What ever happened to this senate measure? This is also a dangerous measure in that if it loses, it sends a clearer message to Bush that he has authorization to attack Iran. If it wins, that issue is covered. I suspect the reason this measure wasn't attached to the original Lieberman-Kyle measure is because it won't pass.

As for the Dems and Repubs... it is more complex than simply a wolf verses wolf in sheeps clothing. You will hear things like: "Ask 6 million uninsured kids whether or not the difference is significant." Where was Bill Clinton on the issue of the uninsured kids? It is convenient for the Dems to show off their support for it when it is guaranteed to get vetoed. The Dems were also against the tax breaks that passed in the early Bush years. I don't hear about that issue anymore from the Dem presidential hopefuls. The reason is that if they talk about it now, they will have to reverse those tax breaks and the rich donors don't want that.

You can divide the Dems into "blue dog", "progressive", "new democrat (DLC)" etc. for a finer understanding of the gang. Fight in the primaries for a genuinely progressive representative, not a big business favorite. Failing that, vote Nader.

We've got to get behind someone electable and make sure that the ultra-fascists don't get elected again. Restoring even a semblance of our democracy is going to be a long process..and moreover we shouldn't be content just to return to the good ol' days of previous administrations. We need to dream big but be pragmatic. An overnight revolution is not going to happen in this country. So lets think big but act smart..make sure your vote counts!

Rich M is exactly right. The terms "Republican" and "Democrat" apply only to posturing strategies.

The agenda is exactly the same on all the matters of consequence. Anyone who suggests otherwise must produce evidence of daylight between the ACTIONS of Republican and Democratic legislators on key isuues.

I tell you what -- save your energy for something that actually might benefit the world. There is no significant daylight on any matter of weight. This has only become stark during the Bush years. And, at least for that, we can thank Bush. But, those that refuse to acknowledge this are being as intractable as Bush or are just maybe as slow-witted.

Yay Democrats!!!! Way to engage in toothless efforts to stop Bush and Cheney. You'll really gum them to death this time for sure!

WAKE UP!!!!

Our current regime only speaks one language: The language of power. Anything else does not matter to them.

So, dear Democrats, you may continue to beg, plead, scold, and censure, but it will not make a damn bit of difference.

Impeachment, on the other hand, that would make a difference.

Oh the pogroms, gotta love the internal policy pogroms!! :)
Unfortunately they never achieve much..
The delusion here is the futile yearn for a system where we are presented with a candidate that satisfies our vision
of the type of society we'd be proud to be part of. It doesn't happen (some say never but, as an undying optimist, I can't).

So regardless of how fluent we can become in picking out inconsistent nuances between the candidates, you basically get whittled down to
a choice between the lesser of two evils.
Now the question is, at that point, do we think the general liberal path is worth taking (be it Hillary, Obama, Edwards or another) or do we cut
of our noses to spite our faces?

Personally, I would still much prefer a democrat in the White House.

Peace :)

formernadervoter, you are so wrong. Gripe, gripe, gripe but never suggest anything constructive.

I have met Obama in person and I personally don't think he is that good looking, but I do know and like his policies.
Obama has done what so many bloggers on CD have been critizing him for not doing. He has spoken out against agression on Iran. You no longer have an excuse to gripe about him.

Would you rather have Hillary or Romney in the White House? If not, get behind Obama.

Ohhhh.. I see. You think I voted for Nader. Heh.

No no, I'm a registered Democrat. I voted Gore in 2000, I voted Kerry (with a metaphorical noseplug) in 2004. How do I feel about that? I'm supposed to feel like I did what's right and got screwed over by those damn progressives, right? No.

I feel utterly and completely betrayed. I feel like a rube, haven been taken twice by a con game. You're one of those who stand around and tell us rubes how much you've won off of the rigged game, suckering us in again and again. Well, you and your Democrat hucksters have finally sqeezed every drop you can from me. I'll no longer stand and capitulate to destruction for fear of my own livelihood.

Oh, and you ignored my comment about war until 2013, or doesn't that matter to you? Are they too far away to matter? Or are they just a small price to pay in order for YOUR team to have some ephemeral victory over their competitors?

You go ahead and wave the blood soaked flag of your team. I'll be busy being true to my humanity. I hope you choke on your capitulation. Oh, and let me know how Iraq is when you're drafted, I'm sure they'll appreciate hearing all about how you supported keeping our military in their country because to do otherwise would have made you look 'unrealistic' or something.

Now go, go to your one-eyed master, and hear its message of hopelessness, hear its message of your unworthiness (you're too fat, you don't have a big enough TV, your truck is too old and too small to carry 6 uprooted Oaks, you're not good enough in bed, you need many drugs because you have many sicknesses, voting for anyone but a R or a D makes you unworthy of consideration, etc.) and bow down before its demands, your progressive grass-roots leader you. *chuckle*

Explaining to progressives that progress depends on a bunch of capitulating plutocratic elitists only serves to show how desperate the 'Good Cop' faction of the corporate party is getting.

