The so-called "compromise" supplemental bill that continues funding for George W. Bush's Iraq disaster but does nothing to compel him to change course, passed Congress yesterday with a 280-142 vote in the House of Representatives and a 80-14 tally in the Senate. Fourteen Senators voted against the bill rubber-stamping Bush's failed policy, including Democratic presidential candidates Chris Dodd (D-CT), Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Barack Obama (D-IL).
But although they cast the same vote yesterday, the stature engendered by these three candidates could not possibly be more different. On the one hand, you have Dodd, who came out strongly against this bogus compromise early in the week -- as he has dependably done on a host of other important issues -- and who said loud enough for the world to hear that he objected to caving in to Bush, failing our troops and breaking faith with the American people.
In other words, Chris Dodd behaved like a leader.
And, while many will probably say that Senators Clinton and Obama opposing the non-compromise was a product of political calculation -- their campaigns would have been dealt a harsh blow had they gone along with it -- I give both of them credit for voting their conscience and beliefs.
Here's my problem: Neither of them showed me, as a voter, what it will take to get my support when the New York primary happens next year.
The Iraq war is the defining issue in our nation right now, and the response from people who want to be the next president seems an entirely reasonable litmus test by which to measure the degree of support they deserve. Dodd's response was to show leadership before the vote and urge Senate colleagues to follow his lead in stopping the madness of King George.
"Half-measures and equivocations are not going to change our course in Iraq," said Dodd earlier this week. "If we are serious about ending the war, Congress must stand up to this President's failed policy now - with clarity and conviction."
Similarly, while no longer in the Senate and not in the position of voting, John Edwards has made very clear that he too is willing to stake his candidacy on opposing continuation of our involvement in the Iraqi civil war and has also been out in front on letting those views be known.
"The president continues to play political brinksmanship over the war and that has put Congress and the country in an unnecessarily difficult position," said Edwards on Monday. "We need to stand our ground against this president. You cannot negotiate with him. Congress should send him the same bill back to him again and again until he realizes he has no choice but to start bringing our troops home."
And where were Clinton and Obama in the days leading to the vote and when backbone and conviction were the order of the day? Nowhere that mattered.
Senator Clinton issued a press release last night explaining why she voted against the supplemental bill and, on Wednesday, sent a letter to General Peter Pace, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, asking that Congress be notified of "...any existing plans for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, or provide an explanation as to why such plans have not been properly created."
All well and good -- but what about the major vote on the biggest issue confronting our country? Queue silence and crickets chirping.
And it saddens me that Barack Obama, who I want to support so much, did no better, with a press release after the vote proclaiming "Obama Votes to Demand Changed Course in Iraq," but not much else in advance of the vote everyone was watching.
Obama, as he can do so well, spoke passionately on the Senate floor on Monday, saying that "the sacrifices of war are immeasurable" and "Iraq has not been a failure of resolve, it has been a failure of strategy – and that strategy must change. It is time bring a responsible end to this conflict is now."
Where was his eloquence and leadership in driving both himself and those around him to stand up, be strong and fight this president on this particular vote?
I am by no means writing off the presidential candidacies of either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. They're both formidable people, with sharp brains and good hearts, who would both likely become excellent presidents.
They are all corporate candidates except Ron Paul, Kucinich, and apparently Gravel. If they took the corporate nickel once they are owned, they are just different flavors of the same drink. You are shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic.
by
Melinda Pillsbury-Foster (140 articles, 1 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 121 comments)
on Saturday, May 26, 2007 at 9:24:16 AM
I couldn't have said it any better Melinda. Thank you. There are only 3 candidates in this race. Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich and Gravel. The rest are bought and paid for (not by we the people).
They are New World order candidates. Why are the "popular candidates" not talking about the North American Union and how to stop it? Because it is part of the plan and they don't plan on stopping it (surely won't bring it to the public).
