
May 22nd, 2007 at 8:00 pmOK, it's official. The Dems are in a dead heat with Bush trying to get their approval rating down to zero.
Any Dem that votes for this will never -- EVER -- get a vote from me.
EVER.
The whole world is watching -- The whole world is watching -- The whole world is watching -- The whole world is watching -- The whole world is watching -- The whole world is watching -- The whole world is watching -- The whole world is watching -- The whole world is watching -- The whole world is watching --
May 22nd, 2007 at 8:01 pmAmerica wants this war over NOW !!!!
May 22nd, 2007 at 8:02 pmI see, so you are suggesting violent revolution?
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
Peaceful revolution is already underway, but the suggestion that such a massive coup can be undone by one election is fallacy itself. We do not need a violent movement, at all. We need to restore the DoJ to legal operations, and we need to work hard to get fair elections in 2008. That's peaceful revolution -- that's democracy.
One funding bill is not the end of our efforts. And, no, funding bills will not stop Bush, either way. No funding bill stopped Nixon -- he was out and pardoned before the Congress stopped all funding to SE Asia military action.
May 22nd, 2007 at 8:06 pmDamn it paul, I wanna eat dinner...
"You (I think) called him a success. I think he was a moral success. His actual praxis drove some very violent results, and he himself felt terribly guilty about it.
Comment by Paul in LA — May 22, 2007 @ 7:51 pm"
No, I didn't. I said that he peacefully stood up to the British and won Indian Independence. The misinterpretation and spin was all yours.
"OK, un, tell us why you think the burning of the White House by invading British troops is comparable to the suggestion that the Russians burned down the Reichstag instead of the Nazis."
First of all, you have to prove the Nazi's burned it. I think they did, but you need proof.
Secondly, I was comparing the aggression.
Thirdly, you have dodged every request I've had of you for proof. You tell me the alternative to Impeachment and I'll answer your question. Only fair. I bet you won't - just try to deflect by insulting me.
"Even Zinn doesn’t make that claim.
Then you try to change the subject.
Comment by Paul in LA — May 22, 2007 @ 7:53 pm"
I like Zinn, but I don't base my thoughts on his. That's absurd.
You're the king of changing the subject... You keep ignoring my request to tell me your brilliant plan for controlling the Bush regime.... I will check back.
May 22nd, 2007 at 8:06 pmI guess this is the platform of the Peace and Freedom party?
Oh, great. Let's follow the fabulously dysfunctional model of France.
Pushing this kind of agenda is exactly the right way to keep Republicans in power. That's about as useful as voting for Ralph Nader, helping to give birth to George Bush, because left wingnuts didn't find Al Gore acceptable enough. Sheesh.
(And let the slings and arrows begin).
May 22nd, 2007 at 8:07 pm"No… It would be standing up to the bully - calling him on his actions. He’s not a rational man - he would be so consumed by it, he would be more maleable." -- unbelievable
That's untrue, and I'm glad that Pelosi is not as foolish as you.
The key to unraveling this mess is through INDICTMENTS. It's a slow process, and it won't stop the war directly, but it is the only method that we have available. To file a doomed impeachment would simply reempower the Rapepublicans and Bushco, and slow the indictment process.
Indictments, or forced resignations, aka restoration of our justice system, is key to solving this crisis. No funding bill will stop what is going to happen next month, and I think the Dems recognize that, even if the public wants 'miracles.'
May 22nd, 2007 at 8:10 pm"I see, so you are suggesting violent revolution?"
No, I was suggesting not paying taxes. Try to pay attention.The quote was to show what will happen if they don't allow us peaceful outlets.
"Peaceful revolution is already underway, but the suggestion that such a massive coup can be undone by one election is fallacy itself. We do not need a violent movement, at all. We need to restore the DoJ to legal operations, and we need to work hard to get fair elections in 2008. That’s peaceful revolution — that’s democracy."
And that is working oh so well...
Is that your master idea? LOL. No wonder you insult others - you have no original ideas.
"One funding bill is not the end of our efforts. And, no, funding bills will not stop Bush, either way. No funding bill stopped Nixon — he was out and pardoned before the Congress stopped all funding to SE Asia military action.
