Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Iraq War Funding: "Compromise" or "Sellout"?
"Democrats intend to draft an Iraq war-funding bill without a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops," AP reports. The article notes that "details remain subject to change," but says that the bill "would provide funds for military operations in Iraq through Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year," implying that there would be no meaningful restriction on the President's request.
Like earlier articles containing basically the same information, the article doesn't cite any named sources, nor does it provide significant detail, suggesting that the anonymous announcement may be, to some extent, a trial balloon. If the announcement unleashes a tsunami of protest, leaders have left themselves room to back away from it. Hopefully, this is exactly what will happen.But suppose not. Suppose, as may be possible, that Democratic leaders have really committed themselves, as the AP article seems to suggest, to providing all the money for the war in Iraq that the President has asked for, without including any limitation on the duration of the war, nor any other meaningful restriction, regardless of how much protest this generates among opponents of the war - even at the cost of splitting the Democratic caucus. Then what?
"Democrats in both houses are expected to seek other opportunities later this year to challenge Bush's handling of the unpopular conflict," the AP article says.
No doubt they will. But this raises some troubling questions. Even if one were to accept the argument that Democrats right now don't have the Congressional votes or public support to further press their case on the supplemental against the White House and Congressional Republicans, it's still fair to ask - how is the leadership preparing the ground for the next round of conflict?
And there are two troubling questions here.
First: why is the overall funding level set in stone? The supplemental is purportedly to cover the period until September 30, the end of the fiscal year. Even if one accepted the idea of no limitation of the war before September 30, why is $100 billion necessary for this purpose? This has never been explained. If $100 billion were truly necessary for this purpose, that would mean that the rate of war spending was doubling compared to last year. A far more plausible explanation is that the supplemental is not intended to carry the war to September 30, but well beyond that. If the aim of the Congressional leadership is to revisit the issue in the fall, why provide funding well beyond that?
Second: on May 17 the House passed the defense authorization for 2008, "The bill includes $142 billion in combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan," but "does not require troop withdrawals or place restrictions on the war," AP reported that day. If the intent of the House leadership on the FY 2008 authorization is that passage on May 17 was the last word on the matter, it's hard to reconcile that with a plan of revisiting the issue of the war in the fall.
If the House leadership is absolutely determined not to fight further for any restriction on the war in this round, and cannot be shaken from this position, then the the questions of the funding level and the 2008 authorization should be immediately revisited. Regarding the latter, while the 2008 defense authorization has passed the House, it hasn't passed the Senate, and unless the Senate passes it in exactly the same form - an unlikely prospect - the House can have another bite at the apple.
It's one thing to withdraw from the field with the intention of fighting another day. It's quite another thing to blow up your arsenal. Robert Naiman is Senior Policy Analyst and National Coordinator at Just Foreign Policy.
51 Comments so far
Show All"If the announcement unleashes a tsunami of protest, leaders have left themselves room to back away from it."
Everyone reading this needs to pick up a phone and call your representatives now.
Despite the tragic blunder of entering Iraq,we are there now. If we depart with out some plan for avoiding total chaos, the destabilization and bloodshead to the area caused by this war will almost certainly worsen.
Our problems will not be solved by the minds that created them, especially when guided by profiteers, zealots, & oil intrests. Our only resolution is a change in direction now--and that can never occur under this administration.
""Democrats in both houses are expected to seek other opportunities later this year to challenge Bush's handling of the unpopular conflict," the AP article says."
Except, these can only be show votes. Any opportunity to change this is passing now. This is the supplemental bill to fund until Sept. Then the war goes on budget, and the House has already approved full funding for next year. So anything they do after this will be the equivalent of a non-binding resolution. So, basically all you'll see is more smoke and mirrors to try to fool you into thinking the Democrats oppose the war, after they've voted to fund it for five straight years.
I'd call it a sellout, but that implies a betrayal. But the Democratic leadership started making it plain midway through the last campaign that they had no intention of seriously challenging Bush. They made promises during the campaign not to impeach. And while I can't find where they said during the campaign that they wouldn't cut funding, they were always extremely mealy-mouthed in thier opposition to the war. Opposing Bush for being incompentent in committing his war crimes. Then immediately after the election they promised not to cut funding. My guess is that they made that promise to some big money sources at the same time they promised not to impeach, but were too afraid to tell the voters before the last election that they wouldn't cut funding either.
The only thing of interest was how Reid and Pelosi would pull it off. They'd only promised to deliver on a policy opposed by almost everyone in their party. How were they going to trick Democrats into thinking they were opposed to the war, while actually fully funding it and supporting the war.
As I've said before, the only way to defund the war is to stop paying federal taxes of ALL types. I know this is difficult to do, but it seems very clear that those who were elected to stop the war have no intention of doing so.
The actions of Congress should now make it crystal clesar that, with very few exceptions, they are NOT representatives of the American people.
The AP story has been determined to be incorrect. Follow developments at TalkingPointsMemo.com
Which still does not necessarily refute the above characterisations of the Dems...just refutes the original story.
Political expediency demands compromise while, and empty game while many more die. Anything short of ending the occupation and removing the neocon cabal from power is complicity.
Karlof1: That would take widespread coordination. If small pockets of people do it openly, they'll get their property confiscated, etc. But if it's done on a mass scale, there would simply be no enforcing it. Currently, we're jailed only by our disorganization.
A minimum wage for more dead and maimed people?This is, not even politics,no honor,no morality no nothing just digust and this coupled with the trade deal,which bush loves puts me in the NO democrat or repub camp.Maybe a monkey.Tony
Bush wants this much money so that he can go ahead with his plans to attack Iran. Hello!!!
