How many of you all thought that when field marshal Patraes delivers his report to Congress next week on the effects of the surge, the Democrats would be presented with a golden opportunity to hammer the administration on Iraq and demand troop withdrawals which they would take full advantage of? Show of hands. Anyone? Anyone? Right. According to the Washington Post today, our spineless boot lickers in Washington are planning on throwing in the towel before they even hear what our American Rommel of the shifting sands has to say about the pacification of Baghdad. According to the Post, “Democratic leaders have signaled they are open to a more bipartisan approach to Iraq that would force the Bush administration to begin publicly planning for troop withdrawals but would stop short of requiring a firm timeline.”"Clearly, we don't have the numbers to override the president's vetoes, as has been clearly demonstrated," said House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.), "nor do we expect to for a long time." That’s the spirit! If we can’t override a veto, why even express our discontent? After all only 4000 Americans have died in this bullshit exercise. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) even said that he could drop his demand for a firm troop withdrawal next spring to win GOP votes. Of course it has nothing to do with votes and everything to do with political will.
As Salon notes in the War Room “Do the Democrats have the numbers to override Bush's veto? No, Hoyer's probably right about that. But the fact is, Bush can't fund the war himself, or at least not for very long. At some point, he needs an affirmative vote from Congress, giving him the funds to continue. And if Congress won't give that to him without a timeline, well, at some point, Bush, not Congress, would have to be the one who blinks. Will that happen? Of course it won't. But it won't be because the Democrats lack a veto-proof majority. It's because too many of them lack the courage of their convictions; they'll say that the war is going badly -- maybe even that it's "lost" -- but they won't take the political risk of saying, "We're not going to pay for it anymore."
The Democrats have betrayed the voters who gave them the majority last November and they should be punished. By punished I mean replaced by other representatives who will actually go to Washington to do the people’s work Moveon.org is currently testing the waters by circulating a survey among its members asking whether they would support funding primary challengers running against conservative Democrats next November. I think that is as good a place as any to get rid of these useless Republicrats and replace them with actual hardcore left-wing anti-war liberals. I invite you all to meander over to moveon and maybe drop a dime or two in the kitty so we can get the party started, so to speak.
As Salon notes in the War Room “Do the Democrats have the numbers to override Bush's veto? No, Hoyer's probably right about that. But the fact is, Bush can't fund the war himself, or at least not for very long. At some point, he needs an affirmative vote from Congress, giving him the funds to continue. And if Congress won't give that to him without a timeline, well, at some point, Bush, not Congress, would have to be the one who blinks. Will that happen? Of course it won't. But it won't be because the Democrats lack a veto-proof majority. It's because too many of them lack the courage of their convictions; they'll say that the war is going badly -- maybe even that it's "lost" -- but they won't take the political risk of saying, "We're not going to pay for it anymore."
The Democrats have betrayed the voters who gave them the majority last November and they should be punished. By punished I mean replaced by other representatives who will actually go to Washington to do the people’s work Moveon.org is currently testing the waters by circulating a survey among its members asking whether they would support funding primary challengers running against conservative Democrats next November. I think that is as good a place as any to get rid of these useless Republicrats and replace them with actual hardcore left-wing anti-war liberals. I invite you all to meander over to moveon and maybe drop a dime or two in the kitty so we can get the party started, so to speak.
3 comments:
Great post. Behind the politics of Iraq are corporations making profit.
"If massive opposition develops, corporations will put more money behind the Democrats, and promote their more 'progressive' voices. The media will become more critical of the Republicans lack of sensitivity...a shift toward the Democrats will occur if the Democrats cannot control the people...We are inculcated to a two-party system, and this allows Corporations a self-correcting mechanism to maintain corporate political control." Peter Camejo 2004
The media has maintained the Illusion that the Democrats are 'progressive' and 'labor friendly' but these are illusions designed to control us.
Its all about profit. This country was formed by upper class aristocrats looking to consolidate wealth among their peers. And let's not forget that for most of U.S. history, corporations have legally been considered "artificial persons." In 1886 in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that a private corporation is a person and entitled to the legal rights and protections the Constitutions affords to any person.Basically, a two-sentence assertion by a single judge elevated corporations to the status of persons under the law, prepared the way for the rise of global corporate rule, and thereby changed the course of history.
Have you seen the documentary "The Corporation"? One of the main points I recall drawing from that film is that corporations are actually more equal under the law than individual citizens--afforded in certain circumstances better rights, more protections, more welfare, etc.
Post a Comment