Comment by Paul in LA — May 22, 2007 @ 8:06 pm"
Never said it was.
You've got nothing.
Bye.
May 22nd, 2007 at 8:10 pmunbelievable...."Is there a way to withhold paying taxes out of protest?"
sure, easy....just stop paying!
to be free, you must be self employed, own no real estate, keep your assets liquid,not in your own name and think like a pirate.
its definitely not legal, but neither is this government of fucking war criminals.
May 22nd, 2007 at 8:11 pmThere is no comparison 'in aggression' between the Nazis burning down the German parliament in the middle of the night and the British burning down Washington by force of an invading army.
Gandhi's methods were noble and inform our NONVIOLENT protests.
You say Gandhi was a success, and then you quote JFK as if he was suggesting a violent revolution.
No contradiction there, unbelievable.
May 22nd, 2007 at 8:13 pm"That’s untrue, and I’m glad that Pelosi is not as foolish as you."
Not an insult?
You're pathetic...
"The key to unraveling this mess is through INDICTMENTS."
Impeachment is an indictment. Sheesh... Got anything else? You know - something different?
"Indictments, or forced resignations, aka restoration of our justice system, is key to solving this crisis. No funding bill will stop what is going to happen next month, and I think the Dems recognize that, even if the public wants ‘miracles.’
Comment by Paul in LA — May 22, 2007 @ 8:10 pm"
Nothing intelligent... Should have known.
I'm not even going to wait to make sure this posts this time... I'm done.
May 22nd, 2007 at 8:14 pmI see. Well, not paying taxes will not stop this war. It will simply plunge you and your family into a nightmare.
May 22nd, 2007 at 8:15 pm"to be free, you must be self employed, own no real estate, keep your assets liquid,not in your own name and think like a pirate." --offshore1
In other words, to be 'free,' you have to have no family, no children, no status in society, and sell pet rocks.
Great! No wonder so many people are lining up to join you in your tax protest.
May 22nd, 2007 at 8:16 pmSO effing what? Bush doesn't have free access to funding.
Typical Democrat excuses for screwing their constituents.
Yet they keep voting them in.
May 22nd, 2007 at 8:19 pmYou people who think the Dems will indictment anybody are fools. They have proven they do not have the political courage to do so. I think we need to clean house in '08 and '10.
May 22nd, 2007 at 8:20 pmPaul.........having "status in society" is not an admirable goal in a society that enables war crimes.
good american ,good german, same.
May 22nd, 2007 at 8:30 pm"Paul………having “status in society†is not an admirable goal in a society that enables war crimes. good american ,good german, same." --offshore1
It is not the same, not at all. Just because the MIC can force a war on us and commit warcrimes is not equivalent to living in a Nazi state.
May 22nd, 2007 at 8:36 pm"verto proof congress" is a limp excuse.
Congress sent him a bill already.
He vetoed it.
End of story.'
That is how a REAL opposition party would act.
But then, the Dems aren't a real opposition party, as I have said repeatedly.
They are complicit. They are Ivory Snow instead of Tide but they are still soap. They are the "good cop" in this "good cop, bad cop" farce that has long been played on the gullible American public.
And now we are here. It took 70 years for the Nazis to prevail and they have finally won the day.
See you in the camps, unless one of us happens to be ahead of the other in the executioners bathes
May 22nd, 2007 at 8:39 pmPaul.... "is not equivalent"...."is not equivalent"....." is not equivalent"
keep telling yourself that, you'll continue to believe it,and your mind will be at peace while the USA continues on its path of global destruction.
May 22nd, 2007 at 8:44 pmYou could:
*move out of the country and change your citizenship;
May 22nd, 2007 at 8:52 pm*stop working, thus have no income with which to pay taxes;
*become so wealthy that you have all your money in an offshore perpetual trust with a spendthrift clause and live off the dividends of that trust.
what do you need to believe it is equivalent?
Do you need to see films of how efficiently the Americans will dispose of their unwanted, compared to the way the Nazis did?
Do you need to see gas chambers and ovens to believe it?
Do you, really?
May 22nd, 2007 at 8:52 pmHell with this. I'm voting for Ron Paul.
May 22nd, 2007 at 8:55 pmSteny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the House Democratic voted against the MCGOVERN bill to leave Iraq. A bluedog Killer of troops.