All you serve to do with your misplaced derision is drive me (and others like me) further and futher away with your demonstrations of how weak and useless the D party really is. The attitude, 'what, they expect us to be at least SLIGHTLY leftists? the fools!', is what is driving people away from the party.

I won't choose between far-right and mid-right, and neither should anyone who doesn't want this country to slide even FURTHER right. Expecting the Dems to do anything else is toddler like naivety. Expecting progressives to support a party that will slide the country yet further right (oh, I know, you'd have us believe that we won't go as far right as if there was a Republican in charge, and you might have a point if it weren't for those inconvenient voting records they have) is disingenuous, hypocritical and laughable.

That's right, keep making fun of people who want to vote AGAINST the war (unlike you, you big tough guy you) and AGAINST the privatization of government (even privately owned politicians, isn't conservative philosophy fun) and keep calling yourself a progressive. Hell, one of these days you YOURSELF might even believe the lie if you say it enough, that's a good all-American (okay, it's a LITTLE German) tradition.

Any way you look at it, your 3rd grade logic (we need to win so they don't, and you never bother to properly define we and they (it would be hard from your point of view, especially without those little Ds and Rs next to their name, they are quite similar)) still does NOTHING to address the issues that the Dems support the war in Iraq, are likely to support a war with Iran (oh, they don't want BUSH to start that war (at least SOME of them don't) but that's all about Bush, and has nothing to do with Iran), think nationalized health care means making people buy ineffective expensive and useless insurance under penalty of law.

Yeah, the more you fools scream your inanities the more you show me just how correct I am, and how weak your positions (and minds, apparently) really are.

Kucinich has by far, the best voting record as a progressive in the House of Representatives and as a two-time presidential candidate, the best plan for stopping this murderous military aggression in the Near East and certainly, the best programs for average Americans like us on his agenda.

Why should we vote for the military-industrial-corporate-theocracy-leaning candidates? Because the 24 hour propaganda ministry which is the mainstream media says so? It is THEY, not WE, who keep repeating the big lie that Dennis doesn't have a chance, as they did in 2004. Too many liberals fell for the bait, and please don't make the same mistake next year. If enough citizens write Kucinich's name on their ballot, he will be the nominee for the Democrats.

He is the man for the job in 08, and we need him more now than ever before.

SEQUOIABISON,

If there's a danger in voting for someone who might not win, rather than voting your conscience, how about this: vote for whoever is the most wealthy, the most capable of fiddling the ballot box or co-opting/accidenting his opposition, has the most powerful backers, etc. Vote for a neocon -- you'll have two to pick from in '08, delivered to our doorsteps courtesy of the MSM.

If you're the president of a grassroots organization, then why don't you post under your real name here so we can judge it, and your claim, with complete transparency?

Kucinich may be worth voting for if he wins the primary. If not, then don't play into the DLC catcher's mit. When they bait-and-switch and give us a crypto-neocon instead, it's time to vote Green, independent, something else, or just don't vote in the presidential race, whatever your inclination.

Sounds like the guilty conscience of the Green Party promoters is making them lash out and defend their vote for a candidate that had absolutely no chance of winning.

They would rather throw away their vote instead of condescending and voting for a hateful peace prize-winning warmonger like Gore.

Pleeze, you guys had an opportunity to stop Bush the homicidal maniac from taking charge of this country and decided to cast your vote into oblivion.

Yes we all want the most perfect progressive imaginable but at some point we must face reality and the consequences of our vote.

If the polls show that Al Gore and George Bush each have 49 percent of the vote and Ralph Nader has only 1 percent of the vote you should be basing your decision on this accurate information not all or nothing or pie in the sky fantasies. Vote for the most progressive when it matters and when it makes sense.

We could have avoided all that recount fiasco and the Supreme Court edict if you guys had acted responsibly in the first place.

Sure vote your conscience and ignore the reality of the situation. Vote for the Dalai Lama if it helps you to think you are doing something meaningful.

I am the president of a grass root non-profit environmental organization there is no one more Green on this blog than I am. But I try to be practical and vote for one of the two mainstream candidates that are actually going to win and who will do the least amount of harm.

If you had done your homework and realized under Governor Bush, Houston had surpassed LA as the most polluted city in the nation perhaps you would have been less reluctant to cast a vote for Al Gore.

Vote Kucinich.
Vote Democratic all the way.

Obama stays within the corporate mainstream media consensus and thus, is no real leader.

Amazing that so many millions like this guy. Call it lookism. They discriminately like his good looks but probably can't name even one of his policies.

Sequoiabison:
What are you, 9 years old? You sound like my (7 y/o) son trying to make fun of his brother. Sarcasm makes you neither right nor cool.

