I agree with you, but I am also certain after watching the hearings over the last 2 days that the Democrats are not getting enough feedback from voters.

If the Democrats received phone calls and emails from 1 in 10 Democrats over the next few days leading up to the march in Washington DC on Saturday, they would have the push they need to fight hard.

My guess is that they have heard from 1 in 1000 Democrats, maybe less. That means they have no idea what the other 999 Democrats per thousand think. Without more feedback, they are stuck in an information vacuum which is filled by the pro-war corporate media.

Many progressives, including you and me, have called for everyone to snap out of their complacency and call or write their representatives, but I don’t think it is working. My representatives have heard from me hundreds of times, but they have heard nothing from most other constituents, and therefore don’t know what they are thinking.

The Democrats in Congress will grow a spine as soon as 1 in 10 Democratic voters grows a spine, and starts bitching. Short of that, we, and especially the troops, are in a big trouble.

by John R Moffett (89 articles, 18 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 697 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Sep 12, 2007 at 10:38:52 AM

  (0+)

in Congress would respond to phone calls from voters. I wonder how you can possibly still believe that.

All the Dem presidential candidates, except the two that have no chance whatever of being nominated (Kucinich & Gravel), refuse to say the war is "wrong." Their positions consist of rejiggering current policy, for example by "re-deploying" troops, or re-defining who's a combat troop and who's merely some sort of "support" troop. NONE of them says the war & occupation are illegal and immoral (not to mention opposed by most Iraqis & most Americans), and therefore should be terminated.

There are polls done by major polling organizations, including a very recent one by ABC (jointly with the BBC & a Japanese news network). They show without exception that most Americans oppose the occupation & want to see it ended. Everyone knows the Dems were voted in, last November, solely because the population hoped they would end the war.

Yet you set forth an argument based entirely on the idea that more phone calls from antiwar constituents would turn things around. Surely (I assume) you don't think that calling the White House would change Bush & Cheney. Surely (I assume) you don't believe that calling Republican congressmen would make an iota of difference in their support for current policy. Therefore, what you really mean is that you believe that calling Democratic congresspersons would make a big difference in their positions.

Yet this is the party that announced, the moment they won in November, that impeachment was "off the table." This is the party that caved in last May and fully funded the war with NO STRINGS ATTACHED. This is the party whose leading presidential candidates all basically support current policy, & are only haggling about definitions & details. This is the party that caved last month on FISA & spying on Americans... the party that has refused to even try to end torture, or to restore habeas corpus.

Why would you refuse to consider the possibility that maybe, just maybe, the reason the Dems won't stand up to oppose the war, is that they're not really against it? On the face of it, that's certainly a lot more probable an interpretation, than the naive notion that they're secretly "against" it, but just too shy to show it, because they somehow "don't know" that the population hates the war. Why would you imagine that the Dems would be any more responsive to antiwar sentiment than the Republicans? It's absurd to think of the Democrats as an "antiwar" force. They've NEVER played that role in American politics. Their usual posture is to give lip service to opposing various wars, while in fact supporting the war policy.

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Wednesday, Sep 12, 2007 at 1:23:21 PM

  (0+)

I suspect that voters are not getting in touch with their representatives to ensure that they are being represented at even the most basic level of having their representatives uphold their oath of office to them.

I suspect congressional representatives are not being asked how they square their oath to support and defend the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic with sitting and waiting rather than imposing the constitution remedy.

My excuse - for not writing congress, I don't have a representative. I don't live in the country. I've been telling myself I have to work by proxy, through Americans that will listen to my arguments.

I wonder if I should write to some of the US Congress anyway though. Stating why I think they should impeach Bush in the interests of the rule of law and the civilized world. Arguing that what is at stake are much of the gains made by civilization since world war 11. 

I think it would be a good idea if more people who say they've written their congressional representatives would post exerpts of what they have written and any replies. I think it would be a good idea if people who don't want to lose the right to protest establish now whilst they can a track record of free speech and principled political dissent.