My question to these B L U E D O G D E M O C R A T S how many more Death Certificates of Soldiers will YOU sign.
Bluedogs are KILLING our US TROOPS! Republicans are MURDERERING our US TROOPS>
And for those BUFFOONS that vote to give the money to BUSH YOU are liable for starving the American population and know that you are doing so.
Poverty coming in boatloads to humdreds of citizens across America. More bank robberies coming to your neighborhood. More violence in USA just so Bush can have his war.
As they SURGE the war so will commodities equal to FOOD and ENERGY.
The LION (who is furious)
Gasoline 4.50 a gallon ............ADD another 35 percent to your WEEKLY food bill.
More RICE for YOU while Bush eats STEAK.
May 22nd, 2007 at 8:55 pm"You people who think the Dems will indictment anybody are fools." --frybread
The verb is 'indict.' No, the 'Dems' do not have the power of indictment. They can refer charges to the DoJ.
First, the DoJ has be de-cronied. Since they started that process, the WH liason officer has quit and taken the Fifth, and two deputy AG's have quit, and the AG himself has lost all credibility and will either quit or be forced out. His crimes have been documented, his perjuries are on the record, and he has painted himself into a corner that only has Bush's political power -- which has been whittled down considerably -- at his side.
It is progress, even if the miracle and violent revolution crowd don't recognize it.
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:03 pmnever gonna happen people./
Stick a fork in the Republic
she is done
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:05 pm"Paul…. “is not equivalentâ€â€¦.â€is not equivalentâ€â€¦..†is not equivalentâ€-=-Eldridge Cleaver
Is NOT equivalent, just as Bush is NOT Hitler, and the Rapepublican party, though many of them would be happy to be Nazis, is not the Nazi party.
When you exaggerate like that, you limit your own ability to respond to crisis in practical ways. Then you can become tax resisters, marginalize yourself, or flee. WHAT wonderful solutions to real world problems.
You may notice that those 'solutions' do not in any way affect the world around you. They just screw up YOUR life, and anyone dependent on you.
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:06 pmI would not recommend it. There are penalties for under-withholding. Can you afford the attorney's fees necessary to fight the IRS?
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:06 pmGotaclue, here representing the Defeatism party.
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:07 pm"Hell with this. I’m voting for Ron Paul." --Troll Love Child
Hell with this, you're here CAMPAIGNING for Paul, don't fool yourself that you're fooling anyone.
Ask yourself why Ron Paul is a Republican.
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:09 pmInteresting following the comments. Trolls don't seem to like anything resembling socialism. Not too surprising, since they support unlimited greed and forceful domination over anyone who stands in their way.
So, what if we end up with a Republican Congress and a Republican President in '08? We lose the side-show that the Democratic "oversight hearings" have created. We gain Big Brother. It's a trade-off.
The masses will be kept ignorant and entertained. The middle class will shrink, but not disappear entirely, as their taxes will support the war effort. They will forever live one paycheck, one illness, one accident away from poverty. The wealthy will live in gated communities and enjoy the fine life. And news from the front will always report progress.
But the war will never end.
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:16 pmThere is more to this change of heart than we are being told. Reid and a handful other dems had to have come to a back room deal with the administration. Someone or several got paid-off.
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:19 pmDemocrats should call Bush's bluff, let the money run out, and there is no question that it would be Bush's fault.
But when Harry Reid made the announcement, he spoke about this meaning the Republicans' timeline ("Republicans have given Bush until September, for his surge to have made progress") is the "benchmark." Let the record show that "progress" has never been defined, nor have Republicans committed to that publicly. September will come and go, and Bush will have some new talking point, about what "progress" looks like (but to you, me and all other normal human beings, Iraq will look like the 7th ring of hell), and Democrats will have found a new way to let Bush keep his war going. Because Republicans will have persuaded Democrats they will be able to pin blame on them. When Republicans are able to move only their base and professional Democrats with their words, when more than 61% of the country isn't buying Republican anything anymore, then it's time to accept that our Democratic representatives aren't democrats - they're Republicans.
With each new casualty in Iraq, blood is now on Democrats' hands as well as Bush's and Republicans.
