The democrats stand on principle.
Just thought i would throw in a little levity.

We own Iraq Mr.Patrick? The only thing we, and you, own is an oversized ego, and a reputation as a murderer.

I am going to risk another blast -

I have been wrong in accusing kernel and DD - the reality graspers - of being allied with the administration and stirring up _____ like swiftboaters.

mea culpa

I had a dream last night and realized kernel and DD - the reality graspers - are really allied with the Democratic National Committee and stirring up _____ like swiftboaters.

Any intelligent progressive leader in Congress can be compared to a man wrongfully confined in a prison who needs to escape to save his family. If he just makes a mad dash for the fence, in broad daylight, he will be gunned down like a diseased dog, by AIPAC, the MIC, the corporate media, and the rest of the usual suspects. Stealth, secrecy, planning, and cleverness are absolutely essential. The difficult part for the voters is accurately guessing what the intentions of the member of Congress really are.

It's hard for me to be optimistic about Hillary and Obama getting us out of Iraq. I watched the debate last night and both of these individuals want to keep a residual force, so they are both being a fraud on that issue. Obama and Hillary and even hinted that after the withdrawal they would go back in if Iraq "disintegrates". I seriously thought about holding my nose and voting for Obama (should he win), but he and his supprters are doing everything they can to drive me away from him and into the arms of Ralph Nader. Obama's pathetic repudiation of Farrakhan (who was generous and gracious enough to support Obama) was sickening. Farrakhan deserved much better than that. Also, Obama's pathetic pussywhipped response to Hillary's "you don't support Israel and Jewish Americans enough" was more than I can take. Democrats can't expect to bully me and piss me off and then expect my vote. It doesn't work like that! The audacity of hopelessness.

It would take courage for the Dems to stop the funding, but that doesn't make it the hardest thing to do, only the right thing to do. History will judge the actions and votes of Congress and the American people that agreed with or completely ignored them, but most will be dead before the reckoning. History can't hurt the dead. Some will be held accountable by the public or by themselves; witness Robert McNamana regarding his decisions during the Viet Nam conflict.

The underlying reason that there hasn't been a de-funding of this occcupation, an investigation into who, what, where, when, and why or our invasion, and taking impeachment "off the table" is a matter of culpability. No matter what the members of Congress say, they are, in the end, nearly as culpable as the neo-cons that intimidated, lied, manipulated, coerced, and bullied anyone and everything during the lead-up. Were an impeachment proceeding to take place, the complicity would be unveiled to the world. No member of Congress wants to have it aired that they were either duped, ignorant, or complicit.

The Constitution references "Impeachment" six times, but doesn't mention God once, except to mandate no state sponsored religion, and the right to free exercise of religion. Failure to initiate impeachment proceedings is, in my opinion, a greater betrayal of the public trust than the complicity to go to war in Iraq.

The American citizens must be better educated to the cost of this illegal occupation of Iraq. It has to be framed in choices. My friends at The American Friends Service Committee have a few alternatives suggestions for the anoumt of money spent in Iraq each day as follows:(mind you this is the cost of ONE day in Iraq); 95,364 Head Start places for children, or 84 new elementary schools, or 1,274,336 homes with renewable electricity. Maybe if put in terms like this and disseminated to the people, awareness and action would ensue.

Little if anything will change after the next presidential election no matter who is elected. Colin Powell advised Bush that if he invaded Iraq, we would own it and Powell was correct. We own it and Iraq is a white elephant that is going to bust our ass and bankrupt this country.

That is bad enough but in the process, we have destroyed a country and killed at least a million people and the killing will go on and the most innocent are the children. And for what? ___ Remember? ___ It was Saddam was behind 9-11, Saddam had purchased uranium from Africa, Saddam had WMDs and was a threat to world peace, it was for our National Security. No one in our government mentioned, it was all for control of Iraq's oil, until after all of those reasons were proven to be bogus.

