Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Dems Back Down, Approve War Money
WASHINGTON — Bowing to President Bush, the Democratic-controlled House reluctantly approved fresh billions for the Iraq war on Thursday, minus the troop withdrawal timeline that drew his earlier veto. The 280-142 vote sent the bill to the Senate for final passage, expected later in the evening.
"The Iraqi government needs to show real progress in return for America's continued support and sacrifice," said Bush, and he warned that August could prove to be a bloody month for U.S. troops in Baghdad's murderous neighborhoods.
Five months in power on Capitol Hill, Democrats coupled their concession to the president with pledges to challenge his policies anew. "This debate will go on," vowed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, announcing plans to hold votes by fall on four separate measures seeking a change in course.
From the White House to the Capitol, the day's events closed out one chapter in an epic struggle pitting Congress against commander in chief over the future of a war that has claimed the lives of more than 3,400 U.S. troops.
House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio choked back tears as he stirred memories of the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. "After 3,000 of our fellow citizens died at the hands of these terrorists, when are we going to take them on? When are we going to defeat them?" he asked.
In a highly unusual maneuver, House Democratic leaders crafted a procedure that allowed their rank and file to oppose money for the war then step aside so Republicans could provide the bulk of votes needed to send it to the Senate for final approval.
Moments earlier, the House voted 348-73 to include a separate package of domestic spending.
After months of struggle with the White House, Democrats emphasized their reluctance to allow the war to continue.
"I hate this agreement," added Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, who played a key role in talks with the White House that yielded the measure.
Presidential politics spiced the proceedings across the Capitol.
Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, alone among the Senate's Democratic White House hopefuls, pledged in advance to oppose the bill. Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware said he supported it.
That left Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois publicly uncommitted in the hours leading to the vote, two leading White House rivals tugged in one direction by the needs of 165,000 U.S. troops — and in another by party activists demanding rejection of the legislation.
After the previous bruising veto battle, Democratic leaders said they hoped to clear the bill for Bush's signature by this Memorial Day weekend. The president rejected an earlier measure, objecting to a troop withdrawal timetable, and the House failed to override his objection.
The legislation includes nearly $95 billion to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through Sept. 30. In addition to jettisoning their plan for a troop withdrawal timeline, Democrats abandoned attempts to require the Pentagon to adhere to troop training, readiness and rest requirements unless Bush waived them.
The bill establishes a series of goals for the Iraqi government to meet as it strives to build a democratic country able to defend its own borders. Continued U.S. reconstruction aid would be conditioned on progress toward the so-called benchmarks, although Bush retains the authority to order that the funds be spent regardless of how the Baghdad government performs.
In exchange for providing the war money on Bush's terms, Democrats won White House approval for about $17 billion in spending above what the administration originally sought. Roughly $8 billion of that was for domestic programs from hurricane relief to farm aid to low-income children's health coverage.
Democrats also won a top priority — the first minimum wage increase in more than a decade. The current federal wage floor of $5.15 an hour will go to $7.25 in three separate installments of 70 cents.
Reflecting unhappiness among conservatives in his own party, Bush said he would have preferred less domestic spending than the bill contained. "But, still, by voting for this bill members of both parties can show our troops and the Iraqis and the enemy that our country will support our servicemen and women in harm's way," he said at a Rose Garden news conference.
One of the most vocal war critics in Congress readily agreed. "This is not a game. They run out of money next week," said Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, whose speech opposing Bush's Iraq policy more than a year ago was a turning point in the debate.
Bush ordered the deployment of an additional five brigades to Iraq in January to try and quell sectarian violence, and he said summer would be critical to the fate of the new strategy.
Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, has pledged to report to the administration and Congress in September on the progress made in the war, and Bush conceded that al-Qaida terrorists and illegal militias will make sure there is heavy fighting in the interim to try and sap the will of the United States.
"And so, yes, it could be a bloody — it could be a very difficult August," he said.
He said he wants to see American troops "in a different configuration at some point in time in Iraq." He said that meant moving from mostly combat to training, border security and special forces anti-terror operations.