I spoke to someone on Ron Pauls staff and he is trying to stop the NAU. I hope people wake up quick. IF I don't hear any talk about stopping the NAU from anyone else, this Democrat is voting for RON PAUL.
Two very good indicators on who to consider voting for:
1 The one who has no funding.
2 The one the media doesn't parade around in front of your face all day.
by
tiffane (4 articles, 2 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 46 comments)
on Saturday, May 26, 2007 at 10:42:45 PM
We can all vote against the war by ending oil. I drive less than 7,500 miles. I eat meat sparingly, four to six pounds a year. I believe the most important choice we can make is family planning. My posting on American Singles states that I have no children and plan on having one.
We can support fuel from crops. In fact, engineer Diesel originally intended his engine to run on fuel from plants.
Americans are running out of parties to choose from. The Republican Party, of which I was a former member and now actively oppose, has become Fascist. The newly elected Democratic congress is becoming Socialist. Increasingly voters find there are no alternatives left except elsewhere.
The real choice is the Green, the Libertarian and the Constitution parties. While we represent the spectrum we believe tryanny in any form is wrong.
I support Al Gore, Ron Paul, Alan Keyes and Ralph Nader as representatives of real change.
Daniel Barker
Lakeland, Florida
by
Barker (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 120 comments)
on Saturday, May 26, 2007 at 9:25:43 AM
It is nothing less than cowardice that the two "front-runners" waited until the measure had been safely passed before voting "no". Obama has joined Hillary on the fence and neither has demonstrated any courage in their own convictions. If it is more important to them to play it safe in their efforts to win the presidency that than it is to do what is right, those of us who oppose the war unconditionally should remove both of them from our consideration when we go to the polls.
by
Mary Pitt (66 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 190 comments)
on Saturday, May 26, 2007 at 10:22:59 AM
Coincidentally, on May 25th I received a letter from Hillary asking campaign money.
As the letter was fortunately accompanied by a pre-paid return envelope, I took the opportunity to tell her that "I will in no way vote for any Senator who did not filibuster against the Iraq funding sellout."
Mort Trachtenberg
by
TrachtyJr (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments)
on Saturday, May 26, 2007 at 11:04:42 AM
Melinda is exactly right. There's no difference between
corporate candidates, & it doesn't matter a whit whether they are "Republican" or "Democrat." Dodd is a pathetic phony, just like all the other corporate Dems.
Candidates who are seriously against the war will describe it as a "crime" committed by the US govt against the Iraqi people, & will note that we are trying to steal their oil in our quest for empire. Candidates who are phonies (ie, everyone of both parties except Paul, Kucinich & Gravel) will say things like "We need a change of course," which is the language of cowards trying to milk political advantage by playing to antiwar sentiment.
There's no reason to pay the slightest attention to Bob Geiger. He's just a Dem Party hack who churns out shallow commercials for Democrats, not an honest thinker or analyst.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1232 comments)
on Saturday, May 26, 2007 at 11:26:36 AM
MEDIA MANIPULATION IS MAKING STOOGES OUT OF VOTERS
THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA NEEDS TO BE PUT ON TRIAL
By Steve Miller
Is there a conspiracy to rig the election for President in America by the media?
The 2004, selection process for the Democratic nomination for President is a classic example but has gone unnoticed by the most senior officials of the Democratic Party. As the process unfolded Howard Dean broke out of the pack as the front runner while John Kerry remained at the bottom of the pack in the low single digits recorded by the media polls. Then the corporate media decided to promote a Democrat with massive flaws who the unpopular President Bush could beat. To do this, two stories were played hundreds of times. While Dean yelled to invigorate his campaign workers that yell was featured by the media as an undignified response which successfully destroyed Dean. The other story that was replayed constantly by the media was that John Kerry mortgaged his home for $6,000,000 to pay for media ads.
