The vote in 2006 made it clear that people’s eyes are actually open.
Since the Busheviks began to run with the hysteria of 9/11, clear vision and voices of reasons were sent to wander in the wilderness, mocked like bearded hermits riding asses.
But suddenly, “War on Terror” didn’t make people jump up and burn their constitutions. CNN ran a series on what was broken in America �" including the media. Even though the government, the Wall Street analysts, and, astonishingly, most professional economists said the economy was terrific, ordinary people were able to tell that something was wrong. Books attacking the idiocies and excesses of religion flowered on the best seller lists like crocuses in the spring. Then we voted. The rubber stamp, neo-con, neo-Christ, corporate owned congress and senate, lost their Republican majorities.
We felt incredible relief. As if the black cloud of Mordor was suddenly blown away and the sun was shining again.
All that is true.
But my guess is that 2007 will not be a time of renewal and restoration. It will be a time of conflict, in-fighting and meanness. Of madness.
PART TWO: IRAQ
George Bush can’t leave Iraq.
Look at if from where he sits.
Getting Saddam was going to be Bush’s jackpot.
He was going to go in, win it, bring democracy to the Middle East, make it clear that no should ever dare challenge America, and establish America’s vision as the world’s vision. If Bush had won that hand he would have been declared one of history’s great men.
He went all in.
He used all the political capital he’d acquired from 9/11. Plus he gave up on Osama bin Laden, Mullah Omar and Afghanistan. He told lies about why we went to war. He violated the basics of international law. He alienated our allies. If he won, all that would be forgotten and forgiven. Worth the price. Proof of his daring manliness. Success erases more sins than being born again ever will. Just ask Jimmy Carter.
The following is part of an interview from the Kucinich website, regarding a critical vote that will be coming up this spring. How a person votes on this issue will give Americans a clear indication of who is and who isn't presidential material. That is to say, if one votes to continue war funding, they've missed the main idea of the November vote and don't represent the will of the people; alternatively, if there are enough votes to turn off the spigot, the war ends now.
Truthdig: What can people do?
Kucinich: People first of all need to know about this. People need to know that there is an attempt by our leadership to support the supplemental, and what the consequences are.... The most difficult part of the challenge is to get members of Congress to understand that they themselves voted for a bill which went into effect on Oct. 1 that appropriated $70 billion, which could be used to bring the troops home.
Unfortunately, our leadership is saying they're supporting the supplemental as a way of supporting the troops. So if we continue to ignore the money that's there right now to bring the troops home, we're losing an opportunity to bring the troops home now. People are now saying that they oppose the war, but they're continuing to fund it in the name of supporting the troops.
They say they're not going to abandon the troops in the field. We're professing a strange love for these troops by keeping them there, because the money's there to bring them home. So this is going to shape up as a major discussion across this country. People are going to want to know why Democrats would not bring the troops home now, when the money is there now.
Truthdig: For me this is really disheartening, because I feel like I have been lied to, and the American people have been lied to, because the [Democratic] Party was so against extra funds for the war. It's almost like the party has done a bait-and-switch.
Kucinich: I think there's going to be a concern around the country that this does represent a bait-and-switch. I'm hopeful that this position will be reconsidered and that the Democrats will not vote to keep the war going. But at this point, if the Democrats go forward and support a supplemental which by some accounts is now rising to $160 billion, they'll be providing enough money to keep the war going through the end of George Bush's term.
Now, this is a serious moment. I believe the public is largely unaware that this is happening, and I think a lot of people are going to be very surprised to learn that less than one month since this great realignment, that Democrats leaders, who came to power because of widespread opposition to the war in Iraq, are now saying that they will vote to continue funding the war.
Truthdig: Is there any hope to end the war now, and not go for this extra $160 billion in supplemental funds? Was there anything that happened in the room that gave you hope?
Kucinich: There's a type of thinking which equates staying in Iraq as demonstrating strength. There's a type of thinking which equates support for the supplemental with supporting the troops. This type of thinking is inherently flawed. It is circular in its nature. It will keep us in war. It will damn our troops to the horror of getting shot at from all sides. This is the time for Democrats to be uniting to exit from Iraq. And the exit door is already well lit with a sign that says $70 billion.
If we support the troops, why in the world would we not use the money to bring them home, instead of spending more money to keep them in? Why would we, when we have money to bring them home right now, appropriate another $160 billion which would keep them there, possibly through the end of George Bush's term?
The Iraq Study Group recognized the perilous nature of this war, and there is no indication that the administration is going to bring the troops home. Every statement that the president has made has been very clear with respect to his intent to continue the U.S. presence. He has basically said, "No timetables," and he hasn't set any call for troop eeductions.
Now, we have men and women who are dying there, and for what? That's why it's more than disappointing that the Democratic Party is not standing up.
Truthdig: So, again, what can people do?
