The Republican company spokespeople are furious that Americans no longer support an indefinite military offensive in Iraq.
This week, William Kristol of The Weekly Standard fell back on the old manliness refrain, calling most of the Democrats and some of the Republicans weaklings for their opposition to a troop surge.
"Today, Boneless Wonders sit on the benches of both parties in Congress," Kristol writes, "More are to be found on the Democratic side of the aisle than the Republican. But the herd of Boneless Wonders these days is a bipartisan one."
Nobody agree with you anymore Bill? Must be that ALL of THEM are wrong. Couldn't be the other way around.
The truth is that the voters are thirsty to see big victories from the Democrats. Voters want the Democrats rise up and crush this new effort to put more troops in Iraq. Last November, they swelled the tide of popular opinion back against the right-wing cult of would-be policy makers, whose great ideas are as complex as a rifle.
No matter the outcome in Iraq, if Democrats successfully beat back this attempt to send more troops to Iraq, they will have won for America a victory. Even if the state of Iraq fails, Democrats cannot be held responsible for the outcome of a war that President Bush started.
Blame for any failure in Iraq will always lie squarely at the feet of right-wing neocons and President Bush himself. The more aggressively Democrats charge against the latest hail of condemnations and name-calling from the executive branch, the more excited and aroused the people will become. The swifter they fly, the sooner Dems will gain an upper hand against the Republicans. The loftier they dare aspire to control and set sound policy in a government that thieves have co-opted, they bolder and surer they will act in that aim.
The Bush administration seeks to mute Democratic opposition to a troop surge by yoking them to equal ownership in the war's outcome. In his weekly radio address, President Bush called on Democrats to propose an alternative to the 20,000-soldier escalation he has proposed for Iraq.
"[T]hose," Bush said, "who refuse to give this plan a chance to work have an obligation to offer an alternative that has a better chance for success."
Wrong. Where is that the rule written? This is your war, Mr. President. Democrats have no obligation but to their voters and to the world by staying the ruthless hand of war, which you would swing ever more violently in your monomaniacal quest for Middle East domination.
The right-wing attacks against Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Joe Biden are simply symptoms of an administration unaccustomed to being out of imperial power and in desperate throes.
Nonetheless, other administration officials have sounded the same refrain. On "Fox News Sunday," Vice President Dick Cheney said, "I have yet to hear a coherent policy out of the Democratic side with respect to an alternative." He added that any Congressional intervention would be a betrayal to the troops--ironic since any "alternative" would fit into this category.
Deep down inside, the Democratic Party wants to unite on Iraq. The time is at hand for them to seize from Republicans the perception of perpetual unity and solidarity.
The choices are simple: two more years of bloodshed, budgetary loss and disgrace for America's international reputation; or an end to daily obits for the young, the proud, the dead.
Why is Congress worried that their actions would be a betrayal to the troops? There would be nothing but a collective sigh of relief from America's armed men and women and their families. If Bush presses ahead without any funding, it is by far an uglier reflection of his imperialistic bull-headedness than a knock against Democrats.
The Republican Party has wronged this country in many ways. Our constitution is almost laughable. Our integrity abroad is shattered. Our destruction of the environment has put rosebuds on New York City trees in January.
This piece is too clever by half. So it's about the Dems getting power, we learn. It's only about winning. Forget any vision thing. Let's keep, then, the same basic policies rooted in elite corporate rule, and somehow be the good guys in executing them? Give me a break. The country wants and desperately needs new vision, real alternatives to our current foreign and domestic policies, alternatives rooted in something other than power politics. This kind of Kissergian power-thinking is what's wrong with a lot of liberals, the fatal flaw they share with the neocons.
by
Kuzminski (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 73 comments)
on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 at 12:10:12 PM
I always love to hear from readers. Regarding your comment "Covering up for the Dem leadership?" A few things...
First of all, I work 40 hours a week for $10 an hour. I have nothing to gain personally or monetarily by "covering up for the Dem leadership."
I'm not employed by any Democrat on Capitol Hill. I should be, but I'm not.
Secondly, historically, if you look at the growth and decline of empires, power can only be acquired by the passionate and the ambitious. Machiavelli, in "The Prince," writes, "Those who solely by good fortune become princes from being private citizens have little trouble in rising, but much in keeping atop."
It is fair to say that Democrats rose to power by good fortune. The Republicans were easy to beat. Monkeys could have won during the last election. Now, Democrats must retain their majority and even build on it in 2008. This is the only way that Democrats can right the wrongs of six years of an imperialistic Republican Party.
That means that Democrats must act aggressively.