That being said, you're completely full of shit as well. Let's try some of that sarcasm again now, shall we? 'Being a Republican operative, I'm sure glad Mr. Nader was able to convince the Supreme Court that the votes didn't need to REALLY be counted.' or how about 'Since I'm a neocon plant, I really enjoyed watching Nader hold guns to every Senators head when all it would have taken was ONE of the 100 to speak up and get the votes counted.'

Childish imp. Those who would fault people for voting for what's RIGHT are beneath contempt, and that's you.

You go ahead and keep on convincing people to slit their own throats, meanwhile us PROGRESSIVES will keep on INFORMING people, and warning them against 'screw the future, vote corporate' shills like you.

In conclusion, when you support a neocon with a D by her name, you're still supporting a neocon. Have fun voting for war until at LEAST 2013. I hope the Iraqis you're sentencing to death haunt your dreams.

So why didn't Obama sponsor a Senate resolution calling on the House to initiate impeachment proceedings if Junior launches a strike without congressional approval? Would that have been way too bold, maybe?

The term "Senate resolution" is an oxymoron. The term "Democratic resolution" even moreso.

Lobo Gris:

Hillary might show some leadership once elected. Obama will try. At least they don't have a radical neocon agenda to remake the world in their image of America at the point of a gun.

The one time democratic globalization guru, Robert Reich, now understands the unintended consequences of what he once sold to Clinton. The "playing field" isn't level and the multinational corporations are chasing labor and regulation to the bottom all over the world. The neocons love it! Maybe a democratic administration will listen to labor and stand up to the WTO "court" and businessmen who want the (very temporary)low prices of imported goods.

I don't like the negativity of voting against people, but there is no choice. I couldn't bring myself to vote for Gore or Bush. If I had known what was coming, I would have voted for Gore just to keep the Republicans out. I voted for Kerry mostly to get Bush out. That woman who waved the bloody hands in Condi's face has it right. A vote for these republicans is a vote for more needless death and destruction around the globe. A vote that splits the opposition accomplishes the same thing.

I am going to research local third party candidates and split my vote there. I think Cindy Sheehan upsetting Pelosi would be a great wake up call for the demos. But these nasty neocons gotta go, and Giuliani will be Bush/Cheney 2.0.

"Hope you guys are glad you ignored the polls in FL where it was too close to call and voted your conscience, smart call, logic is apparently not one of your strong suits."

It's so much easier to crap in your own bed, then to look at where the real problem was, which is Kathleen Harris and all the other neo-con functionaries that are doing their bidding.

There's something really ironic about questioning the logic of Nader supporters when Democrats keep ignoring both the rigging of both elections (if you believe Greg Palast), not to mention the voting record of the Democratic "leadership". Wiretapping and waterboarding are not compromise issues. Period.

So, saying that the constitution is in effect is now called "playing politics". The constitution says that only Congress has authority to make war. So the constitution is playing politics.

Go (to) Hellary!

kucinich

Hey Lobo Gris stop taking yourself and me so seriously, just joking about the dumb Nader supporters, you guys are not that bad, just a touch naive.

Sorry if my post upset you but now you know how I felt when Nader got 90,000 votes in FL in 2000 and Gore lost the presidency by 560 votes in FL.

Hope you guys are glad you ignored the polls in FL where it was too close to call and voted your conscience, smart call, logic is apparently not one of your strong suits.

Keep up the good work Green Party advocates, at the rate you are helping the republican party destroy our country, there will be no Green left in America only highly polluted Brownfields.

Thanks again for helping Georgie boy and send Ralph my very best regards. Maybe this time he can help get Rudy elected?

Oh, and BTW, Hillary claims that 8 years when her husband was President and globalization was first running amok as her experience for the job as President

Lobo Gris

bbr-001 November 3rd, 2007 7:57 am

"It has to be stopped. The challenges are getting out Iraq with the people of Iraq in control of their destiny"

The people of Iraq are in control of their destiny. We are nothing more than interloping occupiers after trying to impose democracy at the end of a gun barrel and ending up doing nothing but fomenting a civil war. None of the top three, Hillary, Obama, or Edwards would promise in a debate question about it to even get out of Iraq by the end of their first term in 2013.

"reigning in uncontrolled globalization before we all lose our jobs"

Bill Clinton and a Democratically controlled Congress were the ones that accelerated globalization with the passage of NAFTA. Followed by Bill and a Republican controlled Congress passing the Carribean Basin initiative, the African economic opportunity act, etc., etc., etc., culminating with the flawed trade agreement with China and our assistance in getting them into the WTO. None of the three Hillary, Obama , or Edwards has pledged to change of amend any of that so I fail to see how electing any one of them would address the problem.

"global warming and peak oil are here"

Yup and none of the three Hillary, Obama, or Edwards have addressed that either. They are all up at the podium laughing about Kucinich being asked whether he saw a UFO or not.