If there was a database of each congress persons position on impeachment, who, which constituents had received that position and when, then that could be used by other constitents to join in the persuasion. It would give people who claim to be lobbying a chance to show that they are.

Too many citizens are still sitting this out and watching rather than participating this non-citizen thinks.

Democracies don't only get the governments they deserve they get the reactions to the government policies they deserve as well. Citizenship can't just be about rights and not responsibilities. 

It would be quite an irony if next 9-11 (and of course there will be another it is impossible to stop people acting politically and using technology and their lives as tools) the world's attitude is that the so-called terrorists are making a valid point directed at the guilty seat of power - the recalcitrant people.

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Thursday, Sep 13, 2007 at 12:34:39 AM

  (0+)

First of all, these "losers" you're talking about (Bush/Cheney et al) are actually winning every single policy contest. They're in complete control of the US military machine, the US Treasury, the courts, etc. The Democrats rubberstamp their every initiative, no less than a Republican congress would do. There is realistically zero prospect that the Iraq war will end, as far as the eye can see. The next president, probably Hillary, will continue it. There will be huge US bases & troops in Iraq for years to come.

Your article is filled with phrases like "It is time for the Democrats in congress to fight back with tough spines..." and "It's time for the Democrats to find their spines and do their jobs." I sympathize with those sentiments at an emotional level -- but you are kidding yourself about the fundamental nature of the Democratic Party. Their problem is not that they are basically well-intentioned good guys who are unfortunately a bit short on vertebrae.

Rather, the Democrats' performance since taking control of Congress is a perfect demonstration of who they in fact are. They are not "opponents" of Bush in any meaningful sense. They are his partners. Their essential function in the US political system is to grandstand for the masses, pretending to represent what they know the masses want -- while at the same time remaining loyal to the wishes of the same corporate oligarchy that Bush works for. Their position is intrinsically two-faced. This is what they are.

The appearance of "spinelessness" is merely the inevitable result of their intrinsically two-faced role. They are not really spineless. They are behaving exactly as their real loyalties & motivations impel them to. They want US multinationals to get its paws on Iraq's oil just as much as the Republicans do.

Your entire conception of the Dems as "good guys" who are just a little short on nerve -- this is a huge mistake. The Dems feed on, and deliberately try to encourage, such misperceptions. In fact, it's their life blood; it's how they earn their keep.

Opponents of the war should regard the Democrats as just as much their enemies as Republicans. In some ways, the D's are even more dangerous enemies, precisely because they're so duplicitous. At least Bush/Cheney make no bones about being militarist fanatics -- in a strange way, they're very candid & honest about this. The D's are just as bad. The only difference is that they pretend not to be -- which actually makes them even worse.

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Wednesday, Sep 12, 2007 at 11:37:26 AM

  (0+)

We have never been at war with Iraq. We unilaterally declared war on a nation that did not threaten our borders or our people. We (the government) lied to the U.N. (see Colin Powell’s Speech to the U.N. in Feb. of 2003) and then Bush used manipulated, cherry-picked and plain falsified intelligence to make a fallacious case for war to Congress and American citizens. This my friends, is treason!

This was in direct violation of the Geneva Convention, is an occupation of aggression, and is a war crime. It is just that simple.

Bush is a mass murderer, by some accounts murdering over one million people, and a war profiteer. (For those in doubt, send me your email address and I will show you dozens of authenticated pictures of what Iraqi children look like after they die from white phosphorous being dump on them by U.S. forces.)

Anyone who supports this illegal war of pre-emptive aggression is complicit in a war crime and should be prosecuted accordingly.

I have said it in the past and will say it again; you cannot claim to oppose this war, while supporting the troops, the same men and women who prosecute Bush’s war crime.

I don’t want to hear about duty, honor, oaths, or codes taken by these men and women. By now, every one of them knows our occupation of Iraq is wrong and internationally illegal – to say nothing of its violations of humanity – and are therefore either complicit or want to be there and kill, as Rob points out.