So I realize that there are sensitive people out their, and their feelings get hurt when I talk about the necessities of holding power. They want everyone to coexist without strife or bickering. They want everything to be as peaceful as a lolling waterfall. I admire their simplistic naivety, but I do not embrace it.
by
Dean Powers (108 articles, 8 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 58 comments)
on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 at 1:25:18 PM
If you're not earning big bucks advising the Dems, it's no doubt because they long ago drifted into the strategy you're advocating. The idea that the 'passionate and ambitious' are the only ones who can acquire power and hold it doesn't get us anywhere, you see, since it works for Nazis as well as Democrats. Acting aggressively in politics doesn't mean one must surrender any vision or values, as you imply. Quite the contrary can be the case. Take Martin Luther King, Jr., for instance. It's more than a bit patronizing of you to catagorize your critics as 'sensitive people' whose 'feelings' might 'get hurt' in the rough and tumble of what you think is the singular reality of holding power. Poor ignorant things who haven't read their Nietzsche! Really, I see no difference between what you're saying and the neocons. The ends do not justify the means.
by
Kuzminski (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 73 comments)
on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 at 3:39:49 PM
I find it hard to argue with someone who gets their facts so miserably wrong. It's simply a waste of time. Show me where I said that Democrats must sacrifice their vision or their values. Show me!
by
Dean Powers (108 articles, 8 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 58 comments)
on Wednesday, January 17, 2007 at 1:33:47 AM
Your cite Cheney and other Republicans calling for the Dems to come up with an alternative to withdrawing from Iraq, and you say one isn't needed. You interest is instead on power politics being a game, with rules by Machieavelli. You didn't actually say Dems must sacrifice their vision and values, you just argue none are needed as part of an alternative to the war in Iraq. The Republicans are right that the consequences of losing in Iraq will be enormous, and if the Dems are not to be framed for that failure they will need plenty of vision and values to survive and lead. Your whole piece points the wrong way.
by
Kuzminski (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 73 comments)
on Wednesday, January 17, 2007 at 7:12:20 AM
No party in the world takes power without its own vision. The Dems have power. They owe a vision. That's simple.
Our country is in the midst of catastrophy. It has to be acknowledged openly and honestly. That catastrophy is brought by administration. There is no external threat and war on Terror is a phony. That has to be acknowledged openly and honestly.
Our Army is being used for private profits by a small group of people. That has to be proclaimed. Those people are exploiting the death of our soldiers. That has to be proclaimed.
The vision mmust be that we need to take our army back to its main function- defend the public. We need to get out of that war and other wars now. We need to committ to the Middle East Summitt on Iraq under the UN umbrella and invite all the neighbors of that country as well as current Iraqi govt to the table. We need to announce to the world that US from now on rejects the preliminary strike as an option and committs to international police actions as for the issue of terrorism. We need to openly promise peace to the world.
And from that moment 80% of the Congress activities are to be dedicated to economic redevelopment of the country in preparation to the XX1-st Century challenges: energy crisis, Global warming, food issue, fiscal issue, rebuilding of the infrasructure, education, healthcare,etc.
Now, I am, of course, dreaming because our Dems are Donkeys and Donkeys can only roar in a stupid way.
by
Mark Sashine (47 articles, 19 quicklinks, 235 diaries, 3360 comments)
on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 at 1:17:54 PM
is means but not the ways. You want Dems to act agressively? Ask them as I proposed since Y2003 to convene an Emergency Connvention in which they have to proclaim the country to be in jeopardy. But they will never do that. Your stratagem would be right but even Macchiavelli had never encountered a party which literally works against its own party interests. Here is why. Historically GOP was based in its function on the discipline based on the ' similar characters'. It is true that interests were there but as 'the boners' stood up together in the ' Good Shepherd' the GOP people brought into the political power the 'people like us'. Those could be boys or girls or transvestites but they all had several similar qualities ( I call those the SOB qualities) which made them acceptable, no exception. GOP is an animalistic political entity- it works on an instinct.
The Dems were and are the conglomerate of the people who had similar interests, sometimes group ones to mingle together. But they never cultivated the 'image', the ' being like us'. As such when due to greed, stupidity and cowardice those interests became more disconnected the Donkey party became and is still a crowd. Nice crowd, our crowd but still a crowd. They did win by fortune, you are absolutely right here. But the crowd cannot win the war. Only an army can. And the Dems do everything in their power for not to win. Some of them- very actively like Clintonians. It is thus impossible for the Dems to do what you propose. They are lost.
by
Mark Sashine (47 articles, 19 quicklinks, 235 diaries, 3360 comments)
on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 at 2:35:46 PM
All our representatives need some prodding at the moment, Democrat and Republican. I don't think any of us are quibbling over that.
In response to an email from Moveon, I just phoned my Republican Senators, Hatch and Bennett, and made it clear that I do not want to see any escalation in Iraq. I reminded Hatch, via his secretary, that he told us there were WMDs and ties to al Qaeda to worry about, and thus even by his standard there is no reason to be there now.