"However," Bush said, "it's going to require taking control" of Baghdad.
With a new poll showing that 80 percent of self-described independents oppose the war, it was unclear how long Bush could fend off his Democratic critics in Congress — or even count on Republicans to hold firm.
"It seems to me it's time for them (Iraqi troops) to show what is their ability and professionalism to step up," said Sen. John Warner, R-Va. He said if conditions do not improve by mid-July, the president should reconsider his strategy.
For now, though, Republicans focused their rhetoric on the threat to the United States if terrorists should triumph.
"We cannot and will not abandon the Iraqis to be butchered by these terrorists in their midst," said Rep. David Dreier, R-Calif. "And we cannot and will not abandon our mission just as real progress is starting to be made."
Copyright © 2007 The Associated Press.
95 Comments so far
Show AllYou can't capitulate unless you've actually fought first. This isn't capitulation; it's complicity.
Let her know how you feel: ;-)
http://www.speaker.gov/contact/
Looks like G.W. Bush has Pelosi and Co. in his back pocket too. That didn't take long now did it? Like there wasn't enough 'outrage' prior to this bill and the 'Gas Gouging' bill that also got stripped of effectiveness.
Looks like the democrats 'shine' has been 'shunned'.
Guess we might have to start looking for ANOTHER political party that is more up to the task than our all too COMMON two.
Complicity is too good a word for it.
What do you get when you add disingenuousness, betrayal and venality to complicity in something horrific?
I don't know a word for it.
How about our power of the purse? Maybe it's time to call for an all out donation boycott to the Democratic Party until the next vote on Iraq war spending in September?
The Dims get their funding from the same corporations that fund the repugs. The only candidate we should fund is Kucinich. As for the complicity -- only the naive should be surprised. The Dims are part of the problem not part of any solution.
THE DEMOCRATS HAVE BETRAYED US..VOTE THE BASTARDS OUT
they remind me of a girl on the sofa with her boyfriend, saying "dont, stop" as she eagerly strips off.
"don't...stop...don't...stop...don't stop..don't ever stop"
These hawks in doves clothing have lied to the people...they are in the pockets of big oil and the military-industrial complex just as much as their ideological brothers the Republicans.
there are two classes of people in the US...the rich/politicians vs the people
Horrible news! This is the final straw. There must be another party. The Al Gore for green party '08.
Here's what I wrote to my spineless Senators from Maryland, along with links and phone numbers so you may express your opinions as well:
http://cardin.senate.gov/contact/
202-224-4524
http://mikulski.senate.gov/contactme/mailform.html
202-224-4654
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Senator,
I cannot tell you how angry and disappointed I am to hear that you voted to give $100 Billion MORE to the least-popular President in living memory so that he can use it to send our brave, unfortunate children to their doom for no earthly reason worthy of our support.
Do you not understand what we voted for in the last election?
Your instructions were simple: STOP THIS DAMN WAR NOW.
How can you let the Repbulicans continue to control the spin on this issue? Bush vetoed the funding bill. Make that the story.
The only way you can truly support our troops is by reuniting them with their families as soon as humanly possible, and by adequately funding their healthcare and reintegration into society.
How can you possibly continue to waste the treasure of this Nation and the blood of our sons and daughters so thoughtlessly?
Shame on you.
I will continue to raise hell on this issue by every legal, reasonable means available to me, and if you continue to support this war, I will do my best to see you voted out of office in the next election.
I read that the corporate bribes (campaign contributions) are evenly ballanced between the Republicans and Democrats. The continuance of this war crime should come as no surprise. The Iraqis are ruled by Generals Betrayus and Loot and now it seems that we are being betrayed and looted also. Trust is such a brittle thing. I'll have nothing to do with my Republican neighbors and now nothing to do with the Democrats either. It's getting to be that the only honest person left is a tall, lefthanded Saudi on dialisis. I'm disinvesting and going Green. Thus our world dies, not with a bang but with a whimper.