"Hillary (or Obama) has my vote"

Why?

Lobo Gris

We need to vote these dangerous "Republican" radicals out of the White House. The only way to ensure that is for everyone to vote Democratic and not waste votes on Nader, the Green party or anyone else.

Just as with Vietnam, both parties seem to support the war and there will not be an easy way to get out. But there is a difference.

George HW Bush added some pragmatism to Reaganomics and knew where to stop in Desert Storm. Clinton and Gingrich managed to make some hard decisions on both guns and butter and managed to balance the budget. What we had was two pretty good centrist administrations (even if Bill was a liar, sex addict and former shady wheeler-dealer). The major negative long term effect is globalization is destroying the blue (and now white) collar middle class.

This administration is run by a radical fringe of the Republicans with a loser (with his daddy's name) as the front man and "minders" shaping public relations throughout the bureaucracy and pentagon. They are grooming Giuliani to be his replacement.

It has to be stopped. The challenges are getting out Iraq with the people of Iraq in control of their destiny, reigning in uncontrolled globalization before we all lose our jobs, and global warming and peak oil are here and now. The neocon PNAC radicals don't have a clue about any of this!

And no more manipulation of public opinion (lying) for illegal wars of choice! These guys gotta go. Hillary (or Obama) has my vote, if just to end the slaughter. I would be a more confident voter if they actually do prevent the bombing of Iran.

SEQUOIABISON November 2nd, 2007 11:00 pm

"For $64,000.00 can you anti dems set aside your blind rage for a moment"

OK, pay me the $64,000.00 and I promise to support the Dems. And I further promise that my promise is as good as the Dems promise to do something about the Iraq war if only we would vote them into power in 2006

Lobo Gris

"The democrats saw a golden opportunity and got some not too bright volunteers from the Nader campaign and convinced them to crash 2 planes into the world trade center and 1 plane into the pentagon."

And you accuse people of not being sane...

"For $64,000.00 can you anti dems set aside your blind rage for a moment and try to distinguish which party supports universal healthcare and which party supports borrowing from China to finance an unjust illegal war?"

Erm, what blind rage? But to answer your question, I think the latter party is called the corporate party, and the former is the Greens. While I'm glad that Hillary wants health care for all, I'm not sure I buy her plan; but something is better than nothing, I suppose. That being said, what we need is a single payer health care plan - did you see Sicko? Providing people with a broken, predatory HMO system is not the answer.

All of which is moot if you live in Iraq, though. If she was committed to getting US troops out of Iraq, she should commit to it.

PS: I don't respond well to being hated on.

We have had 4 years of papa Bush 8 years of baby Bush and 8 years of wild Bill giving us a total of 20 consecutive years of Bush and Clinton running this country.

I think we can use a change a fresh start and right now the only one who has a good chance of defeating Hillary is Obama. I really like what he has to say especially the part about talking with our friends and our enemies.

Of course it's Kucinich in the primaries but I think I like Barak over Hillary.

Hey anti dems you guys are getting much closer to the Rabbit Hole, you're almost starting to make sense.

But I think your facts are a little convoluted.

Once upon a time when Bush was selected president by his daddy's friends the Supremes.

The democrats saw a golden opportunity and got some not too bright volunteers from the Nader campaign and convinced them to crash 2 planes into the world trade center and 1 plane into the pentagon.

You see we dems knew it would lead to a war with Iraq and we would lose badly, thereby giving us loyal dems a better chance of taking back the white house in 2008 that was stolen from President Gore in 2000.

I know that your remarks about the dems and repubs being two peas in a pod is the delusional fairy tale language you republican operatives like to use, but your ridiculous Alice in Wonderland hallucinations make no sense whatsoever.

One party supports tax cuts for a minority of the electorate and a bloodthirsty catastrophic war that keeps the munitions factories humming.

While the other party supports non-violent diplomacy, peace and social programs that benefit the majority of Americans.

For $64,000.00 can you anti dems set aside your blind rage for a moment and try to distinguish which party supports universal healthcare and which party supports borrowing from China to finance an unjust illegal war?

Vote for Party A, and have your head chopped off.
Vote for Party B, and die a death by a thousand cuts.
Vote, and you'll die.

All this voting talk is smoke out yer asses. Citizenship requires constant work - every day - all year long.

By the time it gets to voting, the game's up, chumps.

I'd agree with people like Doughyden if the party he lends support to would stop rubber stamping everything the republicans want. The "democrats" "don't have the votes" to get us out of the war, or anything else we want, because they refuse to come out, dialogue with the electorate, and rally their base. The neo-nazis who run the republican party, on the other hand, do not fear to mobilize their supporters, and continue to win thereby. That's the difference. The "democrats" don't trust mass based politics because they actually detest the working class majority of the population. IF they didn't, they'd stop working so hard at breaking the industrial and public sector unions just as the republicans do. We have this argument in the labor council all the time, Doughyden. I can agree with you about the greens and the socialists, but the mere fact that they don't know how to work with working people doesn't mean that working people don't have to figure out how we're going to build organizations that represent us. The biggest problem is that we don't trust ourselves. But considering that we pay for everything and that the economy even now is being "balanced" on our backs, we'd better learn to, and that's all.