Those who are not in Iraq for the “sport of it” (how sad this exists) need to make a moral, conscience decision and refuse to kill any more innocent people and repudiate Bush. Every solider has the right to refuse illegal orders, as some have done, but many more need to step up. You cannot conduct a war without soldiers, and without soldiers, Bush is just another washed up tyrant and oppressor.

by Frank J. Ranelli (66 articles, 143 quicklinks, 29 diaries, 383 comments) on Wednesday, Sep 12, 2007 at 11:43:13 AM

  (0+)

Write my Congressman?  What a joke!  I do (have) written my Congressman and my Senators, and I get a form letter back telling me what he has done and what he will do,  and then invites me to visit him when I'm in Washington.  Frankly I don't any longer think it makes one damned bit of difference whether I write or not, they don't read their mail, their staff does.  And they don't respond to  mail any more because they know that certain organizations often urge their members to write and they are consequently inundated with mail, both email and snail mail.  But it doesn't mean much to them.   They patronize me and all the others dumb enough to waste time writing.  They already know their constituentcies.  That's how they got elected in the first place.  My Congressman is Tim Johnson of IL.  He is a product of the last IL Republican Governor's gerrymandering.  So I am now included in a highly Republican district made up of mostly rich farmers.  Johnson knows those rich farmers love those farm subsidies, that's how they got to be rich farmers.  And he votes accordingly, right down the line.  My two Senators are O'Bama and Durbin.  Durbin I trust to vote the way I like and when it isn't the way I like, I trust him to have taken the way he truley thinks is right.  He is a judicious man.  O'Bama can be influenced more easily but mostly because he is running for national office.  I like O'Bama but I feel uneasy about him.  Frankly, I don't feel at ease with any of the Presidential candidates.  My point is, I don't bother with writing anymore.  Sometimes I call but I do that less and less.  I am disgusted with my country. 

by bmobley (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 30 comments) on Wednesday, Sep 12, 2007 at 11:44:50 AM

  (0+)

But the problem is that your friends and family members probably don’t write or call. My point was that too few Americans are complaining to their leaders. If 5% of adult Americans (~12 million) wrote or called Congress once a week and gave them an earful, it would make a huge difference.

Right now they are hearing from a tiny vocal fraction of liberals, and the rest of the country sounds like crickets chirping. I have been completely unable to get any of my friends and family to stop being crickets, and start screaming. If they don’t make themselves heard, I don’t understand how they think things will ever change.

by John R Moffett (89 articles, 18 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 697 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Sep 12, 2007 at 12:24:08 PM

  (0+)

I have been completely unable to get any of my friends and family to stop being crickets, and start screaming.

Hi John,

Save for my wife, I have the same problem. They all shrug at me and say, “What do you want me to do?” I proceed to tell them, educate them, and even help them dial the phone, but they won’t budge. Signing even an internet petition is too taxing, they say.

By and large, my family’s attitude is as long as it is not in my backyard, then I don’t see why I should get involved. Another thinks impeachment, for any reason, levied against any president, is a show of weakness and we should take Article II, Section 4, out of the Constitution. (Blind nationalism at its worst.)

After a while, frustration and the feeling of “am I the only one” starts to creep in.

by Frank J. Ranelli (66 articles, 143 quicklinks, 29 diaries, 383 comments) on Wednesday, Sep 12, 2007 at 12:59:18 PM

  (0+)

a guy who includes chickenhawk in his email address writes to me:

Do you realize how pathetic the subject of this email makes you look.  You want to "confront" those who want "victory in Iraq"?  Are you saying you don't advocate victory?  You don't want us to win in Iraq?  I would think that responsible bias on your part would at least hide your true intent of hopeful failure with a subject like "Time to Confront the Desperate Losers with A Different View of Victory In Iraq" or something similar.  It's crap like this that keeps the liberals from getting our 2.5 million+ military votes.  

 

I reply:

You are clearly one of the losers who don't get it that there is no victory to be gotten from an occupation.

I assume you are just fine with the deaths of 1000 more soldiers in Iraq in the next year. Why not just say it? "I don't mind having another 1000 soldiers killed so I can still root for victory."  