Politically, it reinforces what I've long believed is the Democratic party's plan (the DLC's actually) to lose the liberal base and replace us with moderate Republicans in time for the 2008 elections. Only Bill Richardson, Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich are for pulling all of the troops out of Iraq (Edwards would leave about 100,000 there for 12-18 months) and setting a new (old really) commonsense foreign policy and energy policy -- both Hillary and Obama are for leaving troops (some number) in Iraq. Nobody mentions the extra 100,000 we have there in the form of private security mercenaries.
This is a nightmare, and with this appropriations bill, Democrats will really own this war along with the Republicans. At least now we'll have the names of the Democrats (and Republicans) in Congress whose seats need to be challenged. But I'm at the point where I say, "Replace them all."
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:19 pmWhy this groundswell of support for Ron Paul from liberals? If you are that unhappy with the frontrunners vote for Kucinich. Ron Paul is not your friend. This is a guy that thinks 95% of blacks in DC are criminals. This is a guy who said "we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers." This is a guy that is virulently anti-choice, anti-gay and supports unfettered free trade. He would love to get rid of all "entitlements" including Social Security. He wants to abolish the income tax and replace it with the ever so regressive sales tax. Just because he happens to agree with you on two issues does not make him your candidate.
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:21 pmWell, this is a rather curious thread. Gandhi did not lose. I don't know what twisted history you've been reading, Gerald. And Britain did not attack America in 1812, it was War Hawks in Washington who declared war on Britain & Canada. And the "White" House was burned in retaliation for Americans burning the town of York (now Toronto). It's typical that America's main beef was about restrictions on Trading with Napoleon. I should point out that by 1812 Napoleon was no longer seen as a liberator or republican, but a little dictator. (Funny, that America sees nothing wrong with its blockade of Cuba, but it sure didn't like anyone messing with its trade with the little corporal.) Of course, the real reason for the War was to expel the French Catholics from North America and take the land north of the Great Lakes. How fortunate that New England, which had good relations with Quebec and Nova Scotia, refused to help with the war and threatened to secede.
Perhaps the time has come for the Blue States and the Red States to part and form separate countries.
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:24 pmthis is where wiretapping paid off for the Bush mafia.
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:27 pmMy political malaise is now a 9 on a scale of 10. Essay to follow...somewhere.
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:27 pmI feel EXACTLY the same way I did the day Bush was re-elected. I feel democracy has failed. I am furious that we put the Democrats in complete majority in 2006 for one thing - IRAQ - only to have them cower to the Idiot In Chief. I never really believed the stereotype that Democrats are spineless, I am sadly disappointed that it is true.
Everyone please do as I am and write Congress emphatically and remind them about Bush's approval rating, and America's majority opinion about leaving Iraq.
No excuses!
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:29 pmActually, Gerald, the American Revolution was unnecessary as well. The Brits have been very polite about it. But, between 1774 and 1776, most of the grievances were addressed by London. Unfortunately, the time lag of the Atlantic made negotiations impossible.
And what did Americans get? The Whisky Rebellion was suppressed by General Washington himself. So much for no taxation without representation. They learned the hard way that taxes had to be paid whether you voted for them or not.
And that's the rub, eh? The Yanks just didn't want to pay tax. Whether they were represented or not. It's been the Yankee obsession with getting something for nothing ever since.
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:36 pmThis is why the elite class must be run out of politics in America along with the $/politics connection. We need fresh citizen faces who know and understand The Constitution and posess real- world intelligence, and most of all, SERVE the people.
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:41 pmIf you want the Democrats to feel some fear, mention the Green Party. Kucinich and Ron Paul are OK. We need to abandon this two party system. I just wrote to both my senators and my house rep to say that I am switching my affiliation to Green and will no longer be voting for any Democrats since they are obviously incapable of standing up to Bush.
I also feel this is a defining moment for me. I had guarded faith that the Dems would do something for this country. Now I have no faith. I have to look elsewhere.
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:49 pm"But I’m at the point where I say, “Replace them all.â€--Maeven
What nonsense. Replace the ones who are fighting back? With whom, or how?
• Name ONE U.S. yea-voting Senator you can replace in 2008.