Democratic leadership WILL have a tsunami of protest if they go ahead with this give-Bush-all-he-wants funding of the war.
NOTHING has been said in this, by the way, of the requirement that Iraq privatize their oil...a hidden agenda from the first vetoed supplemental bill.
Will anyone READ this one??? Will the public SEE it in advance??? Or is this another one they intend to slip in over the Memorial Day holiday???
###
Sellout by the gutless, self-serving Dems.
The only "tsunami" of protest the Democratic leadership will get WHEN they give Bush his war funding will be from the liberals and that might be one days worth of emails and phone calls. The majority of voters see themselves as "conservative" and are watching gas prices-not Congress.
"Iraq War Funding: "Compromise" or "Sellout"?"
Sellout.
We dont really have a two party system leave alone a multi-party system. What we are witnessing is a family fued thats been settled by the elders ! This is a one-party system. I wonder how long it will take before american people realize this.
I just called Nancy Pelosi's office and left a message, that if the democrat's don't put a timetable for withdrawing our troops on the Iraq war funding bill they are traitors to all who voted for them. If you want to call this number will put you into contact with the operator who will transfer you to Pelosi's voice mail.1 800 614 2803. PLEASE CALL AND TELL HER WHAT YOU THINK
I guess I just don't get it. Congress passed a supplemental funding bill and forwarded it to President Bush. He vetoed it.
OK, I guess he didn't need the money. So now it's time for Congress to turn its attention to other matters, such as investigating Karl Rove's missing emails; determining whether Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Powell knew that the Iraqi WMD story was a crock even as they were floating it; and determining the number of 5 year/$10,000 counts to put on the Indictment of George W. Bush for illegally authorizing wiretaps without first obtaining warrants.
If they're not up to the job, then it's time to throw the bums out.
Sellout, again.
sell out---"$100 billion were truly necessary for this purpose, that would mean that the rate of war spending was doubling compared to last year."
TRAITORS!
1 800 614 2803. PLEASE CALL AND TELL Pelosi and her lot WHAT YOU THINK. . .
Disgusting, dispicable, war criminals.....
I hope it's clear to everyone now that the Democrats are as vile and self-serving as the Republicans. The November mandate meant nothing to Bush and it means nothing to the Democrats. They think they have us over a barrel--after all, who else will we vote for? ANY THIRD PARTY CANDIDATE BRAVE ENOUGH TO RUN!!!
Some readers seem to be suffering from the misconception that a simple majority in Congress has endowed the Democrats with absolute power.
Sorry you're disappointed, but in our system of government power is - and always has been - fragmented and conditional.
The division of power between the "three branches of government" is just the beginning. Political power today results from a complex interplay of legislative rules, election cycles & funding, and the battle for hearts and minds that goes on in our mass media.
A majority of the Iraqi people want foreign troops out of their country now. Why hasn't it happened yet? Because our army has bigger guns than they do.
The Dems may have a majority in Congress, but they're as badly "outgunned" in as the insurgents are in Iraq. The 'Pubs have the Executive Branch, K-Street and Wall Street money, corporate mass media, conservative religious media, and right-wingnut talk radio.
Every elected official can be skewered by these forces at any time.
We keep clamoring that the "majority of Americans" want to end the war. But what kind of majority is it when half the country doesn't vote and ten percent of those who supported the Dems last time will run back to the Pubs the first time Al-Qaida blows up a bus on American soil. The Pubs know this... and so do the Dems.
However, the insurgents haven't given up their fight for independence because they're outgunned - we shouldn't give up on our fight for peace.
Instead of trashing the Democrats in Congress, figure out what you can do to win "hearts and minds" in your hometown. The struggle for peace is happening there too. Find those wavering independent voters in your precinct and convince THEM that the war is immoral.
My advice to Reid and Pelosi: Minimum funding for 60 days of operations, and ZERO for construction of the U.S. embassy-fortress and permanent military installations in Iraq.
Support the troops... and send the Iraqis a clear signal that we're not staying.
Complete Sellouts!
Phone calls, emails, and protest won't match what we did in March 2003 when the war was about to start. They ignored us then and they will send form letters, and happy face polite email replies again. They are the most polite on the phone, saying "thank you for your call, Senator X is very concerned about your opinion, I will make sure he gets your thoughts, thank you again and goodbye"
But because you are not a 1 billion dollar corporate donor, or not the 10 thousand dollar compaign contributor then your thoughts get filed under the heading "Non Donor Opinions". Sorry for the scepticism, but Pelosi is not talking her orders from the people that voted her house leader.
jjohnjj sez:
"The Dems may have a majority in Congress, but they're as badly "outgunned" in as the insurgents are in Iraq. The 'Pubs have the Executive Branch, K-Street and Wall Street money, corporate mass media, conservative religious media, and right-wingnut talk radio."
Gravel gives you the way to do it in two current Common Dreams articles today. They won't do it because they are sellouts.
How many times does the "Pentagon" have to "predict" US troops will be in Iraq for at least 10 more years before "we" get it and stop hoping for a little blue fairy rescue and start facing the real truth? Unless the oil runs out and/or Jesus stops by, we ain't never leaving our new gigantor embassy nor the 14 perm mil bases erected in Cheney's and Exxon's honor.
But it appears "we" will be "talking" about "troop withdraws" the entire time...