The so-called pundits who direct the propaganda used to brainwash voters need to be called to account by Dennis Kucinich or the campaign for the Democratic nomination run for President will be doomed. The entire group of self-anointed pundits is shallow and superficial. They resort constantly to polls as the betting line for horse races. At least a horse race betting line includes every entry in the race even if the tote machine tallies them at 50 to 1, in contrast to the pundits who choose to exclude the candidates other than Hillary and Barack Obama. This technique trivializes all other candidates.
The arrogant group of pundits and the producers of the daily political shows have taken it upon themselves to disqualify candidates at their whim. There can be no better example of this devious tactic to elect the American President than that of Dennis Kucinich and his Articles to Impeach Vice President Cheney, HR 333.
The fact that HR 333 was officially filed on April 25, 2007, three full weeks ago and has attracted only two other co-sponsors has a very significant meaning. Either this very serious bill is radical, irrational, frivolous, and a mockery of the rule of law under the enacted provision contained in our Constitution, or the entire body of 432 other Congressional Representatives who refuse to co-sponsor HR 333 is flaunting their own oath to the Constitution.
The issue in and of itself would be the most important news of the day if the pundits and their producers decided to showcase this most spectacular story. While these shallow media officials aggregate thousands of hours to drown us all in an avalanche of polls, they have consciously avoided the official bill written by Dennis Kucinich. These polls are fake when compared to the betting line of a horse race that is compiled by the actual money being bet on the race. Its brainwashing effect has people trying to decide which candidate will win the election while it purposely takes their mind off trying to assess which candidate will be best for their own interest as a citizen, a wage earner, and a long list of other factors.
The fact that HR 333 has been ignored by the pundits should be examined very carefully. I will speculate that if the conspirators believed that this unique issue would damage the credibility of Dennis Kucinich, this story would overwhelm all others.
We now should be forced to examine my choice to call this a conspiracy. For even the most naïve observer to suspect that it could possibly be a legitimate coincidence that the HR 333 story has been ignored for more than three weeks would make a silly argument. If the media is to be put on trial there must be a charge against them. The conspiracy to rig the election.
In order for Dennis to have any chance to win the nomination by Democrats he must reverse the situation dominated by the media conspiracy to trivialize him as a candidate. To do this a challenge must be posed that will lure the media into the argument that will expose its conspiracy to rig our election. This will be the most difficult thing for us to accomplish.
The leaders of the Democratic Party have been duped by the media. The party allows the media to choose their nominee. The debates on TV are completely controlled by the media. The questions asked are chosen by the media instead of the party.
Here are questions about which the party should want to hear answers from each candidate:
1) What is the benefit to America for remaining in Iraq until March 2008?
2) Does the oath of office require every Congressman to impeach Bush & Cheney?
3) Are the Articles of Impeachment filed by Dennis Kucinich frivolous?
4) If HR 333 is not frivolous then what legitimate reason is there to not sponsor it?
5) Do the removal of private insurance companies and their profits and costs benefit voters?
6) Do the published words of Secretary Paul O’Neil prove that Bush had made his mind up to attack Iraq in January 2001?
7) Should there be a thorough investigation into the allegations by FBI agents who claim that their investigation of suspected 9/11 attackers was thwarted by their superiors, and an investigation of firemen at the World Trade Center who claim they heard explosions that collapsed the buildings?
8) Given what we know now about Bush, Cheney, Karl Rove, and Scooter Libby can we afford to automatically ignore the aforementioned issues that might be true about some connection and desire to allow the 9/11 attack?
Since the election of 2006, the direction by government from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has compromised the integrity of the Democratic Party. Her decision to take impeachment off the table is a renege of her oath. Then her demand that all Democratic Representatives renege on their oath too needs serious thought. HR 333 must be analyzed. If there are reasons that make these Articles frivolous, we deserve to hear these arguments. To ignore this most serious issue is the height of ignorance.
The Democratic Party is being sucked under by its own leadership.
by
Steve Miller (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments)
on Saturday, May 26, 2007 at 11:37:26 AM
DanielBarker -- do you have any idea what "Socialist" means?