You must admit Bush and Cheney are very good. After all, it took them less than half a year to bring the congress back under their control. The reasons the Democrats were voted into office was extremely clear. That they support the administration's illegal war amply demonstrates their failure to respond to those who elected them. The only recourse we now have is to form an aggressive third party.
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness - That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Q. Does anyone know the difference between the Democrats that voted to fund Bush's war without end and a 69 year-old hooker that is so used up that the only tricks she can get paid for are $20 blow jobs in a dark alley?
A. Neither do I. If anyone does know the difference, please respond.
P.S. My apologies to all the"working women" of the world. My intent was not to slander or malign you, but to prove a point.
greg bacon
ava, mo
The Democratic leadership needs to be held accountable. If enough of us call them till their lines jam and they are painfully reminded of what they were told to do, they will have to come up with another alternative. After all, do we forget the logic upon which we based our assumptions of a change after the '06 elections? That still holds. Unless we think, like the average couch potato, that just casting your vote on election day is the limit of citizen obligation. The politicians have to have their feet held to the fire always! ALWAYS!
Until every citizen that is against the war and the other constitutional travesties perpetuated by our current officeholders act, there will be no change. By act, I mean massive civil disobedience as Dr. King advocated, bringing things to a standstill to show our dissatisfaction - if it is not too late to do this.
England is about to declare an emergency and suspend civil rights claiming 'terror' can't be stopped while people have rights. This may have already happened here and we don't know it.
The war vote by Congress now seems to give Bush & Co. carte blanche for more war, and more subjugation of the American citizenry. The powers do not seem to listen to the voters. If you look closely at Bush comments yesterday, you will see that only he is smart enough to tell us that he's right and the voting public is wrong. This fact combined with the National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive (NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/NSPD 51 & HOMELAND SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/HSPD-20 - Subject: National Continuity Policy) that give Bush dictatorial powers whenever he declares a state of emergency exists in the US, should give us all pause.
curmudgeon:
"..massive civil disobedience as Dr. King advocated, bringing things to a standstill."
Better yet!
Now how does that get accomplished?
MoveOn, ICUJP, ANSWER, TruthDig, Veterans For Peace, etc., are you listening?
Many of our fellow readers have claimed that a majority of the American people want to "end the war now".
But the polls I hear about on NPR say that the majority "thinks that the war was a mistake".
That leaves room for a wide range of opinions on how to proceed from here. The poll also shows a narrower 50%/40% split between timetables vs. benchmarks.
That's what the White House is exploiting. That's what the Democrats in Congress are trying to cope with.
I'm afraid that many of this "majority of Americans" are still hoping for some kind of a "Peace with Honor" solution... like Nixon promised America in '68.
So quit trashing the Democrats in Congress and go to work on your neighbors. Remind them that Nixon never gave us "Peace with Honor"... he only escalated the carnage and spread it to Cambodia.
Pelosi, ever the enabler, stands by her abusive man... problem is, he's abusing all of us. We're going to have to intervene to make things better.
To: Greg Bacon
Re: Difference between Dems and 69-yr old "used up" hooker
Though neither has any teeth, the hooker at least delivers as advertised.
simple. all who voted yes, are murderers with blood on their hands.
There will be a naturally-emergent end to the war, and that'll be an inability to attract enough recruits. The US military will then be spread too thin and the Republicrats will have to lean mostly on: psyops and other subterfuge, private mercenaries, attempting to pit factions against one another, massive bombings, and other techniques. Either this or they'll need to reinstate the draft because the military is already stretched awfully thin. Apparently the Kanas tornado cleanup efforts were hampered because a majority of the national guard's equipment was in Iraq.
The fact that Bush could care less about how thinly-stretched our military has become, and has used our forces in an optional war -- which just happens to involve massive oil reserves and the former employer of the VP -- should send a clear signal to anyone not to join the military. So how are they going to keep this up as the duties (extended or not) eventually do expire for servicemen and women? How can we respond here at home to natural disaster, etc? What should you tell someone who (rightfully so) believes it is an honor to serve one's country, but the Commander in Chief has confused corporation with country?