Nothing of any substance will change and we Americans will have our depression and will end up a third or even forth rate world power because of it. The best thing for us to do is to pull out the Mid-East now, totally pull out in utter shame with our tails tucked in. Forget the "Halliburton embassy" and let the Iraqis and the other Arab nations settle it.

That won't be pretty and it will be our fault for whatever transpires, but in the long run, it is the only correct option. We are damned if we do and damned if we don't. ___ More damned if we don't.

Anyone following the advice of Daniel David and Kernel will see eventually that it is like a car spinning its wheels and going nowhere, which must be what they are trying to accomplish here.*
_____________________________________________

*Fixed the typos. RichM, as always, pretty much superbly covered the rest.

"We're lost-- but we're making good time!"

DD:

To "make policy changes that stick" you have to fight. In office or out of office. Unceasingly. Dennis and Al, Ralph and Ed (Garvey), you and I. After Reagan and Bush Sr., getting Clinton was no "win." All the commenters here alluding to the behind-the-curtain power structures or veiled progressivism (or for that matter, veiled centrism) are spot-on correct. There is no "win." There is no spoon. You have to fight.

And this is what Kevin Martin is saying. True, what will change things, what will propel our country closer to what you might consider a "win" is a change of mindset, on a national scale. But while a person may be smart, stalwart, and principled, people are generally stupid, spineless, and unprincipled. This is exactly why leadership is needed. Voting for a president won't end the war. Pressuring existing politicians will end the war.

And electing someone to lead when they have demonstrated their unwillingness to do so and continue to do so is idiotic. Even with McCain in the White House, Senators have the power "to make policy changes that stick." If they only choose to fight. And if they don't, I damned well hope Cindy Sheehan provides a poignant lesson on what fate awaits them. Reminisce about what life was like in America 8 years ago for your own short-course on what fate befell us for having chosen not to fight.

You have to fight. There is no win, only the fight. Suck it up, and let's add our voices to Kevin's and tell Clinton and Obama to fight.

The only people that don't "get it" are those who think that the three corporate candidates are going to end the war. Obama and Clinton plans include "draw downs" NOT pull outs. Obama as well as Clinton have taken huge campaign 'investments' from the military establishment and contractors. These people expect a pay back on their investments by way of favorable legislation and maintaining at all costs a perpetual war machine. When are the sheeple voting for these pond scum going to wake up? Any time in the next century? Or are they waiting for the last polar ice cap to melt.

Effect policy change: my ass!

What a fine thing it is to begin the day with a hot cup of coffee and a little hilarity, this morning from the commondreams commentary:

Kernel February 27th, 2008 12:55 am
"DD and myself are just as unhappy as any here about the disaster our country has become, but there is a big difference in trying to actually help the situation and just throwing slop at everyone in general with no plan except more slop."

The writer obviously expects readers to forget that in the immediate prior paragraph he attacked RichM's motive while addressing none of RichM's arguments. That's zero, zip, nada.

Further, to this writer, "helping" the situation cannot include actually doing anything about it. To this writer, a whole host of disasters are necessarily subservient to the cause of electing someone who has helped it to happen.

He calls that "sensible."

I could laugh if only people's lives and well-being weren't being sacrificed for such imbecilic umbrage.

White phosphorus burns off skin down to the bone. The good ol' USA dropped it on the city of Fallujah. I suppose we should examine the morality of such an act in terms of electoral advantage to Democrats. Right?

Having watched only a brief segment (as much as I could stomach) of last nights "debate" between Obama and Clinton, it seemed pretty clear that there was very little difference between them. I still favor Obama as the candidate but I can't say I'll vote for him. I wouldn't be surprised if he chose Leiberman as a running mate. I wouldn't be surprised if McCain chose Leiberman either.

Kevin Martin, on the odd chance that you'd see this, please grab any argumentation textbook and look up "wishful thinking."

Your article builds to a crescendo of exhorting Senators to get their act together.
The horrible truth is that indeed they have.