Let's assume that there is a difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. We'll grant that to the folks at the beginning of the thread who insist that there is one.

The question then is: does that difference, whatever it may be, make a difference?

If we look at the political effects at this point, especially on such massive issues as the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, the differences seem to be nanoscopic.

Edwards is another hawk, maybe even the worst of them. he backstabed us bigtime in 02 when he was on the senate intelligence committe and knew that bush was lieing about the WMDs. yet said nothing and voted for war anyways.

as far as getting "some leverage" with the Clinton admin., that is a total dream. why should she represent her contingency, she never has in the past.

and Obama is obviously just posturing trying to hide his lust for war and power. or maybe i should say, trying to apprear like the smart guy who will use the power well. im not counting on that.

all i can hope is for a kucinich or ron paul miracle victory. beyond that happening i forsee a compramised democrat losing a chunk of the vote to nader and leaving us with another republican (unless we can manifest a nader miracle.)

VAGreen -

> "the two-party system is as immutable as the laws of physics"
> "we need to try to take over the Democratic Party"

Excellent! You're definitely improving.

> "give us an idea of who we should work for in the primaries"

Not my job. Too many states and Congressional districts out there for me to keep track of them all. Look to PDA, DU, DKos for recommendations.

Oh, you meant the presidential race? I would pick Kucinich if you're into pressing the issues and the progressive agenda, Obama or Edwards if you want a challenger to the dragon lady. For Greens and Reds who care more about talking issues and not compromising, go with Kucinich. He almost certainly can't win, but as John Nichols argues he can have a real impact on the scope of debate.

But lets say the dragon lady wins. And on the other side, you probably have Giuliani, or someone just as bad. At that point, we have to support Clinton. If we come in as an organized progressive movement, the more unified the better (I think PDA could be the right vehicle, although I am not so happy with what that organization has been so far), then we will have some leverage with the Clinton admin if we were on board. That would translate into progressive appointees, progressive initiatives, access, influence on the agenda. That would be better than more standing on streetcorners with signs. And then there's 2010, 2012...

All this Obama-Hillary talk. Jeez, you'd think they were the only two Democrooks running for prez. Actually, they are two that I WON'T vote for.

I might vote for Edwards and I might vote for Kucinich. It's up to the Convention to present a REAL change.

I don't "support" the Democratic party. I just prefer it to the Republicans, and I don't see a viable alternative out there. The Greens? Don't make me laugh.

Any candidate who accepts money form the foreign agents of aipac are treasonous as israel bombed the USS Liberty. Obama pledged his support when he spoke at an aipac convention, the only one who refused to accept money from aipac is MIKE GRAVEL AND RON PAUL..Obama will follow his corporate masters..

VAGreen,

Cogent analysis, but there is an underlying troubling assumption implicit in your viewpoint and that of many others who comment here. You assume that if Republicans continue to accumulate power by winning elections and packing the judiciary with fascists, as the Dems are abandoned by the left and sink into irrelevance, that a new progressive party may emerge on the left and take back the country. I find that about as likely as Bush winning the Nobel Prize in physics.

Once the Republicans have taken total control and have a majority of fascists on the Supreme Court, then what they will create would shock even Orwell. Anyone who has been paying any attention knows the Republican Party has lost all interest in democracy, the constitution, or the rule of law, and has embraced torture, mercenaries (including their use on US streets), electronic surveillance, rendition, confinement without any rights, and secret prisons.

With scientific advances, including the use of brain electrodes, torture will become much more effective and useful. Also, using Artificial Intelligence and increased computing power, electronic surveillance will become much more powerful. And with new technologies of crowd control developed by DARPA, e.g. acoustic weapons, you can forget about demonstrations or even riots.

As doughyden commented above, there is not that much difference between the parties, but in that small difference may lie the slim hope for a livable future for the majority of people in the USA.

Impeach and try for war crimes!

"The Democratic Party is not a vehicle for fundamental, systemic change. It has never pretended to be. It is what it is. It has assumed, with some justification, that people are basically happy with our system, even if they are not always happy with the outcomes the system produces. Positive change–at best–will be incremental and glacial."

This is precisely the problem with supporting the Democratic Party. When the Republicans are in power, they don't play small ball. They do their damndest to move the country far to the right, and they get plenty of Democrats to help them out. Look at what the Democrats have been doing for the past seven years to support many of Bush's worst initiatives.