History will remember the last 5 years as the time when the Bush administration hijacked our military and sent the troops into the Middle East to help steal Iraqi oil. Aside from the obvious moral and ethical issues this raises, it also leaves us in a greatly weakened military position and unable to protect our national interests from the very real threats that exist elsewhere.
This is probably why so many former military generals are speaking out in open, defiant opposition to the Bush administration's conduct of the Iraq War. They know that North Korea, China and our other enemies realize that our big stick (to quote from Teddy Roosevelt) has been whittled down to a twig in Iraq--and we are no longer in a position to defend our national interests.
The great irony is that Bush conservatives, who hated the former Soviet Union, are committing the same blunder the Russians committed in Afghanistan. The Russians poured so many of their nation's resources into Afghanistan that they became a second-rate power.
So, Democratic Party leaders, build the obvious case that every day we remain in Iraq, we weaken ourselves militarily elsewhere and hasten our demise as a world power.
Please read the following article and do whatever you can to publicize it. When I read it I was completely stunned. If there is a "national emergency" of any kind, Bush has dictatorial powers, unconstrained and without oversight.
Article Link:
worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55825
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
President Bush has signed a directive granting extraordinary powers to the office of the president in the event of a declared national emergency, apparently without congressional approval or oversight.
The "National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive
" was signed May 9, notes Jerome R. Corsi in a WND column .
It was issued with the dual designation of NSPD-51, as a National Security Presidential Directive, and HSPD-20, as a Homeland Security Presidential Directive.
The directive establishes under the office of the president a new national continuity coordinator whose job is to make plans for "National Essential Functions" of all federal, state, local, territorial and tribal governments, as well as private sector organizations to continue functioning under the president's directives in the event of a national emergency.
"Catastrophic emergency" is loosely defined as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions."
It says the president can assume the power to direct any and all government and business activities until the emergency is declared over.
The directive says the assistant to the president for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, currently Frances Fragos Townsend
, would be designated as the national continuity coordinator.
Corsi says the directive makes no attempt to reconcile the powers created for the national continuity coordinator with the National Emergency Act , which requires that such proclamation "shall immediately be transmitted to the
Congress and published in the Federal Register."
A Congressional Research Service study notes the National Emergency Act sets up Congress as a balance empowered to "modify, rescind, or render dormant" such emergency authority if Congress believes the president has acted inappropriately.
But the new directive appears to supersede the National Emergency Act by creating the new position of national continuity coordinator without any specific act of Congress authorizing the position, Corsi says.
The directive also makes no reference to Congress and its language appears to negate any requirement that the president submit to Congress a determination that a national emergency exists.
It suggests instead that the powers of the directive can be implemented without any congressional approval or oversight.
Homeland Security spokesman Russ Knocke affirmed to Corsi the Homeland Security Department would implement the requirements of the order under Townsend's direction.
The White House declined to comment on the directive.
Thanks, macchendra, for Pelosi's email address. I emailed her and let her know how disappointed i was/am with her and the other dems we voted into office last Nov. I also mentioned that, at 48 years old, i'll probably live another 30 years or so. And that regardless of how long i live, all my votes and any recommendations i give to others will be for the Green party. Perhaps that's something we call all let Pelosi know! Although i'm not sure she'll really care.
Having dictatorial power on paper, and being able to use it, are two different things. The National Guard in Kansas was hard-pressed to clean up after a tornado. How many resources do they really have left? And it's not just a progressive minority that would actively resist oppression here in the US. Probably even the most diehard redneck, north, south, east or west would resist. Doubtful whether Bush has got enough money left to hire enough mercenaries either.
IIRC, FEMA has had plans like that for years and I think Ollie North was involved in some way. But we saw how ineffective FEMA can be. We should be so lucky if they could *really* oppress/jail large portions of the US with efficiency.
Or something like that. You get my point.
The problem is we pay politicians whether they perform or not. Any hooker that takes money but doesn't put out would get badly beaten.