There can be no victory, just another and another re-frame of a new interpretation of a compromise of a settliing for less than what was promised before. Remember those benchmarks BUSH came up with that were not met. Ahh, what's the point. You'll have 10,000 more troops so you can maintain your loyalty to liars and losers. Too bad for all those families of the kids who will be killed. Disgusting.

by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Wednesday, Sep 12, 2007 at 1:57:15 PM

  (0+)

War-lovers HAVE NEVER articulated a reason for occupying Iraq, moreover what a "win" looks like.

Can anyone find a coherent definition of victory in Iraq?

by Kathlyn Stone (46 articles, 227 quicklinks, 27 diaries, 690 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Sep 12, 2007 at 3:30:07 PM

  (0+)

If the war had three goals:

1) Tax money to DoD contractors,

2) Driving up the price of oil, and

3) Keeping those who enable the profits of those from # 1 & 2 in office, then

 This is the single most effective military campaign of all time.

by Kelly James (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Thursday, Sep 13, 2007 at 11:34:54 AM

  (0+)

In 1987-1988 I decided to emigrate from my country, Russia which I dearly loved. There were many reasons but  there was one that was the primary one. In  one of those years in the Azeri town of Sumgait the  local pogromists pillaged,  killed,  raped, tortured and burned the Armenian people including women and children. It lasted for several days and the Almighty govt with nuclear weapons and enormous military  did not do much. They did not even acknowledge  that as a fact for a while, though in al fairness some local authorities and military  performed heroically against all odds.

I was born and raised as an internationalist and any ethnic  attack was and is inconceivable for me. I was expecting then all the people of my country to  stand up in total outrage and offer the Armenians unconditional help and hospitality. I was expecting the govt to act swiftly and harshly and also to  openly proclaim that any such action whenever would be met by deadly force. In vain.  It was only a start  but even then people did not react  and did not stand up and what happened further was in fact partly the result of that apathy. Thew country I knew  is gone.  And miillions are dead.

I emigrated and took my family with me. Now I am here and it is happening again. This time I have nowhere to go. This time the line is drawn.  May our love of this country give us strength and  power to  see the truth and to  let  it through.  No, we do not have to explain  that  'it will come to your backyard'. There will be no backyard! We are all facing a life/death situation and when someone asks you, ' What do you want  me to do', you answer, 'Why won't you look around and see who is honest in his love and hate and who is not. Start from  that.'

People are people and we cannot expect much from them, neither can we judge. But  we must and we should seek the honest ones and promote them, help them, protect them.  That does not mean to write to your congressman. That means  finding who of them is honest and help him/her even if they are  not from your district. And it also means to harm the chances of the ones who  are dishonest. I am a consitituent of ( guess who!), Joe Lieberman. Whenever I talk about him I just say, ' Joe is nuts'.  That works, funny as it sounds. Joe is nuts. Condi is stupid, Bushie is a moron and  Cheney is a vampire. Say it! Shout it!  It works!

by Mark Sashine (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4101 comments [130 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Sep 12, 2007 at 2:17:58 PM

  (0+)

The problem is most Democrats aren't just cowards. That's the best case scenario.  The worst case scenario is most Democrats are closet Republicans who WANT the war in Iraq, etc., etc.  The problem isn't that they're gutless, the problem is that they are traitors.  The problem is that we have a ONE party system absolutely under the control of American elites.

by W. Christopher Epler (Bill) (291 articles, 59 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 763 comments [44 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Sep 12, 2007 at 2:24:30 PM

  (0+)

Oh yeah, baby!

For the same reason they continue to buy Hummers to drive on city streets.

by Kathlyn Stone (46 articles, 227 quicklinks, 27 diaries, 690 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Sep 12, 2007 at 3:09:16 PM

  (0+)

...is yet another batch of hooey! While I agree with everything you wrote, at least as far as the reasons why the Great Impotentates of the right (DUBYA and Dick(LESS)) continue to follow a failed policy, to think that anything we are going to do is going to mean sh*t in the maelstrom of the Iraq war is completely wrong.