Replace them all as a strategy means that you want to try to replace 33 Senators in 2008. How many can you actually replace? Even one?
With your illogic, you would be even less effectual than Senator Reid.
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:49 pmVinnie, no 3rd party would ever get the support to be a viable party. Unless we change our voting system to an instant runoff system it won't work. Third parties will always be a spoiler, never winning anything (except maybe some local elections and a House seat every once in awhile). If you want to see a successful 3rd party, lobby for public funding for elections and instant runoff.
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:58 pmOops, not to mention the abolition of the electoral college.
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:58 pm"Well, this is a rather curious thread. Gandhi did not lose."
Gandhi did not succeed, that was the issue. Success would have been a nonviolent transitition to self-rule, but Gandhi the Hindu was completely unable to make peace with the Muslims. It's not his fault, of course, but it isn't 'success,' either.
"I don’t know what twisted history you’ve been reading, Gerald. And Britain did not attack America in 1812,"
The war is called the War of 1812 because that's when it was declared. The British may not have attacked America in 1812, but they certainly did in 1814, and the blockades were attacks on America, if not invasions.
"War Hawks in Washington who declared war on Britain & Canada."
Sure, there were no impressments of thousands of U.S. sailors into the British war effort. It was 'war hawks.'
"And the “White†House was burned in retaliation for Americans burning the town of York (now Toronto)." --david
Whether the act was retaliation is not in question -- obviously war is generally retaliation in full. The British did not have enough forces to control the city, so they burned the gov't buildings instead. That's not so much retaliation as warfare itself.
May 22nd, 2007 at 10:00 pm"I also feel this is a defining moment for me."--Vinnie
If it is, then you have a facile view of our circumstance. Did you expect democracy to be perfect? Did you expect a major coup that has seized control by every possible illicit means to be removed in six months?
• We will be VERY lucky to restore our democracy and our laws in less than a decade.
Have a look at Chile's experience with Pinochet some time. They endured 20 years of repression and evil. We can do better, but not in half of year of limited control of our Congress.
May 22nd, 2007 at 10:02 pm"This is why the elite class must be run out of politics in America along with the $/politics connection. We need fresh citizen faces who know and understand The Constitution and posess real- world intelligence, and most of all, SERVE the people." -- Susan K
This 'need' is completely unattainable. 'Fresh citizen faces' cannot get elected, and even if elected, can not move the unmovable.
You have, currently, probably one of the best Speakers in the history of the U.S. You have 92 House members in the Out-of-Iraq caucus, you have control of (at least) two committees that are documenting the crimes as well as any can be expected to. You have 2/3 of House Dems who voted NAY on the Iraq Resolution in 2002, with change of leader to Pelosi.
You have a lot of what you might want to have, right now. But you do not have, we do not have, shoulds running the world. Don't backbite the Dems -- WORK to out the crimes of the R, to bring public demand for indictments, and to figure out if and how you can make a change in the membership at the local level.
In 2008, we will be winning more power (presuming we have elections). That's not to say we should abandon our efforts -- there is still time to do important work before it all goes flat because of the vacation schedule and then the election season. Time is short. We need to get the AG out of power, and we need to rebuild our voting systems, and we need to get the indictments flowing again. That's all domestic -- it won't stop the attack on Iran or withdraw from Iraq -- but it is CRUCIAL to our survival, don't kid yourself.
Congresses have little power over war -- which is why Bushco seized the Presidency by fraud. However, it's not all rosy on their side, so the pretense of throwing the baby out with the bathwater should be avoided.
May 22nd, 2007 at 10:13 pmDocumenting Bush's crimes? Get real. The Dems will never do anything to Bush or his henchmen. Sure, they'll have showy congressional hearings and threaten to issue subpoenas. But at the end of the day the Dems will not do a thing.
May 22nd, 2007 at 10:20 pmThe media gave presedential candidate Mike Gravel ZERO attention last week when he held a press conference announcing the United States Armed Forces Withdrawl From Iraq Act along with a step by step strategy Congress could take making it illegal to stay in Iraq.
May 22nd, 2007 at 10:21 pmhttp://www.gravel2008.us/?q=node/1191
Don't be a complacent whiner!! Let your representative KNOW how you feel about the funding one way or the other.