DEMOCRATS ARE SELLOUTS
There newfound antiwar positions lasted only long enough to get them elected, now back to supporting their campaign contributors in the military-industrial complex.
As for the Repuglican, their cheesy use of the term "surrender dates" is stunningly cynical.. unless they actually belive that the Dems wanted the troops to put down their weapons and turn themsleves over to the insugents as POWS...WITHDRAWL DATES is the correct term, cheesdicks..as in WITHDRAWL WITH HONOR
IN ODER TO ACHIEVE A MILITARY PULL OUT FROM IRAQ, THE DEMS HAVE TO DO...ABSOLUTLY NOTHING. JUST DO NOT AUTHORIZE MONEY, AND BUSHIE HAS TO PULL THEM OUT OR LEAVE THEM TO HUMP IT OUT ON FOOT.
DEMS COULD AUTHORIZE PLANES TO BE ON STANDBY AT BAHGDAD AIRPORT, I'M SURE THE TROOPS COULD FIND THEIR OWN WAY THERE FOR EVACUATION
I HAVE NEVER SEEN SUCH HORRIBLE NEGOTIATORS IN MY LIFE.
IF THESE DEM MORONS WERE NEGOTIATING MY MORTGAGE RATE, I WOULD SOON BE HOMELESS
As I write, the democrats are in the process of fully caving in to Bush and funding the war without any reservations. I find it difficult to describe how outraged I am over their spineless concessions. I voted for the democrats because they promised change. They have produced nothing. The war goes on at our expense. The minimum wage has yet to be raised. The immigration bill is a joke. When we speak of impeachment, I guess we must now include the Democrats. It's time to clean the house.
Of course it's a sell-out because you don't COMPROMISE with criminals!! Idiot Democrats! Actually these people are NOT Democrats. They are Republicans wearing a Democratic label. It's a LIE. Real Democrats are kept out as much as they can. When one or two manage to make it into the ranks, like Kucinich and McKinney, they are ostrasized (spelling?) and silenced and labeled as "out there". Well that "out there" is where most Americans are coming from! WE NEED TO TAKE OUR GOVERNMENT BACK FROM THE CORPORATIONS OR WE'LL NEVER SURVIVE THIS WORLD!
I just hate to remind folks but our fearless pigeon hunter Cheney turns out to be right when he predicted the Democrats would cave. Cheney hasn't been right about much else, but he does seem to know his power-mongering politics. Of course he gets a lot of help from Karl. Since it's well known at this point that Iraq can't be resolved militarily, only politically, why can't we send that whole Rove-Cheney cabal over there to put their political skills to more productive use helping Maliki?!
jjohnjj,
This is not the best forum to find the most practical progressives, or at least progressives advocating the most practical approaches.
I know that any election can appear to be critical, but I do think that with four pure fascists on the Supreme Court (Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito) that this next election really is critical. If a Republican is elected President, it is quite certain that he (the Republican candidates are all male) will have an opportunity to, and do his utmost to, put a fifth fascist on the Court, and once that happens the constitution is a dead letter. Too few progressives here understand that.
And I agree that the Democrats have an incredible combination of forces aligned against them, and we will be lucky if the Republicans are not able to retake Congress as well as take the Presidency in 2008. So it is possible to interpret Pelosi's moves as those of someone prudent and principled and not simply as those of someone weak or dishonest. Time will tell, but for now there is no compelling reason to deny her the benefit of the doubt.
I believe that there are an infinite number of degrees of evil, and no matter how deplorable the Democratic nominee is, he or she will be less deplorable than the Republican nominee (though if the nominee is Hillary, I would hate to live off the difference), particularly with regard to Supreme Court appointments. The choice for voters will not be exciting or offer any kind of panacea. Voters should look at it like a job, not like picking winning lottery numbers and hoping for a miracle.
Progressives need to bide their time and build their movement with an eye towards the future. There will likely be a US economic collapse within the coming decade or so, and that will provide opportunities for fundamental change. Until then, prudence and patience would serve progressives well.
Iraqi Oil Bill -- equally deadly; take a look:
Dems are falling away from demanding a withdrawal timetable. But meanwhile, the Iraq Oil Law is not even on the radar screen! Let's take active note of one more economic take-over via the Iraq Oil Bill. Our Congress is demanding it be passed -- as part of the supplemental.
I was hoping Bush would veto the last supplemental – as he promised – because it included support for the Iraq Oil Law. This law, if passed, will cement the occupation for decades by giving foreign oil companies easy access to low-cost oil. Virtually NO OIL MONEY goes to the Iraqis.
It's one more smoke screen – While Dems and Repubs blow air about withdrawal, we are losing sight of the Iraqis losing control of their economy. This is their future – and the multinationals have the Congress in their pocket while we are blindsided again. We cannot turn a blind eye to the Iraqi's future, nor can we afford to feel helpless about the deaths of our troops and of Iraqis. Please, raise your voice on BOTH facets of OUT OF IRAQ now.
Another Smoke Screen: this new trade bill secretly negotiated by Charles Rangel and Nancy Pelosi et al. It has only gestures to nod to child labor and union protection, and environmental protection – to be enforced by this Executive Branch. Basically its an alliance of the Dems with Wall Street. Amy Goodman exposed it all today on Democracy Now.
jinshil,
It appears that the Iraqis themselves are very aware of the oil bill and will fight to the death, literally, to prevent it from ever becoming law. The Iraqi legislators who recently voted to set up a timetable for US withdrawal also declared their opposition to the oil law with the production sharing agreements that give the foreign companies control and the lion's share of the profits. Sometimes it is a good thing that the crooks in Washington are not nearly as powerful as they think they are.