Kucinich: I think it's important for people to contact their member of Congress, and to let the member of Congress know
how they feel. The people are also going to have to work their e-mail lists to pass the word, because not a lot of people know about this. It's going to be important for people to organize. It's going to take a mass movement to change this situation.
It's going to take a mass movement to really create such an uproar that approval of the supplemental will be stopped.
by
Daniel Geery (26 articles, 58 quicklinks, 121 diaries, 690 comments)
on Sunday, December 31, 2006 at 7:43:18 AM
People have written that we should "be patient" and to "give the Dems time". From what I see, once they vote for that appropriation, Bush can keep the war going. The ONLY thing that Congress can do to stop the war is to cut funding. I don't think they will do it. It seems to me, we've been Bushwacked.
by
Timothy V. Gatto (348 articles, 177 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 574 comments)
on Sunday, December 31, 2006 at 2:13:26 PM
there are a few people out there predicting a bust including the Comptroller General of the US and the head of the US treasury in addition to the UK Daily Telegraph, see my article here---> click here
Also, there is evidence all around if one can read between the lines.
by
Steven Leser (213 articles, 45 quicklinks, 33 diaries, 1399 comments)
on Sunday, December 31, 2006 at 5:01:16 PM
Nice article. I only want to comment on your opening sentence:
"The vote in 2006 made it clear that people's eyes are actually open."
May I offer a small suggestion? Say, "People eyes are finally starting to open." That's a little different, because the people still have a long way to go to be said to have their eyes open.
Consider the last two presidential elections to see how much the American people learned on the basis of the first four years. By 2004, the people knew (or could and should have known) about multiple unjust and unsound tax breaks for the rich, the absence of promised WMDs and the twin ruses of a phony alleged al Q'aeda link and an eye for democratization. The Bushites had been shown to have ignored 9-11 warnings, and in four years hadn't found bin Laden or done anything with ground zero.
The had had the accountancy frauds, the Enron scandal, the embarrassing Supreme Court nomination, evidence of alarming secrecy and disregard for the Constitution, the Geneva Conventions and the Kyoto Accords. There was the embarrassing failed Mission Accomplished, abu Ghraib, runaway war costs and casualties, the USA-PATRIOT Act, and bin Laden still at large. Bankruptcy was eliminated as an option for many and Bush tried to steal our Social Security.
This is off of the top of my head. I don't know if we had had Scooter Libby, Jack Abramoff or Tom DeLay yet, or if they go in to 2004-2006 column, but it doesn't matter, because that was plenty.
The outcomes? About 50-50 in 2000. Four years later, after all of that bad news and those bad outcomes? About 50-50 again. Hmmmmm.
Now jump to the 2006 midterms. Nothing but bad news. Bush is immensely unpopular and even conservatives are starting to wonder if invading Iraq was a mistake based on a lie. Katrina has happened and the aftermath is well known. Bush has alienated much of his religious base and the rest of the country doesn't like his stem cell position.
Maybe add in the Scooter Libby, Jack Abramoff or Tom DeLay scandals here. The Diebold debacle, the Foley incident, etc., etc.
Finally, six years later and after being figuratively beaten by a club for six years, here is the evidence of the "awakening" of which you write.
True, the Democrats prevailed in a substantial majority of these races and took a small majority in each house of Congress as a result of that. But they really didn't rout the Republicans like they should have in a race by race analysis of raw percent of votes garnered. The Democrats won a lot of very close races with modest majorities. Why so many close races? This should have been the demise of the Republican Party, but it may have been nothing more than a temporary setback, a hiccup.
And who believes that after two years of Democratic accountability and Republican resistance, with a steady drubbing by the MSM and hate radio in the background continually finding fault with everything that any Democrat or liberal does, that the American people won't forget everything and run back to the Republicans, especially given that the Republicans don't have all that much ground to regain.
If this is a reawakening, I hope somebody set the snooze alarm, because I don't really think that the American people have awakened enough not to be expected to doze off again soon.
Here's something alarming. What would a race of chimpanzees have done if they had been the subjects of a similar discussion? Let's say we gave 300 million chimps some ballots in 2000, and let them vote. Because they don't know what they are doing and because they know nothing about what the marks mean, the vote at random and the results are...about 50-50.
Then, give the chimps four years worth of news updates and bring them back in 2004. Of course, they understand nothing about what has happened or what it means, so they vote again at random (most would still undecided even up to election day) and remarkably, 50-50 again. Hmmmm.
Now you give them two years more of bad news, horrible news in fact, and let them vote again. Here's where the American people finally begin to separate from the chimps, but not by much. The chimps still vote 50-50 and win only half of the races whereas the Americans vote about 55-45 and win most of them by small margins.
Bravo.
My point is that these people are still very lost, not awake.
by
Yaybob (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 174 comments)
on Monday, January 1, 2007 at 6:34:06 PM
4 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 (