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/
May 22nd, 2007 at 10:26 pmIf they give in now and leave timelines out, they may as well pack their bags and head home.
May 22nd, 2007 at 10:32 pmSorry for the pessimism but I live in Texas and have no voice save the insane rantings of Kay Baily, Cornyn, and Puff, Joe Barton. : (
May 22nd, 2007 at 10:34 pmImpeach Pelosi!
May 22nd, 2007 at 10:47 pmPaul, you can't rewrite history to make America look good. It doesn't work. Which is why the rest of the world doesn't feel quite so enamored with the USA. Impressment was not given as a reason for the war; that was a later rationalization. And indeed, were they Americans being impressed or deserting Brits claiming dual citizenship? I should point out that the Americans burned York, both government and civilian buildings, the retaliation of Washington only attacked government buildings.
Gandhi did achieve Home Rule for India. He opposed the partition of India, but his colleagues supported it. Calling that failure is like saying the America is a failure as a nation because it lost Vietnam. Get real.
I think Krugman is right. Bush is about to turn America into a third-rate power. The military is being driven into the ground in Iraq. And it is the fault of the Commander-in-Chief. The Dems barely have control of the Senate. And neither chamber is veto proof. What is needed is enough moderate Republicans to turn the tide. Where are they?
May 22nd, 2007 at 10:52 pmI, for one, am taking a slow walk to the Libertarian side…..I’m holding my nose to certain concepts of theirs, but overwhelmingly, they’re against this war & nation building….and kinda surprisingly….most are socially progressive……….now, if they could just friggin’ kick their gun habit…..
May 22nd, 2007 at 10:58 pmMost libertarians are socially progressive? What??? Are you joking? Anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-poor. I beg of you. Do some homework on them.
May 22nd, 2007 at 11:59 pmGO PELOSI!!!
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:07 amAsk yourself why Ron Paul is a Republican.
Texas state law requires him to be. Otherwise, the guy is a nutcase.
Though he's right about 1 thing: we need to end wealth redistribution.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:18 am"Documenting Bush’s crimes? Get real. The Dems will never do anything to Bush or his henchmen." --frybread
http://www.amazon.com/George-Bush-Versus-U-S-Constitution/dp/0897335503/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-3523288-2702555?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1179894041&sr=1-1
The Judicial and Gov't Reform committees are documenting the crimes actively. You're just working hard to justify your disafilliation, 'bread.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:18 am“Most libertarians are socially progressive? What??? Are you joking? Anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-poor. I beg of you. Do some homework on them.â€
Go to reason.com…….you may be in for a surprise….
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:22 am“Ask yourself why Ron Paul is a Republican.â€
He sounds a lot better than some spineless dems that I voted for….
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:26 am"Paul, you can’t rewrite history to make America look good."
David, your claim that warmongers started the W of 1812 is highly simplistic (false). 'Make America look good'? America not only looks good, it is one of the shining lights in this world. Maybe you haven't travelled much.
"Impressment was not given as a reason for the war; that was a later rationalization."
Are you kidding? Impressment of 1,000s of American sailors was a primary reason for the declaration of war.
"And indeed, were they Americans being impressed or deserting Brits claiming dual citizenship?"
It was American citizens being taken off their ships and forced to fight for Britain. That was an extension of the British tyranny of the seas that was the primary stated reason for the war.
"I should point out that the Americans burned York,"
Americans did not burn York. Canadians did that, fighting for the U.S.
"the retaliation of Washington only attacked government buildings."
Which demonstrates nothing when it comes to the reason they did it -- as an act of war.
"Gandhi did achieve Home Rule for India."
That success does not outweigh the total failure to avoid massive bloodshed, which is the issue in calling his actions a 'success.' Gandhi was a noble figure -- his actions were seminal to nonviolent protest as a method of DEMOCRATIC change. Those are sucesses. But in the terms of what subsequently happended in India, those were not successes. His actions helped drive out the Raj, and then the Muslims and Hindus slaughtered each other. If you consider that a success, g'head. He didn't.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:26 amTalk is cheap, peter h. And how many Dems did you vote for? At most 1 Representative and 1 Senator.