And if that new trade bill is anywhere near as problematic as reports have indicated, Pelosi does have some explaining to do.
coincidentally with the arrival of my commondreams digest I also received a fundraising solicitation from the Dem. Sen. Campaign Comm. Here is the text of the message that I sent them:
I am sorry, but having just witnessed the complete capitulation of Democratic leaders on Iraq, I have not intention now or any time during the coming campaign of making a contribution to either the Dem. Senatorial or Congressional campaign committees. When there is no significant difference between the parties on the most important issue of the day, I have no reason to support either one. I will instead identify progressive candidates who will support an immediate end to our illegal engagement in Iraq, and I will send them contributions. In some cases this will mean that I will carefully watch democratic primary races around the country for opportunities to vote against those democratic leaders who have presided over the "sham" opposition shadow play that we have witnessed over the past few months. It was always clear that the Democratic leadership had no real stomach for challenging the president. The saddest part is that by acting as if they were going to exert a real challenge, they have made their retreat that much more embarrassing.
Sorry, you get none of my money.
J.
Wayland, MA
I concur with RichM, that both parties are war parties. Only Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel stood unambiguously against the US imperium and the war-whores in the opening debate.
The Dems will clutch their political consultants, who spin the same fearful fairytales over and over again about how America will blame them if they cancel Bush's credit card for killing, because they have no civic courage at all.
The Republic is dead.
That the Democrats are "in a pickle" over funding the war, doesn't explain why they continue to allow extraordinary rendition, the CIA's worldwide gulag, Abu Graib, Guantanamo Bay, no minimum wage, continued mail and Internet surveillance, etc.?
As Marx said: The political superstructure is a manifestation of the economic substructure.
gildell May 22nd, 2007 7:32 pm
"It was always clear that the Democratic leadership had no real stomach for challenging the president. The saddest part is that by acting as if they were going to exert a real challenge, they have made their retreat that much more embarrassing."
The embarrassment becomes intensified when you stop and consider that they haven't pressured this administration to engage in "peace talks" with anyone in the Middle East.
Not only are Democrats afraid to hold this president accountable with withdrawal dates, but they don't even have the balls to insist on a change in foreign policy. This is the first president we have had in decades who refuses to talk to with leaders of other nations in an effort to resolve problems which can not and will not be resolved with military might, according to many of the highest ranking brass in this country.
If we don't engage in negotiating fair policies with other countries, why in hell would they waste their time and money trying to put a stop to terrorist activities? Are politicians dumb enough to believe that the U.S. can solve the terrorist problem on their own? If they do, we're in far more trouble than imaginable.
Good heavens! I gave up on the Democrats after the '88 election when I moved to another state in '89. I registered Indie but haven't voted since '04. The Demo-rats are a waste of flesh and voting is a waste of time. Thank you and may God bless Corporate Amerika/Saudi Arabia, one nation ABOVE the law!
Yes, the Dems caved.
Yes, the Dems appear gutless.
Yes, the Dems gave Bush his $100 billion for more slaughter in the Middle East imperial oil-war.
But all is not lost.
There were 'pragmatic' reasons that it turned out this way, the Democratic House leader said.
"The president has made it very clear he's not going to sign timelines (for withdrawing troops). We can't pass timelines over his veto," House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland told reporters.
There were pratical matters that effect our real strategy, said the Democratic House Appropirations Chairman.
House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey of Wisconsin said Democrats will move the troop withdrawal fight to another bill. "The practical result of this would be we would transfer the debate on the Iraqi war" from the current emergency funding bill to fiscal 2008 war spending bills moving through Congress starting in July, he said.
And besides, continued Obey, "maybe now all those 'idiot liberals' will understand why I had to give Bush a $100 billion dollar blow job of war funding."
Excellent article! I am enclosing a letter that is getting sent out to every Democrat who asks me for money, any organization raising money for the Democrats, and any petitions I am asked to sign. (I do still sign petitions, but will not give money.)I apologize for the length of the letter but it comes from the heart...I'm tired, tired of the Democrats doing nothing.
May 2007
I am abandoning the Democratic Party. How Democrats work at handling the challenge of getting our country out of Iraq, and salvaging the United States – both now and post Bush - will influence whether I ever support a Democrat again.
After the 2004 election - in disgust with elected Democrats for their collective lack of serious opposition to Iraq and inattention to global warming - I stopped contributing financially (or volunteering) to support any Democrats running for office. Instead I donate that money and time to organizations actively involved in working to offset the effects of global warming, environmental degradation, protecting our endangered animals and their habitats, and supporting human rights.
While I am truly thankful that Democrats are, at last, standing up to Bush, I don't quite trust that this new found bravado will last. I fear it will lose its momentum at a crucial moment(s). I can't resist saying: Better late than never; and to point out that almost a third of us Americans – mostly Democrats - believed this war was wrong long before Congress allowed Bush to invade Iraq. We had to stand by in horror as the war unfolded into what we knew it would.
Those of us who vocally criticized the invasion were demonized, called unpatriotic, put on "no fly lists", and spied on. Even people we were close to jumped all over us for opposing the war. But we spoke up anyway and took action. (Unfortunately our marches and rallies were – and continue to be - underreported by the media.) When they are given press time, the frequency of the demonstrations and the large numbers of people who attend are downplayed. In reality, anti-war/Bush demonstrations were, and continue to be, world wide, and historically notable for the number of countries – and sheer numbers of people - opposed to this invasion.