When the Democrats are in power, they will at best move the country slightly to the left, and worst, move the country not quite as far to the right as the Republicans. It's not realistic to expect the Democrats to always win elections. Sometimes the Republicans will get into power. Over the long run, the country will inevitably move further and further to the right as long as the left supports a party that plays small ball and the right supports a party that swings for the fences.

Nader2000 November 2nd, 2007 12:06 pm

"Oh, come on, Obomber is a Dummycrat. There is absolutely no difference between a Dummycrat and Rudy Guliani. Everybody knows that. All you guys know that. Don't you? Come on, don't be shy."

Stop being so emotionally immature, "Nader"2000.

You're constantly lecturing us on how the two-party system is as immutable as the laws of physics and how we need to try to take over the Democratic Party. Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and give us an idea of who we should work for in the primaries? I've seen you spit all sorts of self-righteous venom at Ralph Nader over the war in Iraq, which he opposed from the beginning. I've yet to see you say an unkind word against Hillary Clinton, who voted for the war and will not promise to have all troops out of Iraq by 2013. Neither, BTW, will Obama.

The differnce between the Democrats and the Republicans is that the Dems ask the CEO of Ford to be their secretary of defense (e.g. McNamara), but the Republicans will ask the CEO of Ford to be their Secretary of State.

The point was made above that there is no need for this letter or this legislation, and I agree. I agree because pre-emptive war is illegal. The United States government is, as we all know, currently a criminal regime, and both Dems and Repubs are complicit in the crime. Kucinich pointed this out in the last debate: why are we even talking about war with Iran if it's ILLEGAL?

This country is currently living in the guilty state that follows a crime. The only way to deny the criminality of the original act (invading Iraq illegitimately) is to perpetrate the same crime again on another country with a nearly identical name (Iran, of course), as a way of desperately trying to convince itself that the initial crime was justified and legal. We are caught in a sick spiral.

I think it interesting that the debate between Obomber and Killery is spilling into proposed senate legislation because it brings up a very important point: Why the need for such legislation in the first place? Because the current president and vice-president and its assorted allies LIED us into the Iraq debacle. The constant theme of Obomber is that Killery swallowed the LIE, continues to swallow it, yet denies that her actions are NOT what she meant them to be. Thus the unstated point of the bill is WE DONT WANT TO BE LIED INTO ANOTHER WAR, and is the real headline NO corporate media outlet will publish/voice--unless they can be tricked into doing just that. This is where I see an opportunity. To be electable, Killery MUST dupe voters into thinking she's antiwar, which is just the image she's been trying very hard to project. Obomber won't let her; even though he's no dove himself, he can still point to his votes as proof of a fundamental difference between him and Killery.

Then of course in the background is the question of impeachment--why are Bush/Cheney even in office to have the chance at starting another war based on lies--that ought to be raised as the spat expands.

Thought?

Here's a different thought

Dennis Kucinich for President
"Strength Through Peace"

www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSGiVjiz5Kg

Nader2000,
You had an excellent chance to be clear and relevant in your comments, yet you chose posture above substance ... again.
Think about that carefully.

Christ. You idiots. You deserve a Republican administration. I hope you're happy.

Christ. You idiots. You deserve a Republican administration. I hope you're happy.

There is only one political party in D.C. today and that's the Uncle Buck Party. It has two wings. The political wing and the corporate wing. Together these guys, and gals, run the country. They take care of business and they take care of their friends. They use the Constitution to legalize what they do and they use middle class to finance their ventures. The Uncle Buck party uses the media as their PR Department. What Obama is suggesting is already in the Constitution so to fall for this non substance proposal and spin it as something "new" proves that the media is negligent in doing its job. Unless you look at it from the corporate point of view, then the media is fulfilling its purpose.
Hoa binh

The letter that Hillary & 29 Senators sent Bush has even less legal authority than the Smirk's "signing statements". If they were earnest, they would push for legislation.

But exactly what force a "Senate resolution" would have on an administration which regards itself as both the alpha and omega of the US government, the root and the crown of power? Everything but impeachment is chimerical.

With the first bomb dropped on Iran, the vast majority of the Dimmersluts will rush to the cameras, hand over their hearts, pledging undying allegiance & singing "God Bless America".

seriousprofessor:

You're right. It's impossible to imagine how Rudy Giuliani might be of any relevance whatsoever in this context. Rudy who?

Also, yeah, I don't really think Obomber is just itching to send troops to Sudan. Ya got me, prof.

And, oh, yeah, Obomber's resolution is completely meaningless, unlike the one Killary voted for, which proves what a corporatist warmongering she-wolf in sheep's clothing she is.

What a shame that once again the initial comment seeks to limit the discourse, this time with a ridiculous straw man. Of course it comes from a Democratic partisan.

Ideas, as always, are the essential thing. Let us examine the merits of the issue, rather than get lost in the partisan foaming that ignores the issue.