And every Progressive in America switched their voter reg from Dem to Independent, Green, Libertarian, whatever in a show of mass disapproval and disappointment. Right? Whadda ya mean, I was the only one? Too busy sending angry emails to so-called representatives who don't read em and penning more ops and eds to the choir about stuff we already know probably. Cause that's proven quite the effective strategy, hasn't it?
The Republican-owned media was hammering away at the 'Democrat' refusal to 'support our troops' and won out.
It was clear from the beginning that Nancy Pelosi was not an exceptionally strong woman when catapulted into Speaker of the House... she is a Nice Lady with nice intentions, but needs a lot of training and or major help to fight with the Republican Thugs, and could probably be too readily coerced in the meantime. There are however strong Democratic women in her area, like Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein, but not in the House of Reps. I read the voter rolls today... Pelosi did NOT vote for the Blank-check bill... she only earlier agreed to stop haggling and pass whatever existed by Memorial Day so troops would nominally have funding. Republicans, masters of deceit and manipulation and hypocrisy (like fake Bi-Party-Schwarzenegger) want to use this to divide and weaken the Democratic Party so Republicans will win more elections. A Third Party is OK but make sure it's one that can win an election instead of sabotage it -- otherwise we shoot ourselves in the foot.
I feel sorry for Pelosi to have been thrust into such a position of leadership that she did not campaign for, and I think we need to respect her as an individual while finding other ways to give her major help from other more bold Democratic leaders to exercise Democratic leadership... they Do Exist.
Nancy Pelosi is like a graceful elder tigress thrown into the ring with freshly-trained pit bulls, and she needs allies, not critics, in the battle to Hold Back the Republican's fascist oligarchy. She is and remains the Speaker of the House, and we need to let her know we don't like her capitulation, but nonethless support those Democrats that stood firm, and appreciate that she did vote against the bill in the end... and ask her to enlist more advice and support from stronger colleagues.... and stop believing ANYTHING the lying greedy self-serving Republican thugs say.
I'm sorry but if this cowardly surrender shocks you, you simply have not been paying attention.
I'm never surprised by the behavior of OUR people in WA.
We vote them in to office hoping for a change, a change
that will releive the US of this horrific burden of war.
I changed to an independent several years ago when I realized the Dems, had at some point, been neutered.
What has happened now proves we cannot rely on the Dem.
AGAIN
Tired of being taken for granted? Switch2green.
Holiday Weekend thought:
"I renounce war. I renounce war because of what it does to our own men...I renounce war because of what it compels us to do to our enemies...I renounce war for its consequences, for the lies it lives on and propagates, for the undying hatreds it arouses, for the dictatorships it puts in place of democracy, for the starvation that stalks after it. I renounce war and never again, directly or indirectly, will I sanction or support another."- DICK SHEPPARD
Folks, there is a way out: RECALL! We as citizens of the United States have the constitutional right to initiate and enact the recall. What are we waiting for???
jaymolobo,
Thank you for your entry. Ironically, it made me laugh out loud, because you managed to express my sentiments in so few words..."Your instructions were simple: STOP THIS DAMN WAR NOW." Brilliant! Why is no one in power speaking this way?
I am reminded why I voted third-party in the 2000 election. I have regreted that for nearly eight years now but, even so, the Democrats keep showing why they are not really an alternative to the Republicans.
"Peace with Honor"? ..... What a load of crap!
There has never been any honor in Bush's misguided and unjustified adventure in Iraq. Even if tomorrow Iraq became the most freedom-loving and democratic nation the world has ever known, this still would not justify the unnecessary deaths of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children, not to mention the brave (but misguided) troops Bush sent there. ... The ends do not justify the means!
Any attempt at an honorable end to Bush's war in Iraq is impossible! We should never have gone in there. We should not be there. And, despite the right-wing rhetoric, America will be MORE safe from those who hate us, if we leave Iraq. The longer we stay, the more likely we will have another 9/11.
While I'm disappointed, the reality is that the dems do not have a veto-proof majority in Congress and they're not going to win the PR battle over "funding the troops." So I give them credit for trying. The ones who should be taking the heat for this are the moderate Republicans who are still sticking with this failure of a president. They are the ones who hold the key to ending this war, and until they are faced with the immiment loss of their seats in Congress, Bush will get what he wants, unfortunately.