Don't forget you are talking about men who have had their privates exposed in movies like Fahrenheit 9/11, and HBO's Iraq For Sale, and in other media through various stories that have mercifully survived attempts to censor them. The "truth" is out there in abundant supply. And even though the mouthpieces of the right continue their unending tapestry of lies, people continue to hear the truth.

And yet they do nothing. Congress does nothing, when they know that there is something rotten in Fallujah, Tikrit, and Baghdad. Congress does nothing as evidence continues to mount that Halluburton, KBR, CACI, and other businesses are making criminal profits on the backs of the US military and the Iraqi civilians...all the while wasting money and lives like they are both going out of style.

The people do nothing. The average American is now convinced that the Iraq war is a sham, DUBYA and Dick(LESS) are liars, and we cannot win in Iraq, no matter how many bodies we throw into the jaws of the war machine. While there is still much in the way of misinformation being thrown about like sh*t in the monkey house, the average American is finally catching the clue bus that all is not well.

The players who know they did wrong do nothing. How many of the initial gang of DUBYA minions are left in power? Wolfowitz? Nope, he's gone, and not only is he gone, he has been disgraced yet again by being thrown out of the World Bank over a piece of ass. Colin Powell is disgraced. Dumbsfeld supposedly "stepped down" (translation, was thrown under the bus). Scooter Libby is history, even if he didn't get the ass f*cking he so richly deserved. Shall I continue?

These malcontents and war mongers have been thrown out or quit in disgrace over the Iraq fiasco. Their highly public embarrassments seem to be of little or no consequence to anyone except those who refuse to sacrifice their intellect on the altar of the war pigs DUBYA and Dick(LESS). In other words, as we are told by The X Files, "the truth is out there." Unlike The X Files, the truth that's out there isn't hidden. It's out there in plain site for anyone with a brain that is more than an ear spacer to see or hear.

The RepuliKKKan smear machine has proved to be a formidable thing. It is apparent that the actions of this machine have struck fear into the hearts of everyone but the most courageous.

Therein lies the problem, there is no more courage left in this country. Everyone is so scared about saving their own pathetic backsides, they forget that there are other derriers that are getting close to roasting in the fires we ourselves set. What else could explain how the average American shakes in his or her boots over the actions of a coward who not only couldn't be bothered to support his country by fighting and dying in Vietnam, but he couldn't even bother to not go AWOL from the unit that was saving his pathetic ass? All this from a man who has more people's gaydar going off than Liberace at a bathhouse!

Americans are like the musophobic pachyderm that reels in fear of an approaching mouse. We are afraid of something that is easily rendered harmless. Apparently, nothing will break this fear.

Until such time as someone with nothing to lose, nothing to be smeared over, and true courage comes forward to do battle with the disgusting VERMIN that have usurped our country and its government, the situation will continue unabated.

Truly, we have met the enemy, and it is us!

Blessed be!
Pappy

by Pappy (61 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 860 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Sep 12, 2007 at 4:09:23 PM

  (0+)

The circumstances are already described by RichM and panurg and Epler and more names I fail at knowing. The D's are equally enemy as the R's, which means Congress is the enemy of we, the people. Which only makes sense, if the 'captions' are changed, as, 'Royalty' is the enemy of its 'Subjects.'

Consequently, I join Joel Hirshborn (?) in working to make ourselves a new Congress. The process, as I understand it, is to convene committees in each state, 'Constitutional Convention' meetings, draft a new US Consti2tion, merge them all in one, that then does 'Establish and Ordain these United States,' proscribes a Legislative, Executive, and Judicial partitioning of power, (maybe add a fourth branch of government, i.e. the 'nervous system' -- Media-izing), stand candidates, vote choices, swear and inaugurate, and so forth (taxing and spending), going from 'shadow' government to enacted by the people power. And just go on as the future, completely ignoring the cast-off husk of yesterday's 'Congress, etc.'