Ron Paul is an isolationist. You really ought to research the flipflop between gross foreign policy overreach and isolationism within the Republican party. Withdrawing from the UN and from all foreign treaties (including the ICC, Kyoto, Genocide Convention, Geneva Conventions, etc.) simply finishes the work Bush has started, and once those compacts are broken, the next Bush will have a MUCH easier time. Thanks, Ron!
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:30 amI think all Democrats should vote third party in 2008.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:31 ampeterh, nice try. You have never voted Dem.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:49 amTalk is cheap, peter h. And how many Dems did you vote for? At most 1 Representative and 1 Senator.
I’ll put it this way…..I’ve never voted for a repug…..I dropped out of the dem party right after the dems joined the repugs on the footsteps of the capital in denouncing the 9th circuit in their decision on the “god†item in the pledge of allegiance.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:50 amI vote in state & national elections…..and yes on the national side….I vote for one of each….or more depending on the year…..on the state side, I vote for a few more….It may be dem or it might be third party…..regardless….it will never be a repug…..and the way the dems are voting, it might never be a dem…..regardless….fo
Of course you do Jake. You would love to have a crossdressing president. It would advance your cause lightyears.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:50 amWow, peterh, nice lying. The way Dems are voting would cause you to vote more Republicans in? Huh?
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:52 amTry doing a search at DU…..if I’m still archived…..I quit a couple of years ago….
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:55 amWow, peterh, nice lying. The way Dems are voting would cause you to vote more Republicans in? Huh?
jpark....you sound like someone from DU which is synonymous to free republic when it comes to open thinking....pttttthh
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:02 amFine peterh, maybe you have voted Democratic once or twice but if you are a liberal you certainly AREN'T drawn to the libertarian party. Are the libertarians paying for trolls now, too?
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:03 amSo, you defend yourself as a member of DU but then you equate DU to freeperville. Somehow that doesn't give you much credibility.
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:05 am"I dropped out of the dem party right after the dems joined the repugs on the footsteps of the capital in denouncing the 9th circuit in their decision on the “god†item in the pledge of allegiance."
I see. So you have withdrawn your vote over a meaningless fluff issue that has no actual impact on anything.
A man of principles.
I will ---not---- support any party that allows our money to say 'In God We Trust.' Have they no shame?
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:05 am"Somehow that doesn’t give you much credibility."
And you show zero cred with regard to dissent within….again…FO
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:11 am"A man of principles"
I am a man of principles……what part of it did you not decipher….like I should friggin’ ask…..
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:14 amI see peterh, dissent within. Yeah, that makes sense. Dissent within means voting for Republican allies Libertarians. Got it. Thanks for the clarification of what being a good Democrat means. I would have thought that would be illogical but now I see the light!!!
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:46 amWhat an ingenious stratagem by the Democrats in the Congress. I could only chuckle at the news coverage this evening. Everyone from Oberman, to the Man in the Moon, wringing their hands, proclaiming a total defeat for the Democrats, when a 2 year old can see the truth. After the back and forth of the last few weeks, with the big bad veto, and the rest, The republicans have won the battle, an once again took total 1000% lock stock and barrel ownership of the Iraq war. Along with all the death and destruction. The Democrats have begged the republicans in the Congress to join in a bipartisian effort to end the fiasco, but the republican would have none of that. After the smoke
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:02 amclears in a few days, the republicans, and the Press, will wake up to the simple fact, they have been out maneuvered by their own vanity.
I knew the democrats would do this weeks ago. Fight like Cat and Dog,
and then all of a sudden hand the Executive every demand for a blank
check that has been made. If there were ever a question about Iraq
being a republican war, this supposed cave in has taken away all
doubt. Now we hear the faint "wait until September" refrain in the
background. When September comes, the republican rank and file will
once again demand yet another carte blanch, and the Democrats will,
after a short exercise in Glockenspiel, give them every penny and
every brigade the republicans will yet again demand. We all wake up
in Ides of March 08, with the Election looking us in the face, and the voters will have more than ample evidence of just who insists on these blank checks, and a continuing Stalingrad on the Tigris hanging like a hangman's noose on the republican party. Ya can't have it both way guys. I cannot believe the republicans are being this short sighted, but what the Hell. Let the Games begin.
