-- all they're really capable of. By now it should be clear that, having gone along with stolen elections, illegal wars, torture, spying on Americans, stacking the courts with reactionary judges, using the federal US Attorney system to implement one-party rule, the "surge", etc etc -- the Democrats can not be expected to take any serious stand whatsoever against the Bush dictatorship, consisting of more than just a few empty words. Biden's "outrage" amounts to nothing. He'll forget it by tomorrow.

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jul 3, 2007 at 10:53:31 AM

  (0+)

This comment has been edited by admin for adhominem name calling. Consider this a warning. 

Biden spent the past 7 years trying to call out the Bush administration. Since he's not a young black senator or the wife of an ex president, he doesn't get as much media attention, and therefore nobody gets fired up enough. Biden's constant recommendations on taking action in Darfur may finally go somewhere now that his bill to pay up our UN dues has passed. His plan for Iraq, the only realistic one out there, is finally drawing bipartisan support, which as much as you republican-haters hate to admit, is the only way to get something done in this country. Why isn't he just joining the other Dems in trying to pressure Bush for a full troop withdrawal? Because, as he's said over and over, the Dems just finally have the majority in Congress but still not enough votes to override a presidential veto. Thank you, Senator Biden, for not wasting our time in trying to keep the troops safe while the other rich rock-star politicians just make empty statements to draw popular support. I'm glad some people can still show substance over style in today's ADHD-MTV era.

by howardab234 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Tuesday, Jul 3, 2007 at 1:24:59 PM

  (0+)

Your comment reeks of ADHD. It's completely irrelevant to the post.

by Cheryl Biren-Wright (30 articles, 41 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 485 comments [8 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jul 3, 2007 at 1:44:26 PM

  (0+)

okay i may have digressed a bit, but I just feel your article unfairly blames all the democrat's failures on Biden, who has been more instrumental in actually challenging the Bush administration than anyone else I can think of.  as far as ADHD, that's what i attribute Obama's popularity to.  I'm sure some of us love senators with 2 years experience, but face it, he's young, he's black and he's not al sharpton or jay z so he can finally get taken seriously by white america, and the kids love it.  hopefully if he gets elected he'll at least make Biden sec. of state.

by howardab234 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Tuesday, Jul 3, 2007 at 5:09:19 PM

  (0+)

".. but I just feel your article unfairly blames all the democrat's failures on Biden..."

Are you kidding me? If you read it thoroughly and it really is rather brief, I am simply responding to a remark he made. Yes, I called him on it, but I also end the piece with suggesting that each member of Congress receive the same message. You comment twice, with some resentment, on Obama's race. I don't know where that comes from in relation to this. Just so you know I'm an equal opportunity blogger, I had a pretty strong response to Obama suggesting that Bush shouldn't be impeached because that should be reserved only for "grave" offenses. I don't even dislike Biden. In fact, I met him during the Kerry campaign and found him to be quite sincere and very sharp (although I did get a kick out of Rob's comment below about the Peter Principle). I just hold him accountable like the rest of them. But, I do think his idea of splitting up Iraq is horrible. Ask Germany how that worked for them. In case your comment was more than just a hit and run, my post is about Bush and Congress' handling, or lack thereof, of his high crimes and misdemeanors. Want to tackle that one?

by Cheryl Biren-Wright (30 articles, 41 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 485 comments [8 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jul 3, 2007 at 11:08:16 PM

  (0+)

Biden "doesn't get as much media attention..."

- Actually, he's frequently featured on all the MSM programs, like "Meet the Press," etc. The reason no one's "fired up" about him is because he's a longwinded bore who has nothing to say.

Biden's "...plan for Iraq, the only realistic one out there..."

- Biden, who voted for the invasion of Iraq, has a plan to divide Iraq into 3 regions according to ethnicity. By what right does the US presume to make such decisions over the lives of other nations? The only reason Biden suggests this "divide-and-conquer" strategy is to make Iraq easier to control, the more easily to steal its oil. This is what you call a "realistic" plan.

Why isn't he just joining the other Dems in trying to pressure Bush for a full troop withdrawal?

- What other Dems are trying for a full withdrawal? Outside of Kucinich & maybe 4 or 5 others, there are zero Dems really trying for that. Most Dems, like Pelosi, Reid, Carl Levin, & most of the rest, are actively working to ensure that full withdrawal is not even "on the table." Pelosi is threatening Conyers with loss of his committee chairmanship, to keep him from talking about impeachment. She similarly would not allow Barbara Lee to offer a serious withdrawal amendment in May.

Because..the Dems still (do) not enough votes to override a presidential veto..."

- The Dems' failures to stand up to Bush have nothing to do with not having the votes to override vetoes. It only takes a simple majority (51%) of either house to prevent any given bill from passing. If a bill doesn't pass, Bush doesn't even get the chance to veto it. Thus, the Dems could easily have prevented the war funding in late May, simply by refusing to pass any bill that offered Bush the money. Similarly, the Dems could have filibustered against the Alito or Roberts nominations. It only takes 41 senators to sustain a filibuster. So the Dems' failures are just lack of will, not lack of votes. The "lack of votes" is just an excuse.