In the meantime: Approximately 600,000 or more Iraqi citizens have died, and more than 3,300 of our service personnel have died. (Many more have been severely and permanently injured and we aren't taking adequate care of them.) The United States has decimated Iraq. The US has destroyed much of the infrastructure including electrical, sewage, and water purification facilities. The US has made access to doctors and hospitals – in scarce supply already – logistically difficult, non-existent, or too dangerous to attempt. Iraqi citizens are dying at alarming rates from diseases carried by dirty water, chronically unsanitary conditions; and depredation, starvation, and lack of access to basics. Newborns and children are dying in disproportionate numbers from treatable infections and other diseases, due to lack of sanitation and access to the most basic health care. These are basics almost every single American takes for granted. Where's our empathy?
Our country - in the name of Bush "democracy" - has further contributed to these miserable conditions by dumping tons of depleted uranium in their country - not ours. (There is ample anecdotal evidence, and some very reputable studies, that leave little doubt that exposure to depleted uranium makes people sick.) Our government continues to deny, and downplay solid evidence, linking DU to various physical ailments. The term "Gulf Way Syndrome" goes all the way back to Bush 41's Gulf War, and parallels the use of DU then.
Gulf War Syndrome was, and still is, an all inclusive label. The most our government has admitted is that DU might be a factor in "combination" with other variables. Yet at the beginning of the Iraq invasion US soldiers were warned to wear hazmat suits around areas our government knew were contaminated with DU. If DU doesn't make people sick, as our government claims, why were our armed forces advised to wear protective gear? One would have hoped that the same warning, and precautionary measures, would have been extended to Iraqi citizens, but they weren't.
Bush shrilly lectures the American people, telling us time after time, that we are fighting "evil" terrorists – ignoring the fact that "terrorism" isn't a country – and his administration continues to dump DU all over an innocent country. (And what exactly is the definition of WMD, or "terrorist", or perhaps "war criminal"?) The American mainstream media, with rare exceptions, shamefully does not discuss depleted uranium, or its long term effects on American service people, and the Iraqi (and Afghani) people. Government sanctioned torture is horrible enough, but the United State's silence about their heavy use of weapons with DU, and depleted uranium's long term effects on the body and the environment, is yet another example of our country's silent, collective inhumanity toward other human beings. Most Americans have no idea how much environmental damage we're doing to Iraq and Afghanistan.
We news "junkies" out here knew that Bush was a scary man long before he was elected. Anyone who reads "alternative" news knew a lot of facts about him, and the Bush family, long before he was elected. We also knew this administration wanted to over throw Saddam before 9/11. We knew all about Wolfowitz, Perle, Rumsfeld, et al, and players that went back to the Nixon days. We knew all about Rove and his unethical and underhanded tactics. We knew Bush's reasons for attacking Iraq were a sham long before the actual invasion.
So the question becomes: What were you all reading, watching, and talking about? You and your staff should have been reading and watching what we were paying attention to. Just who were you listening to? How in the world could you not have known all this information if so many of your constituency did? The truth was out there the whole time. Our elected officials Republicans and Democrats alike - with a few stellar exceptions - were asleep on the job, or too worried about losing their cushy jobs.
Now that you are finally paying attention you can't let up. As it is, our children and grandchildren will pay for the mess the Bush administration will be leaving. It's naïve and simplistic to believe it will only take a few years of Democrats in power to "fix things". Too much is broken. Aside from the financial, humanitarian, and moral implications of the Iraq war, our children and grandchildren will be stuck with having to overhaul or recreate just about every service our country offers – or did offer - including education and health services. It is completely mind boggling how many services, at so many levels, have been "downsized", "discontinued", or radically altered and made useless by the Bush administration. It will take generations of moving in a new direction to restore our country to what it was before the Bush administration – and its love of "Reagan economics" - took over the government.
No child left behind is a good example of an awful Bush idea. The emphasis on these standardized tests has resulted in a reduced quality of teaching, through no fault of the educators. (And on late breaking news, there is a new scandal involving soft wear kickbacks for individuals selling children's reading programs to school districts; and it can be traced back to Bush.) The focus in the school's is now too much on "coaching" students to take these tests, and giving them a series of "mock" tests, before the real one. Teachers themselves have to spend valuable hours taking "training classes" on how to administer and prepare students to take these tests. The expense and time spent on implementing this testing regime is staggering.
These tests do not measure creativity or potential; nor does every child - even very bright one's - test well. There is much good information out there – going back more than 30 years – questioning whether standardized tests accurately measure a child's true academic abilities, much less measure creativity, social skills, verbal skills, or their ability to succeed in the world. The schools should be using this federal money to create socialization skills programs, arts programs, more languages, sports, and extracurricular activities. Until our country fixes its schools and starts educating again it has no right administering tests that largely test a person's "rote" memory skills and little else. These tests seal the fate of far too high a percentage of graduating seniors. (In fact, many talented and capable students drop out of high-school rather than face the 12th grade "exit" exam.)
To add insult to injury: In California, at the present time, if a child with physical or learning disabilities – even if they are on the same academic level as their peers - needs an "accommodation" to take the mandatory exit exam, they are denied a diploma, no matter how high their score. For instance: In many cases students with an Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder diagnosis just need help in "staying focused". An accommodation for such a person is as often as simple as having a person sitting nearby, giving verbal "redirection" when their attention wanders. Currently the only alternative for a person with even a mild learning disability - who wouldn't get a diploma if he or she took the test with an accommodation - is to get a GED instead.