JohnMoffett, help me understand why more people shouting louder, seems to you, is going to 'change' any Dem's or 'instill courage' in any. Look what louder-ness got Gabriel, demonstrating around and blowing horns: The walls crumbled and fell. Meaning: Gabe and the gang had to build the walls all over, starting from rubble. It did NOT 'change' the walls, to permeable, and it did NOT 'reposition' to walls, to inclusiveness. This Congress, the D's, the R's, the 'Two-Party'-myth monolith, ALL we 'know familiarly' as government, can ONLY BE CRUMBLED. That's all we can do. And rebuild anew.

Yeah, that's going to be a lot of hard work. It's going to take an investment of our lives. Fortunes, and sacred honor. The only ones to benefit are our posterity, generations yet unborn, living in freedom years from now. For us, it can only be sacrificing our lives. John, when your friends ask, 'what do you want us to do?,' tell them: Give your life, that others may live. It is likely to be an easier sell than getting them to call Congress. Because it works, and calling Congress doesn't.

---

Rob, there is a tone (I forget the words) in your posting, which brings to my mind to bring to your attention this movie that appeared yesterday. I hope it is self-explanatory as being an answer for a 'questioning' your posting appeared (to me) to have in the 'blank staring space' between its lines. I can't detail it further, since I didn't review the details before getting into this Editor here.

I like this movie as exemplifying two key concepts. One: Like Art is supposed to be, each viewer can take a personal interpretation of what it means, what it is saying, how it applies. To them, the viewers, in their own worldview. To me, the most important point in the movie is the span of years it discusses, which shows that there was a 'paradigm shift' in the 1940s, labelled in shorthand as the 'CIA,' and policy and practice has gone on in this 'new' paradigm of 'USA'' for over 60 years, while 'public education' has indoctrinated all of us in the 'former' paradigm of colonists -to- Revolutionay War -to- Constitutional gov't. -to- Lincoln -to- FDR -to- 'freedom and justice for all' which just. ain't. happenin'. And no amount of looking at what is (going on), ever fits or ever can be fit into the model that we learned to think it is/was (going on).

In showing this real politick (paradigm) being in practice for 5 generations (70 years), it is answer in your implicit questioning of 'what's going on? where's the sense in what's happening?,' inasmuch as it says that the only satisfaction for your question is to forget the information your questioning is built using. That is, forget what you thought you knew about what 'USA' is and stands for. That's all malarkey, you've been programmed, starting back 70 years ago. (Very germane --> coincident with the advent of broadcasting, first radio 1930s, then television 1950s -- broadcasting: the instrument causing massmind and the delusion programming of massmind. No, duh! ) When you 'forget' all that, then it seems (to me) there is no question about what's going on.

The movie shows that the segregation of 'those in the know' (CIA) from 'the masses,' in which elitist vs. subordinate is started and which ended the 'old' government-by-representatives-of-us,ourselves model, dates back 7 decades. Along with advertising and psychologizing and distortion-mirrorizing.

See the 'new' paradigm, here: The Shock Doctrine Short Film

The other key concept the movie demonstrates, as Art, is: Two: going 'over the heads of' Congress and government. (As Reagan used to say.) What one person can do: Take up our 'issues' with The People. And this is in my suggestion to JohnMoffett and all the rest of us frustrated in 'petitioning' Congress. Dispel them. Take our message 'over Congress's heads' To The People. It is kinda what all the 'Open Letter to __fill_in_the_blank__' articles appearing in OpEdNews is about. The intuitive knowing to talk directly to the people, us, ourselves, the masses. Forget Congress, etc.

A movie or a book or an exhibit, and such, is an appeal to Art to decide, as having more authority and influence than 'Congress,' i.e., 'representative' government. Everyone can address Art, putting messages in Art and getting messages out of Art. Art communicates.

We cannot put messages in(to) the modern televisionCongress. It is not a real representatives-of-us Congress, it only is figureheads portrayed as Congress, playing one on TV. TV, (or broadcasting), is a one-way medium. No one communicates with it, only it dispenses, or dispensates.