First of all, the resolution as described is consistent with the Constitution, insofar as only Congress has the power to declare war. By definition, then, other resolutions are not supposed to be blank checks for the executive to wage war.

The likelihood of the Bush administration paying attention to the resolution is scant. They have ignored Congress with impunity from the outset. Congress can't even learn who is crafting the country's energy policy. They can't even get their letters answered. Therefore, the resolution is likely to remain a resolution unenforced.

The resolution seems to contain a loophole, which would be to "authorize" the use of force. This is not the same thing as a formal declaration of war.

Considering immediate past practice, the likelihood of Congress (including Sen. Obama, the sponsor) funding more war is roughly 100%. Therefore, the resolution would seem to act more as a procedural fig leaf than an actual check upon executive power.

I could find no reference to Rudy Giuliani in the article. Assuming that Nader2000, the initial respondent, had something of substance to offer by bringing him up, I look forward to his clarifying Giuliani's relevance here.

The same is true with his comment about Sudan (12:57). If such comment has some relevance and was NOT merely self-indulgent obnoxiousness, then clarifying its relevance would also be welcome.

Personally, I find Sen. Obama's resolution unobjectionable except for its apparent meaninglessness.

I agree with 'Yawn'.

Just more of the same-o same-o.

No matter how much difference there is, you guys are not going to be satisfied.Granted that the differences in the overall context of things are not that great. But, to you, that means that the parties are identical--that it makes no difference who wins. Do you truly think that if Gore had been elected we would be at war with Iraq, threatening war against Iran, and universally despised? Do you truly think that all our social programs would have been gutted? Do you truly think that Gore would be at war with science? Do you truly think that our Department of Justice would have been turned into an agency of outlaws? Do you truly think that if a Democrat is president we will go to war with Iran? Or that Social Security will be privatized? Or that those six million children will not be covered with insurance? If you do, you're just fuckin' loony. These are big deals, guys.

Newsflash: The Democratic Party is not going to become the Socialist Party. It is not going to adopt "The Internationale" as our National Anthem. The Democratic Party is not a vehicle for fundamental, systemic change. It has never pretended to be. It is what it is. It has assumed, with some justification, that people are basically happy with our system, even if they are not always happy with the outcomes the system produces. Positive change--at best--will be incremental and glacial.It is not what I want it to be, but I don't write it off because of that. The Democratic Party, even as it is currently constituted--even with (Gasp!)Hilary Clinton as the presidential candidtate--is a force for relative good in this country. I said relative. So you guys who say there's no difference between the parties, you just go ahead and vote Republican. What the heck! See if you like it.

Unfortunately, the true Socialist Party is not doing much to make itself attractive to the electorate. The Greens are nothing but a bunch of snobbish college kids who have no idea of what it is like to have to work for a living. Face it: if people want the system fundamentally changed, they will change it. We did it once, in 1776, and we can do it again.

Likeable, but I'd never vote for him.

As the Decider says, "You can't get fooled again."

The American people DO NOT recognize either the Kyl-Lieberman measure or the Obama measure. The American people reject both measures as illegitimate because they are both unnecessary, and motivated by politics. Both measures are unnecessary because other laws have long been in place forbidding the US Congress from: A.) giving up the power to declare war , B.) defying the public will, generally, C.) destroying the public interests, generally, and D.) violating the US Constitution and the laws of the land.

Everyone knows, or should know, the many specific violations by the US Congress that fall under the above general categories. The specific violations are no longer under serious dispute. Rather, the right wing terrorists occupying Washington now openly perpetrate them and the so-called opposition party now serves as the terrorists' great enablers.

This is because both factions serve only their master - the beast capital. In light of this most relevant assessment, there is only a limited set of actions the senators may take for positive change - 1.) halting the violations and 2.) repairing the damage. Obama's action does neither, but instead perpetuates the violations.

Obama and his Demok party have largely avoided the most blatant attacks on the public interests that their Repuk partners in crime have perpetrated, yet the Demoks have joined the Repuks in grave violations of the US Constitution enough to earn themselves impeachment - most of them voted to fund the Iraq war, most of them voted to destroy various rights of the American people, and most of them voted to defy the will of the people to end the war and impeach the criminals.

None of the skulduggery is even necessary because the hostility we face from abroad is BLOWBACK from our imperial adventurism. We do not even need the oil. Our current gluttonous consumption SHOULD be drastically scaled back but even if it weren't we STILL may achieve zero-carbon energy self-sufficiency, incredibly WITHOUT ANY fossil/nuclear fuels, WITHOUT ANY new technology, WITHOUT ANY concentrated capital, simply by scaling back our meat consumption a mere TEN PERCENT, and giving Americans meaningful jobs in small local energy production enterprises. We could do a lot better than that even, by first reigning in our capitalist-driven gluttony.

This is the relevant reality - ignore it and remain in slavery to the beast capital. Face it and achieve emancipation from the beast capital. It's your choice.