If they happen to be talented, bright, and college bound, through no choice of their own, their college choices will be severely limited – at least for a year or two – to a city college where high school diplomas and/or low test scores don't prevent entrance. If a student with learning disabilities is lucky he or she will have parents who can pay their way around the test by bending rules, and/or paying for expensive private schools, tutoring, etc. For many 12th graders this test is a set up for failure. We've lost one generation of children already due to Reagan's education cuts; Bush is now finishing the job – in a mean spirited way - and the children most in need are not getting educated.
In another example of schools failing to do their job: The schools are mandated by law to provide - at their expense – any accommodation(s) a child might reasonably require if it allows him or her to remain in a class with their peers. Rather than do so willingly, parents have to fight for what their children are entitled to by law, or file a law suit against a particular school district. For instance: ADHD children are frequently very intelligent, but are "spirited", "live wires", "can't sit still", etc. Parents who choose to follow a "holistic" approach and refuse to medicate their child – usually under extreme pressure from the school district to do so - are frequently labeled as "difficult" or "unreasonable".
It is no surprise, therefore, that Americans purchase around 80% of prescription drugs given to ADD or ADHD children; and a shockingly high percentage of sleep medication for children to counter the effects of Ritalin type drugs. Accommodations in the form of "teacher's aids", "pull outs", tutoring sessions, computers, tape recorders, etc., cost the school district money, whereas drugging a child costs nothing. In the 70's class sizes were smaller. There were more teacher's assistants, counselors, nurses, art and music teachers, and other support staff. (Pharmaceutical companies are making billions of dollars marketing ADHD and ADDD medications; all part of Bush's "ownership" society.)
Drugging children is now seen as a "first resort" to modify behavior when medication should be the absolute last resort. (Also, ADHD and ADD labels are frequently applied by the schools to spirited children – "trouble makers" - without a proper diagnosis.) Or, these children are labeled as "slow", having "severe" behavior problems, and consequently "tracked" into Special Education classes which now – due to funding cuts – also include children with very severe psychological problems, who should be in entirely separate classes. Consequently in Special Ed classes no learning happens. The teachers are too busy trouble shooting. They have to spend the majority of their time breaking up fights, and dealing with serious bullying behavior, to be able to teach at any significant level.
"Back in the day" a child with an ADHD diagnosis rarely needed accommodations - including being legally drugged at a vulnerable young age - because the classrooms had the support they needed to work with children in small groups, or pull them out of class for one-on-one work. All the school meals used to be cooked on site, in cafeterias, by professional cooks; the quality of the food was good, it was nutritious, and best of all it tasted good; kids now get prepackaged TV dinner type meals. (My 11 year-old grandson refers to school lunches as "compost food" and will not eat a school lunch.)
Individual schools, especially teachers and staff, tend to side with a parent who is fighting for their child's right to accommodations, but have no power in the decision making process and will rarely "stick up for a parent" on the record. Parents, without filing a law suit, rarely win these battles. If a parent doesn't know how to "fight the system" for these accommodations, or can't pay an attorney, move their child into a private school, or pay for tutoring and accommodations on their own, these kids become lost academically for lack of funds, and are never properly educated. (Someone should do a study on the number of children who are not properly diagnosed, are overly medicated, and shuffled into Special Education classes where they don't belong.)
I have lingered overly long on this failed no child left behind policy for a reason. Bush has imposed rigid and unfair policies on our children with no money allotted to "fix" an already imploded school system. According to reliable sources Bush himself struggles with undiagnosed and untreated ADHD and probably other learning disabilities as well. Treated correctly, ADHD is a "minor" disability in the greater scheme of things, and when recognized early, and with some accommodations – sometimes medication – ADHD doesn't inhibit or limit cognitive development. Many brilliant people in our past and current history would have been diagnosed as ADHD or ADD in today's world.
My point is that our president, with little doubt, would have failed the very same test – without accommodations – that he now expects every American high-school senior to take before they can get a high school diploma. It's doubtful without his family's influence Bush would have made it into Yale or any college for that matter. By most accounts Bush was a consistent failure academically, albeit perhaps through no fault of his own. Still it's frightening to think of the damage a president with so little curiosity and lack of education has done to our country. We have a president who never succeeded academically himself, and even jokes defensively about it, yet expects all high school seniors – regardless of the dismal quality of our public schools and their failure to provide students with "special services" - to do what he himself most certainly would have failed at.
Bush has done more damage to our country in 6 years than any other sitting president. I haven't even touched on his administration's lack of meaningful action to curb global warming, address serious environmental issues, and tackle the reality of dwindling fossil fuel. My grandson will have to live with the effects of global warming, compromised "renewable" resources, and what "human activity" has done to our environment; including massive animal die-offs of so many living creatures – now even bumble bees – and plant life.
I feel so deeply for my grandson and his well being. My grandson has an extensive knowledge of animals and their habitats. He is deeply passionate about animals and he takes their plights quite seriously and personally. He frequently cries when he hears or reads about animal cruelty, and the fate of animals bordering on extinction. I have no doubt this passion will one day manifest itself in a career having to do with protecting animals and their habitats. He is also turning his attention to politics these days and pays attention to the news. He knows who our local, state and federal officials are, and pays serious attention to environmental news, particularly when it relates to his animals, insects and reptiles.
Knowing that we have young Americans, like my grandson, growing up already aware of and concerned with important "issues", gives me hope, and keeps me in the fight. But our elected leaders must act now so that young people like my grandson will have a chance to correct what can be corrected - and to make a difference in the world - before it's too late to reverse catastrophic damage. Where is our humanity? Where is our moral character?