DD is the reason why I vote for Nader. Whether he is a neocon plant or not, doesn't matter. He helps the neocons win by never standing up for principles.

And the neocons win whether McCain, Obama or Hillary get elected.

Nader never said there is no difference between the democrats and the republicans. He said that the only difference between the two is the speed to which they drop to their knees to corporate America.

I'd rather vote for what I want and not get it, than vote for what I don't want and get it. ~ Eugene Debs

Kernel February 27th, 2008 12:55 am

"Anyone following the advice of Rich M will see eventually that it is like a car spinning its wheels and going nowhere, which must be what he is trying to accomplish here."

Two cars are traveling down a highway that ends in a 3000 ft. sheer drop off. The first car, the R car is going 75MPH, the second car, the D car is going 65MPH. Both cars drive off the cliff and fall to the bottom. Which car got there first?

Answer: It doesn't make a damn bit of difference. They both ended up in the same place. What was needed was a third car, a TP car that would apply the brakes and/or change direction.

"Of course the Dems should have impeached Bushco, but remember we have had 7 years of the worst dictatorship in the nations history plus 9-11 to make it possible for them. I seriously doubt any of the other parties or candidates would have done any better under the circumstances."

On the sixth year Democrats were elected to the majority to do something about that dictatorship. They have done nothing.

The definition of insanity is to keep repeating the same actions, voting Democrat or Republican, over and over again while each time expecting different results.

Lobo Gris

RichM February 26th, 2008 11:55 pm

Great posts RichM!!

Lobo Gris

Yes, the two, Obama and Clinton have said that if they are elected president, then they'll maintain the criminally established US embassy in Iraq.

So forget any ideas about them planning on really stopping the war; it is not going to happen for as long as US forces are present there and the US maintains its puppet regime govt there. And the puppet regime is NOT going to stop if the embassy is not terminated in terms of supposedly belonging to the US, which the embassy does not; it's a totally illegal embassy, so there is no way that the US can legitimately hold onto this.

It's not the politicians of the US govt who are the deciders, but the real and hidden ruling elites, who are. And it's been this way for a LONG time, including long before Cheney and Bush hijacked the presidency.

David Lindorff well stated that Obama will most surely fold to the hidden ruling elites unless his voters, ideally all U.S. voters, strongly enough applies and maintains pressure on him to not fold, but it's awfully unlikely that this will happen in a country with a culture as hellbent sick and undereducated as the USA. The so-called anti-war movement is a strong example of how screwed up most "Americans" are; these groups are biased, the biases have been exposed, while the groups of course did not intend this to happen.

They can't even be anti-war in more or better than half-assed fashion, so I definitely will not hold hope that "Americans" will be united enough and in ways that will be needed, to pressure Obama as he will need to be, if he's elected president.

There's no point in mentioning Clinton, for she should have never been elected to the Senate to begin with; it was already clear that she was anti-US workers, and pro-war en masse, throughout Billy's two terms. And she's been pretty much nothing but her hypocrite self throughout her senate years. She's not changing colours anytime soon.

But Obama's opportunist, only maybe voters could succeed in getting him to not fold to the hidden rulers; if only voters were a bunch of half-assed, half-witted "people", some sort of bipedal living organism anyway.

I've spent much of my adult life working in and around the construction industry. There's always people that show up with a line of BS about their abilities, what they can do, or have done, blah blah blah. The first week (or day) the truth comes out. You either know your shit or you don't, you either follow through or you look like a fool, and everyone knows it. Bullshitters are thrown out on their lying asses immediately.

Politicians can make an entire career out of lying bullshit and can even convince others of their seemingly noble, but deceitful intentions.

So to all those Democrats with noble intentions, great, now grow some fu#king balls or get the hell out of here.

For a moment there, I thought the FCC chairman was dropping acid.

Hey, to Vietnam vets, check this out this little gem on McCain:

http://judicial-inc.biz/82jjohn_mccain_and_the_uss_forresta.htm

Anyone following the advice of Rich M will see eventually that it is like a car spinning its wheels and going nowhere, which must be what he is trying to accomplish here.