Another suggestion for JohnMoffett. When friends ask what you'd have them do. Say that you are very glad they are talking with you right that moment, and NOT watching TV. Then ask them questions: Would you like to make a movie together? Write a book together? Put up IMPEACH banners on the freeway overpasses togther? Make Art together?

As a postscript, another thing, maybe Art, to see: Network: "Television is not the Truth."

by meremark (1 articles, 3 quicklinks, 30 diaries, 572 comments [22 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Sep 12, 2007 at 4:17:15 PM

  (0+)

Once the Dems find their spines and take their stand,

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA !!!!!!!!!!!!!

thanks for the laugh at least.

by mike (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 92 comments) on Wednesday, Sep 12, 2007 at 4:33:50 PM

  (0+)

Although it really is far from funny. Why Rob continues to beat the drum thinking the Democrats will awaken to find they have grown as spine is a mystery to me?

Rob, they will not do a damn thing and we better realise it pretty damn soon. It was obvious to anyone with a brain that the results of the '06 election were a reaction to this crappy war and our incompetent White House. It has become just as obvious that the Democrats are not going to do squat about it. What more proof do you need?

Impeachment off the table before a single vote was cast or a hearing held. Oil subsidies untouched despite the lie Pelosi spoke about slashing them in the face of record profits by the oil industry. The decision not to push for prosecution of those who went before Congress and lied through their teeth under oath. The continuance of funding the war..bah, we have no opposition party in Washington DC. If you want one vote Green do not continue to waste your time on a party that has betrayed you and will continue to do so.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Wednesday, Sep 12, 2007 at 5:07:28 PM

  (0+)

real progressive legislators in congress. And there are more now than there were a year ago. We have to vote out the incumbents who screw their constituents. They may do like Lieberman and run as independents, but even then, if enough become independents, then maybe they'll pass laws supporting full fledged third party voting and some kind of run-off vote process that allows voters to select their first then second choices.

by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Thursday, Sep 13, 2007 at 9:10:52 AM

  (0+)

besides Kucinich, who would actually buck the leadership of the party and work at odds with their aims....Can you explain why Lieberman was not stripped of his committee assignments ajnd duties? He is, after all, an Independent and defeated a Democrat.

There exists no true two party system, only a Duopoly, both wetting their beaks at the corporate trough. it is disgusting to see it but embarrassing to note intelligent folks denying it.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Friday, Sep 14, 2007 at 6:17:01 PM

  (0+)

I don't know what the solution is. Congress hears from the same 0.01% of the population over and over, but they never hear from the rest until election day. If people would stop saying "they don't listen", and just keep on writing and calling, it would force politician's hands. I'll keep at it, and you should too, but it is like trying to move a very sleepy elephant.

by John R Moffett (89 articles, 18 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 697 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Sep 12, 2007 at 4:41:21 PM

  (0+)

Secular quasi-socialist state under strong armed dictator with heavy anti-fundamentalist leanings, such as Saddam Hussein, whose heavily armed, well-trained and experienced armed forces relative to the middle east can counter-balance the madrasses to his south and the mullahs to his east.

by W.M.L. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 537 comments [52 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Sep 12, 2007 at 4:55:27 PM

  (0+)

When I read comment like the above I’m often reminded of the old joke about the man who kept hitting his head against a brick wall. When asked why he simply replied “it feels great when I stop!”.

For months now I’ve been reading the articles on this site waiting for the penny to drop that what you’re asking isn’t going to happen for a myriad of reasons. Some self indulgent, some interest, but mostly because the end wouldn’t justify the reasons.

I wouldn’t want your troops to be that exposed.

I accept that soldiers in general aren’t PhDs in ethics, advanced Logic or even Socket Rientists. But then again neither is a very large proportion of most societies(Australians incl.). Calling them names achieve nothing only a siege mentality.

I would recommend that you watch the movie “Amazing Grace” Not only because is not a bad yarn (the story of William Wilberforce’s fight against slavey in the British Empire) but also because of the way he after 15yrs of taking on self interest finally succeeded. Instead of beating his head against the wall he went around it attacking the interests and in that way stopped the national dislocation the frontal attack would have caused.