You write that the Democratic Party is becoming "Socialist." Please explain what you mean by this, since it would appear that you haven't the foggiest clue what this word actually means.
Here's a hint: "Socialism" doesn't mean betraying the expressed desires of a party's constituents, in order to please wealthy corporate donors. THAT sort of thing (so characteristic of the Democratic Party, as we've all seen this week) is actually a key part of "capitalism." One of the main arguments for "socialism" is precisely the avoidance of that kind of disgusting corruption.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1232 comments)
on Saturday, May 26, 2007 at 12:32:17 PM
Mike Gravel Talking Point - United States Armed Forces Withdrawal from Iraq Act.
Democratic Presidential candidate Mike Gravel has a plan that will end the war in Iraq by September 2007 with all US troops home by Christmas.This plan recognizes that under the United States Constitution the power of the Congress is superior to the power of the Presidency.
Mike’s plan is to pass a law in the Congress making the war in Iraq illegal.Failure to comply with the law would be punishable by 5 years in jail without possibility of parole.Understand that the President of the United States is required to follow the law just as is any other American citizen.
Of course, once the law is passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate, it is likely that President Bush will veto it.Mike Gravel’s plan would call for the Senate and House Democratic leadership, Leader Harry Reid and Speaker Nancy Pelosi, to bring the bill to a vote day after day, 7 days a week, 30 minutes per day, forcing the media spotlight to shine on those Senators and Congressman who are prolonging the war until pressure from their constituents produces a two-thirds majority sufficient to override the Presidential veto.(If the law is filibustered in the Senate initially, the same procedure would apply.)
What is important to understand is that Mike served two terms in the US Senate fighting for "unpopular" causes and winning against the odds.Mike is a legislative strategist and you will see that his plan for ending the war will work, if adopted.Most other options for ending the war fall into the "do the right thing" category or involve timelines that extend far off into the future.Rather than wait, let’s force our elected representatives to listen to the will of the American people by introducing Mike Gravel’s draft legislation, the United States Armed Forces Withdrawal from Iraq Act, and end this destructive and unnecessary war now.
by
SMcNeil (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 8 comments)
on Saturday, May 26, 2007 at 12:55:38 PM
70% of the American people believe it is wrong for us to be in Iraq. Yet the vote looks like only 30% believe so. My guess is that that certainDems, specifically H.Clinton, but probably all of them, are as interested in Iraqi oil as the Pubs are and are willing to let Bush continue killing thousands of Iraqis, and Americans, to get oil company control of it. They must, however, keep up the appearance that they are totally against the war, which reflects American sentiment. The average American isn't going to make squat out of these Iraqi oil deals -we will probably end up paying more and more for oil. I don't want your children dying for my oil. I don't want Iraqi children dying for my oil. It was a very simple vote. If we don't fund the occupation the military has to come home. Simple. It was never a question of troop safety. They are not now safe and they never will be safe. What is not acceptable to Bush & Oil is if we leave there goes those Iraqi oil contracts. Interesting how the Dem presidential candidates voted no but their prestige was not enough to pull the vote their way. I'm disgusted.
by
cheryl ballou (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments)
on Saturday, May 26, 2007 at 1:00:03 PM
The reason for Iraq is expanded permanent military presence in the middle east and to hinder the flow of Iraqi oil so that the oil market will stay "stable" (prices will stay high) this is why oil companies are seeing record profits (raping us at the pump justified by high crude prices). The last thing they want is more oil to hit the market. Supply and demand.
by
tiffane (4 articles, 2 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 46 comments)
on Saturday, May 26, 2007 at 11:04:19 PM
Not one of those people we vote for hold the office that we think they do. No one has held office in our Republic for a long time. Why? Because to do so is obvious treason. Those people we think hold office are serving a corporation called cleverly "The United States of America". They have their own Constitution and their form of Government is not a Republic but a Democracy or mob if you want to be accurate. They are not bound to oath to you and I and are merely imposters posing as our representatives. They do not serve in office because the Constitution of Our Republic states that for to serve, one "Shall be bound" to oath or affirmation to support and defend our Constitution. Mouthing an oath does not meet the duty. Because they are not under oath they do not hold office and we are at liberty to try them as enemies of our Republic and dispose of them at our leisure.