We need to look at who voted for and against the war funding. If you're in a district or a state, like Maryland, where your reps voted for the funding, you need to do all you can to get them unelected. This vote provided us a roadmap to electing a progressive congress.
You should support the Dem and Repububs that voted against the war. That means Pelosi, Obama, Clinton, and the rest. They voted the right way.
The question of why some Democrats and most Republicans voted for a blank check for a President with a 28% approval rating is two-fold. 1. Military contractors. They own many congresspeople. 2. Look at the pork in the bill for special interests. Those people bought some votes. Once again, the corporations proved they still have what it takes. Do we?
Agree with opeluboy and RichM.
What do you call these politicians? War criminals. Capitalists. Take your pick. Why would anyone assume that the dems would vote any differently than the repubs when they are both supported by and support big money?
Stop voting.
Stop work.
Stop traffic.
Stop shopping.
Stop.
When I was a young man,I was told of those terrible rubber-stamp parliaments; that was over there on the other side!
Now that I am old I am seeing it in this country. A rubber-stamp parliament.Nobody can stand up to the military-industrial complex:they ahave bought most seats in the house and the Senate.
Meanwhile all the trappings for Empire and direct rule are being put in place.And Suddenly Augustus will emerge .
The Bushes have studied their history well,you are still tripping in the flowers in the carpet.
You may want to throw up your hands -- a more practical act might be to simply throw up...on the capitol steps or dem congressperson's office -- calling all pukers --
now is the time to stick hand, arm, turkey baster, whatever it takes --
down the gullet... jaggle hard...let it all out! A new low for this nation!!!
The vast majority of people want out of Iraq and we really don't care at this point how.
We know the oil is important, but maybe not as important as our fortune, honor and the lives of our best.
The so-called representatives of the people are not only not stopping this illegal murder of thousands of people and holding those accountable by impeaching, putting them on trial and if found convicted dealt the proper punishment, they are contributing to the slaughter.
They want us to believe that somehow more war is getting us closer to peace.
They think we're total fucking idiots.
Consider ... this vote is to splinter the Democratic vote by driving them to fringe parties. The Republicans regain the WH. The only thing that may save the WH for the Democrats in 08' elections is a populars surge if Gore should run and that's if he runs not as an Independent.
And with the rightful anger at the Democrats that might be a very smart move for Gore to run as an Independent.
Gore? The guy who backed out in '00 with barely a wimper? The guy who picked a crypto-neocon running mate (Liebermann) in '00, eventually to be rejected by his own party?
How has Gore suddenly risen to be champion of the progressive cause??
I'd say Nader, Jim Hightower (if you could get him to run), *maybe* Kucinich, or whoever the Greens or Populists put out into the playing field. But Gore?? What indication is there that he's redemmed himself since a shameful VP selection and cave-in in '00?
If he manages to get the Green or Populist endorsement (awfully unlikely), maybe. But whether Democrat or independent, I think we can expect a magical transformation from Gore. Like Hilary or Obama, soothing rhetoric while in the running -- but the transformation back to business-as-usual once selected. I mean, elected...
"But, didn't you people hear the news? President Bush DID compromise. He offered to stand on His chair in the Oval Office so that the Democrats could kiss His Butt without bending over. Talk about a magnanimous guy!!!"
Lucus, I love it! Talk about a bunch of spineless a*&kissers.
It only took five months for the "big bucks boys" to buy them out. They did what Bush & Co. has been doing for five years, the old one finger salute to the people who voted for them in 06. What a sad day for America.
Kucinich, Feingold, Barbara Lee, Lynn Woolsey, Bernie Sanders, and as for the rest--vote Green--Nader 4 Prez!
Shoe leather creates the opportunity for change.
Voting alone can never stop a war the the USA has begun.