If you got Moveon's email, I urge you to pick up the phone and do what they suggest--it takes less than 3 minutes.
If you didn't get their email, I encourage you to look up your Senator's phone number and leave a clear message that you want no more escalation in Iraq.
Thanks for a good article, Dean.
by
Daniel Geery (26 articles, 58 quicklinks, 121 diaries, 681 comments)
on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 at 1:59:17 PM
Despite itself, this article shows Dems' spinelessness & the
shallow dishonesty of their overall perspective.
First of all, there is precisely zero chance that the Dems will "...successfully beat back this attempt to send more troops to Iraq..." and win "a victory for America." In fact, they won't even try to do this, let alone "win." They will content themselves, in their standard fashion, with making small limited criticisms of Bush's tactics, while supporting his underlying goals. In fact, Hillary even said in Afghanistan on Sunday that "I hope that when you hear the debate in Washington that you understand that whatever our differences over the means, we are all agreed on the end." She was addressing soldiers at a military base in Kabul.
Secondly, both the "War on Terror" & the Iraq War are very much the Dems' responsibility. They supported both of these criminal enterprises every step of the way, & are fully complicit in both. They voted for these wars, they supported budget appropriations for them, and they collaborated with Republicans in concealing from the American people what the wars are really about. They ran a pro-war pro-militarist slate in 2004, which went through an entire presidential campaign without so much as mentioning the scandals of Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, or the non-existent WMD. It's true that the Democrats don't get as much "credit" as the Republicans for playing the starring role in instigating these immoral wars, but that's only because their gutlessness precludes them from starring roles. They simply don't have what it takes to play starring roles. They are much better suited to posing as mealy-mouthed pseudo-"opponents" of Republicans, while actually supporting most of the same underlying goals.
Finally, the writer is engaged in fluffy wishful thinking, when he posits that "America stands behind the Democrats in this hour," or that "(t)he truth is that the voters are thirsty to see big victories from the Democrats.". The Dems won in November for one reason only: they're not Republicans, and the public is catching on to Bush, & becoming frightened. The Dems advanced no platform whatever; they ran away from discussing Iraq, as though terrified of the subject (which in fact they were). If the public had any realistic alternative besides the Dems, they would have happily taken it, but the US system permits only a choice between the 2 thoroughly corrupt big-business parties.
The public needs a party that will stand up to the belligerent criminality of the Bush regime, but the Democrats aren't it. In fact, by their mousy cowardice, they provide cover for Bush. The sooner people get over the sentimental myth that the Dems constitute a viable vehicle of opposition, the sooner the popular anger about these wars can achieve political expression. Waiting for the Democrats to do the right thing is a recipe for paralysis, defeat, & surrender.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1121 comments)
on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 at 2:01:01 PM
Hey, I meet guys who trash talk everyone and everything from time to time. They usually have it all figured out, and if everyone would just listen to them, then everything would be peaches.
If I had your mind set, I would have jumped off a tall bridge long ago. You just cannot compare the Democrats to the Republicans. Without power in any branch of government, not even a minority made up exclusively of Che Guevara clones could have done anything differently.
When you get that alternative party started you let me know. You show me who to vote for who is going to change the world not just get 100 votes out of 900,000 cast and fade into obscurity.
by
Dean Powers (108 articles, 8 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 58 comments)
on Wednesday, January 17, 2007 at 1:44:16 AM
You have a delusional understanding of the Democratic Party.
Bush went into Iraq because a DEMOCRAT CONTROLLED SENATE voted to give him the authority to wage war at his pleasure.
This latest "surge" nonsense is smoke and mirrors to distract the rubes. Most of what Bush said is designed to pave the way for WAR ON IRAN.
The Democrap leadership is on-board with these war plans, because:
1) They haven't done a god damned thing to try and stop them.
2) The Dem party is beholden to the Israeli lobby, which clearly wants war on Iran.
3) The Dems are complicit and partners in this fraudulent "War On Terror", which is a war for imperial control of the vital energy regions.
Most of the rubes don't really understand these fundamentals. They believe the latest hype ("the surge!") They believe professional liars, no matter how many times they are exposed.
If the Dems had a single cell in their bodies with integrity, the first order of business would be to impeach and imprison this most criminal gang of pirates ever to seize power in this country, and restore the Constitution, before it is too late.
Guess what, it's too late. These scumbags in the US Congress are the problem, not the solution.
I finally got a chance to check out your articles... Nice work! You really have a knack for writing...succinctly. I agree that Dems aren't responsible for an alternative agenda. This is Bush's war, and he + his administration are responsbile for the war's strategies and repurcussions. Keep up the good writing! ----April "oceanapril"
by
oceanapril (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments)
on Sunday, January 28, 2007 at 12:17:05 AM