"His [Obama's] resolution says any offensive military action against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress."

Gotta love when there is a need to pass legislation which simply repeats the constitution. Furthermore, gotta love when the tabling of that resolution is NEWSWORTHY!

Also, is anyone else concerned with the level of doublethink at work when one (Hilary) plays off condemning another nation's state security force to the terrorist label as a means of "stepped-up diplomacy"? Some strategy. Like trying to get an extension on a paper by openly calling your teacher a pirate.

RichM-

Thanks for confirming my suspicions. Obomber is just a wolf in sheep's clothing, only posturing as antiwar so that he can get in there and order the Marines to the oilfields of Sudan. Of course. As a knowledgeable observer, you knew it all along, didn't you?

there is a difference! a difference w/o a distinction...

wherever bush stumbles, democrats are there to help him backup.

they all salivate at the mouth for the opportunity to support war. thats their job. and they do it damn well. they are just being civic-minded and patriotic.

the dems wrote a letter to bush telling him to behave. they wrote him a check when he wanted war funding.

Nader 2000,

Thanks for the invitation to not be shy about punping the Dummycrats! Since I'm not noted for being shy here anyway, what an opportunity! (Thanks again and again!)

Dummycrats like Social Security, Medicare, SCHIP, funding the real "education" part of NCLB, liberals on the Supreme Court, EPA that enforces some things, U.S. attorneys that will prosecute business abuses, taxes sufficient to blunt the effect of Pareto's law, and a big military budget for armed forces that seldom shoot because diplomacy efforts are real.

Rudy Giuliani likes privatization and tax cuts for the upper crust so as to starve your government and your social programs.

I hope Obama knows what he's doing. As of now, he is still one of the electable Democrats being paraded on these debate stages. Hillary is far from a done deal.

Republican "We're going to screw you."

Democrat "We're going to pretend to be on your side, but we're going to screw you."

"Clinton and 29 other senators wrote to Bush Thursday to tell him he has no congressional authority for war with Iran."

A letter was sent. . .
yawn
However, the money for supplying weapons for murdering Iraqi people has been approved over and over.
Priorities: peace is the numero uno cause, then issues of domestic social justice; the environment, then health care, then . . . . .
compromise? when does compromise cross over to compliance with the evil of fascism?

All Obama is saying is that the president needs the congress's support to go to war. He'll get it. Obama has called for missile strikes on Iran several times. You all who claim those of us who know who the "democrats" are need to read need to do your damn homework. This all didn't start yesterday.

Ask 6 million uninsured kids whether or not the difference is significant.

Dear Dem Party apologists,

The argument is NOT that there is "no difference." There is a "difference" -- just as there is a difference between a bank robber, & the guy who drives his getaway car. There is a "difference," just as there was a difference between the Nazis who occupied France, & their Vichy French collaborators.

All knowledgeable observers are well aware that there is a big "difference" in the ways that the two parties posture before the public. The Democrats posture dishonestly as opponents of Bush -- while supporting all his key initiatives. They posture falsely as "antiwar" while supporting every funding bill.

The Republicans, on the other hand, do not posture in exactly this way -- they make appeals tailored specifically for their own base. These difference in pandering styles, and in false posturing, account for the appearance of "differences" between the parties.

After all, a wolf in sheep's clothing is "different" than a wolf, right? The real question is whether the differences are meaningful -- not merely whether there are observable "differences."

There is a difference between the parties. Just a matter of a few degrees, you understand. But in those few degrees lie the fates of millions.

Nice to see Obams trying to undo what the Senate hath wrought. Too little, too late, but at least it's something. My heart and my vote are still with Kucinich, UFO be damned.

There is a very big difference between the Republicans and Democrates - give me a break - read.

Oh, come on, Obomber is a Dummycrat. There is absolutely no difference between a Dummycrat and Rudy Guliani. Everybody knows that. All you guys know that. Don't you? Come on, don't be shy.

An old friend and mentor used to say: "There is always a way". There are ways to settle all the differences of opinion here and make everybody happy so we can fight the beast and win as we must. We have choices:

1. Unite with the Democrats

2. Unite in a third party

3. Unite as independents

"Unite" is the operative word. There is lots of common ground we can highlight, in spite of partisan shills that will frequent this site to try to divide us.

One common interest is the environmental issues that affects everyone regardless of class, race, or party affiliation. Global warming is at the forefront of these issues. Most other problems like oil wars, plagues like the bird flu with over 60% mortality, illegal immigration, crime, pollution, overpopulation, extreme wealth and power concentration, resource depletion, species extinctions and so on stem from global warming or are the result of it. To stop global warming, we have to address all the others. That makes global warming the best issue to gather around.

We don't have much time left to develop a strategy and to get behind a candidate. I like Earthian's plan and would support it.

It's cathartic to vent our anger here and helps us to recognize the problems. However, we need to act.