DD and myself are just as unhappy as any here about the disaster our country has become, but there is a big difference in trying to actually help the situation and just throwing slop at everyone in general with no plan except more slop.

Of course the Dems should have impeached Bushco, but remember we have had 7 years of the worst dictatorship in the nations history plus 9-11 to make it possible for them. I seriously doubt any of the other parties or candidates would have done any better under the circumstances.

My disdain is for the Repugs, who caused this mess in the first place, not for the Dems who could have done better or the sensible kind of Progressives who should not spend all of their efforts spewing hatred at Dems. Rich M is not included in the sensible group.

Kevin Martin thanks a million for speaking the truth.
"While George Bush, aided and abetted by a supine Congress"

Democrats are unbelievable. Over a year after the Democrats took control of both houses of congress for the first time since 1994 the war continues without so much as skipping a beat. There is now even talk about having more troops in Iraq than before the surge. We now know the surge isn't temporary. We have spent trillions and lost thousands of troops and killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis most of whom are innocent civilians guilty of no more than simply being there.

Throughout the entire grotesque affair Bush/Cheny have arrogantly pursued their blood thirsty campaign with the active assistance of the erstwhile "opposition party" the Democrats. Bush has been able to get his way on every issue as if the Democrats had never won back both houses of congress because of their cowardice and complicity in the war. The Democratic Party has provided every dollar Bush has asked for and denied him nothing. The Democrats have confirmed every single nomination Bush has put up including that excuse of a human being Mukasey who thinks waterboading is not torture as long as it's done to someone else.

The Democrats lead by Pelosi have refused to impeach Bush and put an end to war because they would get exposed for having gone along with it the whole time. They have funded it when they didn't have to. Congress currently has all the power it needs given to it in the US Constitution in the form of the power of the purse. They could have cut off funding. This action requires only a simple majority in the House or Senate to block appoval of the annual appropriations bill. Without funding the government shuts down as happened in 1995-96 when the ballsy Republicans did it to Clinton when the Republicans controlled Congress. The Republicans have balls, the Democrats have no idea what a set of balls are.

Why can't the Democrats do it back to the Republicans and shut them down? To ask the question is to answer it. They are really both one party. The party of big-business, war and greed. The Democrats have morphed into Republicans and now there's hardly a dimes worth of difference between the two. It's hopeless to think putting a Democrat into the White House would change much of anything. Just go to Obama's website and see what he says about the war:

Obama's website: "He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda."

In other words, if elected, troops will remain in Iraq fighting and dying for imperialism and Big Oil. I am not even going to mention Hillary because she's even worse. It high time to dump the Dims and start building up third parties because the Democrats are hopeless, Obama or not. Go Greens or go anybody but the sell outs.

Let's extend the arguments of DD & Kernel to their next logical level.

We've all heard about the mortgage crisis now threatening to implode the world financial system. Without going into great detail, let's just say that this crisis is an immense CRIME, in the same way that Enron was. It's not an innocent error, it's not an "unfortunate problem that no one foresaw." Rather, it was the inevitable product of Wall Street swindlers, who made billions for themselves by "securitizing" debts that they knew full well couldn't possibly be repaid, & pawning them off on unsuspecting buyers all over the world. This process was specifically made possible by the whores of both parties who supported "financial deregulation." They all voted to remove almost all oversight on the big banks & other financial institutions, which had kept those institutions under a degree of control since the Depression.

So you might think that one thing that should happen, as a result of this crisis, is that the federal government should be cracking down on these Wall St swindlers. They should be sending people to jail. The feds should be more interested in protecting the rest of the world FROM Wall St, than in protecting Wall St itself from any effective oversight. They should openly acknowledge that deregulation was a huge mistake -- which directly led to such scandals as Enron, WorldCom, & the others; and now the mortgage fiasco. They should be moving to reverse this deregulation.