Before we all Pontiusly wash our hand and walk away perhaps we  should take a cold shower and look at what is not what should have been. The US and allies screwed up Iraq, the reasons are a moot point. While I’m against war “Doctrine of just war “or not we now have a moral responsibility to do something about the mess we created.

by Andris (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 531 comments) on Wednesday, Sep 12, 2007 at 5:47:52 PM

  (0+)

I consider war to be caused by a lack ofsocial cohesion. It occurs within a nation and among nations. Our great technological conveniences of communication and travel and our devilish ways of using the same technology for human destruction could do us in. As we spell out our frustration over the folly of human beings we turn on each other.

In individual terms we experience people who lash out in frustration and end up blaming the first events or persons that come to mind. On such an irrational subject as war, how could there be other than frustration? Government is first on the list, because armies are controlled by government. The fault lies deeper and we know it. I would casually say that having a professional, as opposed to a volunteer, army was a very dangerous legacy of Vietnam aftermath. Plenty to ponder there, because there is plenty of adverse results from it. But let that be for after the current mess comes to its eventual crash.

I repeat myself, boringly, but the way out is impeachment. Fact is, we would not be in this position if we had been valorous enough to do more. Now that the folly is obvious and it is not counter-culture to be against the Iraq War (and shall we hope "war on terror), maybe we can understand that we have to take our lumps and crawl out. Elected officials should be held accountable. Goodness only knows, it would be great to send a few war profiteers to jail. And the economy will adjust to a tsunami. How many people will be laid off when defense contracts are cancelled? How many veterans will have a hard time to find a job good enough to pay for the inflated goods and services which will happen? How many retirees will take a hit when their investments turn sour?

This is a terror worse than having a car bomb in another part of the country. I find folks who are happy when I mention impeachment and are leery of even repeating the word. But it's happening bit by bit. As the movers and shakers begin to speak person to person to those who are afraid to speak up, we will feel encouraged. Chuck Hagel and John Warner are two I would like to meet, so I could shake their hands. The considerable community of thinkers, similar to those in this group, are to be applauded for their forethought and their endeavors.

So, Good Folks, let's portray our true colors by ignoring any remaining doubts we may have, and work with all those who are not afraid. It's my private way of fighting war on terror.

Oh, yes. I need to let off steam. And I've found a way. When a Democrat asks me for a donation, I send back the slip with zero dollars and a message: "I do not contribute until I know where you stand on impeachment." So far 2 zingers, Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi.

by Margaret Bassett (45 articles, 2909 quicklinks, 42 diaries, 1849 comments [99 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Sep 12, 2007 at 8:49:05 PM

  (0+)

.

We have let madmen lie us into madness.

Now they want to attack Iran.

Does anyone think that will end the madness?

Impeach Bush. Stop the madmen. Stop the war while we still can.

.

by rabblerowzer (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 227 comments) on Thursday, Sep 13, 2007 at 8:42:59 AM

  (0+)

along with his vision and his efforts. 

It is the impractical visonaries who change course of history, time and time again.  I'm no historian, but I don't believe anyone else ever has.  I would prefer to soar and die with the eagles than gobble and die with the turkeys.

Even though I have no more faith in the Demagogues than anyone else here, I will print Rob's article and mail it to Pelosi and Reid, return receipt. 

They may do nothing, but they will know how I feel. And I would remind those who forget, that they are just people, in spite of any labels they may wear.

by Daniel Geery (26 articles, 95 quicklinks, 126 diaries, 912 comments [27 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Sep 13, 2007 at 9:33:28 AM

  (0+)

Thanks for your comments on my article at Serving Iraq.  You may be surprised to discover that I essentially agree with you in this article.  See my article this morning expressing such agreement, entitled "What I Learned About Iraq From Losing a Consultant".

by Frank Staheli (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 37 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Sep 14, 2007 at 9:57:32 AM

  (0+)