Because this criminal corporation has run un-checked and un-challenged for so long we have become confused. A "US Citizen" is an office within the corporation. Satutory law applies to the office and not to an at large human being. In fact a "US Citizen" never ever had Constitutionally protected rights enjoyed by State citizens of Our Republic. "US Citizens" have "civil rights " or more accurately priveledges that have been effectively under suspension for more the 75 years.
It is time to learn the law.
Roage.
by
Roage (7 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 53 comments)
on Saturday, May 26, 2007 at 1:08:13 PM
Voteing isn't enough anymore! Actions speak louder then words! We as americans can no longer believe the words that comes out of the senators,congressmen and women,representitives,President,Vice Presidents mouths. We are sick and tired of your so called promiseses and your lies.Just when we think you all are doing something good and right for this country you lie and tuck your tails like scared little dogs and back down from what is so very important to this country.We had faith in all of you now there isn't no faith left in all of you. You all have let down this country down by not continueing to stand up for us to the President.I voted Democratic this last election but now i will not nor will i vote republican. You all disappoint me! God Have Mercy On All Of You!
by
Mom47 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments)
on Saturday, May 26, 2007 at 1:37:26 PM
This government, republicans or democrats, is not planning to ever leave Iraq. We have established permanent military bases and a huge palace like embassy and this is never even mentioned when the discussion to leave or stay in Iraq comes up. We aren't leaving and the violence will continue because the people there will not accept our presence there ever. All that's left is to try and save this country before it becomes a full fledged dictatorship. And all it will take to complete the fundamentalist agenda is another incident like 911 or the bombing of Iran and we are finished as a country and maybe as a planet. We are very close to world war III. The Iraqi people are already experiencing their armageddon. It will take a huge change in consciousness to elect someone like Kucinich or Gravel but they are the only ones talking about real progressive change. We need a miracle!
by
carl (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 129 comments)
on Saturday, May 26, 2007 at 7:55:29 PM
First: I am a journalist. I saw my first article in print 71 years ago. I was 13. Subsequently, I wrote 2,500 published words a week including a weekly outdoor/environmental column. I have 25 awards. One is for 71 years of work for peace and justice.
I am in total agreement with your comments with the exception of those regarding Hillary.
I have watched Hillary since she first was visible. If you do the same you may learn that she supports only Hillary: that she is an avid Zionist. Thru her efforts the road from the White House to Israel is paved with billions of our taxes. Like them, in my opinion, she is totally devoid of compassion. You may know that she proposed a national health plan—very high profile, exclusive of the little known fact that it was "for profit." I suggest you take the time to study her voting record since she has been in office and help keep us from her grasp.
Our only salvation is Dennis K. Ididn't expect ever to meet his like in this political system. He is the first of his kin that I have found in 68 years. He is of hero stature. He has been right for the people on every issue for somewhere close to 30 years and he has the guts to stand out saying it. I marched in one of the big protests. With my 85 years and my wheelchair PI photographers thought me a good subject—until someone flew to their rescue and panting knocked their cameras awry and explained with clear shouts and gestures that I am off limits as I carry a Kucinich banner.That's referred to as freedom of press and expression, the just society here.
I honor an ancient credo which states that it is my responsibility to inform the people, to tell them the truth, all of it and nothing but because only so can a nation hope to reach for democracy of the people, by the people and for the PEOPLE
by
emily horswill (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 72 comments)
on Monday, May 28, 2007 at 3:34:26 AM
17 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