"now I see the light!!!"
You see nothin’ but the lemming’s bright ass in front of you
What I see is a dem leadership willing to sacrifice a lot more lives to further prove a dysfunctional neocon foreign policy…..like 70% of the public hasn’t already figured that out…..we all knew how a repug felt about a grunt’s life, but when politics are involved….dems appear to feel the same way….a means to an end….
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:17 amAre you kidding, peterh? Do you actually believe anybody thinks you would vote for a libertarian rather than a dem if you weren't already a libertarian? Come on, we aren't stupid.
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:32 amBy the way peterh, Ron Paul is a member of the John Birch Society. Do you have a problem with that? If you don't, don't even think about claiming you are liberal.
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:44 amIf Ron Paul was running against Kucinich…..I’d vote for Kucinich
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:02 amIf Ron Paul was running against Graves…..I’d vote for Graves
Absent of any definitive positions from the dem front runners regarding Iraq **crickets**……I’m “leaning†towards Paul….
At least he’s showing more spine…..
peterh, so the war is the only issue with you? P.S. It is Gravel.
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:05 amAgain, John Birch Society. Look it up.
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:05 amJohn Birch is so yesterday.....Iraq is today.....thx on the P.S.....it's late :-)
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:10 am“so the war is the only issue with you?â€
It’s the issue that swept the dems back in power….it’s quid pro quo time….
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:24 amIt's not 'the issue' that swept dems back into power. That is a canard.
We won in 2006 for three major reasons:
• Howard Dean's 50-state policy, which filed for races which seemed unwinnable until the R scandals started.
• Massive depression on the R party side, mainly because of gas prices, the fkup in Iraq, and Bush's loss of credibility.
• Considerable efforts to expose and monitor our elections, including heavy scrutiny of electronic tabulation, which clipped Rove's wings.
The US population elected Al Gore, elected John Kerry, and voted us more seats in Congress in 2004 and 2006 than we received.
Stopping the war is a major source of anger against the Dems. Given Pelosi's rise to power as the leader of the antiwar vote in 2002, it is stupidity to continue to blame her for the vote-fraud that kept our numbers where they are, or for the Blue Dogs -- who are marginally better than R on some social issues, but otherwise gungho for war.
May 23rd, 2007 at 6:29 am#57 Shane
It is not that easy to vote someone out. In the first place sometimes there is no one running against that candidate. Do you want the idiot Republican back as majority. Heaven help us all if that happens.
We in Wisconsin have been trying for years to get rid of Rep. James Sensenbrenner and he is still in congress. The trouble is there is not enough debates between the candidates.
I have my ballot sent to me as then I can look these canidates up on the internet and make a wise decision.
I am glad that Senstor Russ Feingold from Wisconsin is speaking out on this war. again. They should make him Majority leader in the Senate and we would end this war. He has been against this war from the start.
May 23rd, 2007 at 8:16 amAh-ha-ha-ha, so the Dems caved in! No spine, no moral center. Did some “poll†tell them what to do again?
I am not going to read through 235 comment, but looking at the last one I have to say something to #235 – Hey Mary, you say “We in Wisconsin have been trying for years to get rid of Rep. James Sensenbrenner and he is still in congress.†You have to realize. Your “We†is a minority if he keeps getting voted in. Just like the delusional idiots on this site who think the rest of the country thinks like them.
ROTFL
May 23rd, 2007 at 8:40 amHappy Guy
Wisconsin is not a Republican state We have a Democrat Governor and Two Democrat Senator. The only one that is delusional is you.
We have Senator Russ Feingold that has been against this war from the start. and I am proud he is my Sentor.
I will never, never vote for any Nut Republican.
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:19 amDear Mary - - Too bad Dems (with the exception of your Senator and a few others) didn't want to end the war - - they just wanted better office space.....the "change of address" that comes with POWER......
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:23 amSo liberal bigshots with your huge mandate of change in the last elections.......what happened?
Scoreboard!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It appears the American people were dissatisfied with Bush's handling of the war............ because the majority want to see victory and an increase. Not cut and run.
Pelosi caved and will continue to cave under the intense pressure for America to succeed - not fail. You guys got your ass handed to you on this one...............let's hear the spin.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:32 pm