Cheney predicted a few weeks ago that the Democrats would cave. Guess he was right. The problem with most of the Congressional Democrats is that they still support the empire, not in the bloodthirsty unilateralist way the neocons do, but they are unwilling to rethink America's fundamental project of dominating the world. We are now so overextended with over 700 bases and these ultimately self defeating wars without end that we will indeed end up collapsing like the Soviet Union. We are following the exact pattern of imperial bloat and ultimate systems failure that Paul Kennedy describes in "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers." The party duopoly is part and parcel of this. People like Kucinich would try to change it, but they will never be elected. The can't get the big money and big media support and exposure. Also presidents are not their own persons. They are in good part the tools of very powerful largely faceless economic interests. But those interests are transnational and in the final analysis do not care about the survival of the United States as a republic with popular freedoms.
What can the average person do about this? Not much. I'm not saying we should give up. We should fight the good fight and try to get a more responsive government in Washington. But I think it is a largely futile project at this point, and we will have better response by thinking and working more locally.
What has happened here today, folks, is that the Organ Grinder, (congress) has just capitulated to the Monkey's,(Dubya)demands and is now playing and dancing to the Monkey's tune. GO, MONKEY GO!
Griping about the Dems feels great doesn't it? But what feels even better is kicking them in the pants by re-registering as Green, Libertarian, whatever you please.
And send Nancy and your own representative a little notice about what you did, and why. And encourage all your Democratic contacts to do the same.
C'mon! Only takes a few mouse clicks and the courage to go from whining to action.
Plus, it *feels* so satisfying ;-)
Click here for more of my thoughts on the subject:
http://www.freespeechnow.org/2007/04/01/hijacking-the-political-process-just-for-fun/
I see most of the writers here are now placing the blame on the democrats for what is happening in regards to the disasterous mess of our war with Iraq. Stop for an moment and think of it. Most Americans, over 70%, supported Bush and Cheney when they decided to begin the war. It was not democrats, it was us, we re-elected Geprge W. Bush to be our president; Al Gore was ousted by the Supreme Court and there was really little or nothing he could have done to fight that decision. Next, Senator Kerry was going to murder babies for stem cells. At least that is what many of the Christian church leaders were preaching.
But, back to the mess of Iraq. We were lied to by the President and his staff, he knew or should have known that Saddam was in no way responsible for the terrorist attacks on 9-11, there were no weapons of mass destruction, Iraq was not buying enriched uranium from Africa and on and on. In addition, Haliburton was the only company in the entire world that could clean up any little messes we made in the country. Lies, greed, and actually unbelievable evilness prevailed. We, the American public bought the lies, not all of us and not just republicans and democrats, but the majority bought it. We, the American public are guilty! We did not listen to Bob Woodward, that man had it all on taped conversations with the President and his inner circle of higher-ups. Woodward printed it and few of us bought what he wrote. Everyone knew Woodward was a flaming liberal. Well, liberal or not, as is his way, he told it and wrote it like it was.
Now with time running out, what are the democrats suposed to do? Their first bill was vetoed and any other like it would have suffered the same fate. King Geprge said so and he meant it! The old addage of "you are dammed if you do and dammed if you don't" is highly applicable in this case. We cannot just stop the funding for the troops, we can, but it would be another horrible mistake. America surely would be in the losers pit and it would be the total fault of the Democrats. We already are the losers, but let the blame fall where it belongs. Democrats had little other choice in this case but to compromimse; those that voted against it were wisely saving their political butts and knew this bill would pass anyway.
Prior to the war with Iraq, Colin Powell told the King that if he attacked Iraq, he would own it. Later, Powel was given some horribly faulty intelligence and he spit it out for the public. He was screwed too.
I would not put the blame in this instance on the democrats, and I believe that some who are doing so, are quite possibly far right closet republicans. Thay are masters of rat Fu--ing.
Well now that our King owns Iraq, perhaps he can sell it to China for the trillions of $$$ we now owe them, before they cash in their bonds and really screw us.
Do not blame the democrats for this horrible disaster, put the blame where it belongs. It was Cheney, Bush and us. As Pogo once so eloquently said, "we have met the eneny ___and it is us."