Getting our country out of Iraq needs to be the top moral, ethical, and political issue of the moment, and I support that effort. But our own country desperately needs to be attended to as well. Bush must be stopped, and if Democrats are too scared to impeach Bush Co., they need to make him powerless. Democrats can't do that until they stop backing away from Bush administration threats, lies, and congressional allies. The Democrats must remain alert and continue investigating the Bush administration's lies and evasions – and there are so many of them - it shouldn't be hard. The skeletons are practically rattling and falling out the closet in a domino effect.
The Iraq war has made our country far more vulnerable to terrorists than ever before, but the Republicans have already laid the foundation and have been dumping blame for Iraq - and everything else - on the Democrats. They continually (and ever so successfully) use inflammatory and insinuating words and phrases that suggest elected Democrats or American citizens in favor of withdrawal are unpatriotic and against the troops. They intend to lay all responsibility for any future terrorist attack, or any other catastrophe in the Middle-east, on the Democrats. (Bush/Rove have already started running with the word "surrender" and every variation of it they can think of, and they'll run with the surrender verbiage and keep it in the forefront before and well after the 2008 elections.) The Bush camp must be beat at its own game without resorting to the illegal and unethical depths the Republicans have stooped to.
How dangerous Bush is can't be taken lightly. Our elected Democrats have been tip toeing around his mental deficits for 6 years now. Most elected DC officials have known about Bush's character flaws for some time now, while the majority of the (mostly mass media fed) American public isn't given that important kind of information. Furthermore, President George W. Bush is a "dry drunk". He's never sought treatment for the underlying causes of his alcohol addiction, or attended AA. That should alarm everyone because being "reborn" does not qualify as therapy or serious introspection. Bush rarely reads, is notoriously unreflective, rigid, and lacks empathy and compassion. Though he seems to value his friends he has a documented history of being vindictive and spiteful when crossed, or running for office, and he has a reputation for being short tempered. Worse, he lacks the ability to think abstractly or deeply – both critical job requirements for a president – and he shouldn't be running this country.
Before the invasion of Iraq I considered him unintelligent but dangerous. Since the invasion of Iraq I frequently ask myself, "How can he sleep at night?" The same might be said for many of the wishy-washy elected Democrats out there. You finally all have a chance to make this right, or least start facing in the right direction. I sincerely hope for the sake of all Americans and for the people of Iraq (and Afghanistan), that you don't blow your chance this time around.
In closing I'll end with some words from a friend of my daughter's. A Sergeant in the Army, he was just redeployed to Iraq as part of the "surge": He wrote to her, "Please tell all your friends to get out there and demonstrate. Make it known to the politicians that this war is wrong. Do everything you can in that country to make them listen." This is a man in his late 30's who loved the Army and intended it to make it his career. He was completely in favor of the war until he "started believing Bush had lied about WMD…" He started "educating" himself about America's long history in the Middle-east, and learning more about the culture and religions of the people there. He now opposes the war and plans to get out of the army when he returns home. Please listen to him!
The answer of course is 'Sellout'.. we have been sold. The democrats are not doing what they were voted in to do which was to:
1. Stop the War
2. Impeach Bush and Cheney
Pelosi has wimped out and the rest of the democrats are going to get paid reguardless of what happens in Iraq or whatever happens to Bush-Cheney-Rove. Can you spell W I M P S?
The same old con job they've played since LBJ. When are Americans going to learn that the Democratic Party cannot deliver as an anti-war party? Some magical metamorphosis occurs as soon as any of them get elected. It's back to business as usual: the neocon foreign policy, no cleanup of the ballot system, etc. Progressive issues are a mere talking point for them. The Republicrats serve a common M.I.C., basically just two gangs vying for power.
They folded, no other word for it. As I see it, if Bush did not want the money they originally offered him, that is Bush's perogative. Just like a child who doesn't want to eat what has been prepared as the family dinner. That's what is served, we can negotiate content to some minor degree, but essentially Bush was expected to either take it or leave it. To capitulate to him tells me that the Democrats are either as authoritarian/militaristic as the GOP, or intimidated by authority figures.
As for our men and women in Iraq/Afghanistan. I'd love to see us do an 'Adopt a Soldier' drive - basically, each of us would commit raise the money to fly one of them home safe and sound - since Bush would not have the money to continue his war. That is - if the Dems hadn't folded.
Well, no matter what happens or how badly the democrats sellout, 'liberals' will end up voting democrat again. Thats just how its been for the last 15 years. Every single progressive or liberal should abandon the democratic party. Period.
Actually, the question as to whether Democratic support of continued war funding without a timeline is a sellout or a compromise is a moot point, as the vote is really an accurate reflection of the tolerance of the U.S. public for the highly grievous suffering and destruction that has been going on in Iraq ever since the Bush invasion of 2003 and even earlier. You can take all the polls you want about the public's disapproval of the war, my impression is that Iraq is not of much concern to Americans as a whole. How many discussions do you ever hear about Iraq in everyday life? Very few I would bet.
During the Vietnam mess there was a draft. It did nothing to "win" that war, but it did heighten American awareness that the war was going on, because of the fact that so many young male relatives and friends could be snatched up and dropped into that slaughter willy-nilly. But in the present instance there's no danger of that, and those dozens of Iraqis and the several Americans who are being maimed and killed daily are true "expendables," over whom few tears are being shed on this side of the globe. So large numbers of presentday Americans can just keep scratching their oversized behinds and coveting their neighbors' spouses and otherwise keep bopping along in relative comfort and do not have to think about Iraq. And they can't and won't nudge Congress because that body is just a big, ugly reflection of their own ice-cold indifference to the suffering overseas.