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jul 3, 2007 at 3:45:19 PM

  (0+)

part of Biden's plan is to give the Sunnis a fair percentage of oil revenues since their share of the land would have the fewest resources. sure, maybe in principle we have no right to rearrange a country's governmental structure, but it's a little too late to question that.  we've already invaded iraq, we've already caused a massive civil war to erupt, and now it's our responsibility to clean up our mess.  the wrong thing to do would be to set a timetable for withdrawal, ensuring nothing gets done and the civil war just gets worse.  why would Biden care about securing Iraqi oil, since he's not an oil investor?  he's the most middle-class candidate we have right now.

by howardab234 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Tuesday, Jul 3, 2007 at 5:07:22 PM

  (0+)

for Israeli regional hegemony, & for the US military-industrial complex) -- a group of overlapping interests. But oil is certainly a very large part of it.

I doubt you know whether Biden is personally an oil investor or not. But even if he's not, it would make no difference, because he is sent to Congress to please a certain section of big financial players. And they are connected, directly or indirectly, to corporations with a stake in plundering Iraq.

You write "now it's our responsibility to clean up our mess.  the wrong thing to do would be to set a timetable for withdrawal, ensuring ...the civil war just gets worse."

- This is really comic. The US is not in Iraq to clean up anything; it's there to take control of the oil. Pretending that US forces will "clean up" is like pretending the Mafia will "clean up" after they've made a big hit someplace. And the civil war could not possibly "get worse." It's already hell on earth, and has been, every day for years now. This, while complacent fat Americans sit comfortably by the TV, listening to grand claims from both parties about how "we" have brought "freedom" to Iraqis, but they are such primitive ungrateful savages that they haven't made wise use of our great generosity.

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jul 3, 2007 at 6:25:46 PM

  (0+)

so why didn't the US invade Sudan for it's plentiful oil resources?  there was a pretext for war there, as well.  and plenty of savage muslims to kill, since that's the only reason the U.S. gets involved in any world affairs.

by howardab234 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Tuesday, Jul 3, 2007 at 6:47:03 PM

  (0+)

is set to give 70% of Iraq's oil to the big oil companies for about 30 years -- that's the point and that's hwo the oil is to be stolen. How Iraq divvies up the other 30% is immaterial.

China is working in Sudan, Europeans are involved in Sudan, and the US is working on it, but in a more sneaky way. Invasion is not always the best method of glomming resources.

by Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 997 comments) on Tuesday, Jul 3, 2007 at 8:08:09 PM

  (0+)

to override a veto -- they didn't have to pass a bill to fund the war, and all that would have taken was a simple majority.

Biden is known for blathering: he balthered at how terrible Gonzales would be as Attorney General and then voted for him anyway.

Forget what politicians say -- it's what they do that counts. And these bums do nothing.

"Now, now, it's OK to be angry -- just beat on this anger pillow unitl you feel better and then get back to the sweatshop as you were told."

Biden can kiss my donkey!

by Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 997 comments) on Tuesday, Jul 3, 2007 at 7:55:33 PM

  (0+)

His performance with Alito was disgusting. Overall, I am very underimpressed with him. Still, he might be a perfect secrettary of state. Anything higher would be an exercise in the Peter principle.

by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jul 3, 2007 at 10:24:07 PM

  (0+)

I have another idea.  Don't call anyone.  But decide that you will not vote again for any elected official who has appropriately defended the Constitution with courage and dignity.  That means instead of making phone calls, we look around to see if we or someone we know and/or respect is willing to run for office as an responsible independent representative of the People.  The flip side of that is, instead of wasting our time trying to get our out-to-lunch congresspersons to do something decent and useful, we put our energy into enrolling our friends and neighbors in the idea of renewing our republic by installing a new class of inexperienced (read uncorrupted) guardians of the public trust to positions of responsibility.

 http://www.gpln.com/livethedream.htm

by Mark A. Goldman (81 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 243 comments) on Wednesday, Jul 4, 2007 at 1:45:57 AM

  (0+)

In the third sentence I meant to say "not" before the word appropriately.  Also please excuse other minor grammar or spelling errors. 

by Mark A. Goldman (81 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 243 comments) on Wednesday, Jul 4, 2007 at 1:50:23 AM

  (0+)

you are right on the money with that. at the same time, though, it is still our duty to hold them all to account and that's what i'm calling for with the pressure on congress. i completely agree that there should be no more votes - no more financial support or grunt work - for our reps unless they take a stand. people need to start grooming opposition candidates now.

by Cheryl Biren-Wright (30 articles, 41 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 485 comments [8 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jul 4, 2007 at 7:34:46 AM

  (0+)

http://www.gpln.com/livethedream.htm

by Mark A. Goldman (81 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 243 comments) on Wednesday, Jul 4, 2007 at 2:03:47 AM

  (0+)