A century ago Mark Twain said that the U.S. Congress is the nation's only true criminal class. That continues to be true, though in the several years since 2001 the malady has been thoroughly injected into the other branches of government as well, and it makes one wonder about those who sent those office-holders, mainly Republicans, to infest all the big buildings in the Gray Zone of downtown D.C.
Meanwhile the Democrats must have reasons for following the Republican lead in voting to prolong the American contribution to the agony in Iraq, maybe for years more. Neither in this thread nor in the news have I seen such reasons as yet. Maybe those people know something that we don't know, though I absolutely doubt it.
I sent this to the National Democratic Party, the Washington State Democratic Party and my Senators and Cogressman:
I allied myself with the Democrats in 2004, became a PCO, and worked hard in both 04 and 06 to defeat the Republicans.
Congressional Democrats, particularly in the Senate, have shamed me by kowtowing to Bush on the "War" funding. I conclude you are either cowards, or you support the Iraq fiasco. Either way you have lost my support.
Don't ask me for Party contributions. I don't support cowards.
Friends-
Your democratic party has sold you down the drain to the highest bidder in CORP America. Don't kid yourself, do you really think they care about what you think?
The democratic motto needs to be changed to:
"Let Us Send Them to Slaughter" so we can reap the rewards.
May God (if there is One) have mercy on us ALL!
It takes an awful lot of money to run for major offices, corporate media largely ignores third parties, the Boomers largely ignore independent media (having been weaned in childhood on the narrow range of Cold War propaganda network TV "options"). Our ballots are winner-take-all, and '00 and '04 demonstrate that they are far from clean, perhaps even somewhat optional -- voting may be largely an afterthought at this point, a rubberstamp hoop through which the m.i.c. must pass its people, get the networks to juggle the numbers to that 51% on election night, and they squeak in.
Sofarsogoo: So to answer your question, remember that it was the Dems that got us into Vietnam.
The disconnect is NOT that the Dems side with the neocons on foreign policy, but rather that a sizeable number of Americans expect them not to do so! The time has come for progressives to wash their hands of the Dems.
Another couple terms of Bush (won't be the first rule he'd break) or some other subsequent criminal administration would be the best fertilizer in the world for a genuine progressive party. Let's abandon the sham opposition of the Dems and take our dreams with us. They've managed to sustain themselves as a separate party this long because of the progressives they've always kept in check, useful only as rhetorical devices, symbols, etc.
Now maybe I'm wrong -- maybe we're closer to taking over that party than ever. Perhaps 15 highly progressive senators or ~50 legislators?
But you'd have to fight the DLC itself. Imagine the scenario if highly visible and vocal progressives of all sorts, including the all-too small number of currently elected progressive democrats, basically threw up their hands mid-term and switched Green or some Independent Blue-Green hybrid.
Democrats running for president that will pull our troops out immediately:
Dennis Kucinich
Mike Gravel
Republicans who would do the same:
Ron Paul
There may be more but the current front runners of both parties WILL keep us in Iraq and may even invade Iran. The majority of both parties no longer represent the majority (We the People) but instead represent the interests of the few (the elite Oligarchs).
Out here in gun country the common wisdom says you should never pack a pistol unless you are willing to use it. It looks like Congressional Democrats didn't fool anybody by dressing up like cowboys but failing to show up for the shootout. They claim that they are still itching for a fight however, and that they have other ways of running Bush out of town, like maybe putting on matching sombreros and singing My Little Buttercup a cappella until the guy dies laughing.
I voted for Democrats in November 2006 to *try* to end the occupation. I knew it wouldn't be easy. I did not vote for Dems with the expectation that impeachment would happen (I knew that would be even harder). Whatever you think of the Dems, they are *always* going to be better than the Repugnicans.
For anyone interested in a petition to support the Iraqis from giving their oil to ExxonMobil et al., go to http://www.avaaz.org/en/iraq_oil_law/?cl=9663640
We must recognise that Republican or Democrat, they are all part of the same evil. The Government. If we want to bring this fiasco to an end, we must demand that the sons and daughters of all public officials must enlist and serve in the military. Isn't it ironic that not one child of a primary public official is serving in Iraq.
We must never forget that this occupation of Iraq is the will of Corporate America. Our military is simply a tool that is employed to carryout this venture.
Whenever you or I invest in the stock of these private corporations, we are also guilty of murdering innocent Iraqi citizens.
Our mandate to this group of Democratic Representatives was to end this fiasco in Iraq. Nothing short of an immediate end is acceptable.
If phone calls, demonstrations and petitions don't do the job, the people have to take more radical measures. Place de la Concorde, anyone?
Sure enough...here is today's news... "Bush Authorizes New Covert Action Against Iran"...Just yesterday, the Democratically controlled backed down and, on a silver platter, gave Bush what he wanted...no timetable, no reduced funding for an immoral, unethical and illegal war. So today Bush took another imperialist step to invade Iran and eventually kill tens of thousands of innocent people.
This week Democrats also destroyed any possibility of ethically reforming Congress once they took a good look at all the "bennies" they receive or could receive from lobbyists.
Great job Democrats!!!!....I think next election I will vote for anyone as long as he/she is not a Republican or Democrat, unless John Edwards gets the nomination or Al Gore runs and does.