So, would the Democrats favor getting tough with Wall St? Conducting serious hearings into just what happened, with the serious possibility of putting Wall St big shots into prison?

By the theory of Kernel & DD, this would be "BAD" -- because, if the Dems did it, they might be criticized by the media, and might lose the election.

Therefore, we see the pattern of Democrat logic: stopping the war is BAD, because it might make the Dems lose. Impeaching Bush & Cheney is BAD, because it might make the Dems lose. Serious investigations of Wall St crimes is BAD, because it might make the Dems lose. Similarly, getting tough with the oil companies is -- you guessed it -- BAD, because it might make the Dems lose.

In sum, any action the Dems might take to rein in rampant corporatism, Republican crimes, or US militarism -- all of this is BAD, BAD, BAD!, because doing any of them might make the Dems lose. The best policy for the Dems, therefore, is to do precisely nothing -- which is exactly what they do.

Enough already what does it take to see that DD and KERNAL are neocon plants they walk like a duck they talk like a duck and they act like a duck ergo!
Thanks RichM for your comments.

Here's alittle story that should convine any of those dumb enough to follow the logic of DD and Kernal.

I come from a small town in ct , in the spring of 06 a group of us petitioned the selectman to convene a town forem to vote on an amendment to instigate an impeachment procedure of Bush and Cheney to be presented to our federaly elected officials to bring to the congress.the selectmen of the town were comprised of three menbers ,at the time there were 2 Democrats and 1 Republican,so the Democrats clearly had the votes to agree to our request,but they refused to go along with us.The Republicans tried to block us, but it was the Democrats that stabbed us in the back sighting the same concerns that DD and Kernal sighted ,elect Dems and things will change in DC,guess what nationally the Dems won and they preceded to stab us in the back, but the Dems of my small town L O S T !
and were they shocked !!!
the name of my small ct town is Washington,and as happened in CT it will happen in DC!

Another crock of shit article, Democrats have no intention of ending the war, never did, never will. Hitlery voted for the war, Obomber voted to fund it. Get a clue. Bush has so much dirt on Pelosi, Reid and Conyers through illegal wiretapping that he has them in his pocket for genetarions.

Democratic voters are the dumbest people of Earth and should be institutionalized for the good of America. VOTE NADER fools.

"So we see that in Democrat-La-La-land, doing good things is BAD, because it might endanger electing Democrats."

Damn, Orwell was a Democrat?!

C'mon RichM. Daniel David has a point.

He said that you need to WIN the government in order to make policies that stick. Well of course!

Problem is, of course(and this is where your "grip on reality" quote is quite funny), that no matter how many Dems we have, PROGRESSIVES still will not have "won" a damn thing!

I am sure there will be another Dem apologist out here soon, because they have yet to cut through RichM's ironclad analysis on a daily basis.

And the whole, doing anything GOOD is BAD for the Dems, is quite funny.

Rich M: Beautifully put.

JJOHNJJ: Keep at it. Even here the mind isn't focused on what is important, the war crime. Remind people, as often as possible. Tell everybody that what is most important is to stop the killing of Iraqis. Repeat the word criminal as often as possible. Maximum sentence by US law. Point that out. Do not give up. You don't get executed for lying about a blow job or a break-in. You are supposed to be executed for starting a war under false pretenses. That is the law. Tell everybody.

Let's examine today's Deep Thoughts from Arch-Democrat Daniel David (1:59), seconded by his fellow nitwit, Kernel (who makes the knee-slappingly hilarious claim at 2:58 that "It so happens that DD and myself have a grasp on reality...").

DD writes, "...here's another woefully mistaken author who thinks that if we can just get Obama and Clinton to suspend their campaigns....and behave just like Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul, that "the first to get there will become President in a landslide" and the war will be over....
Thankfully Obama has better sense to know that his own leading of a filibuster at this time would not only assure McCain's victory, but probably prolong the wars for years to come (as a result of McCain's victory)....
Why do progressives not "get it" that you must WIN the government before you are permitted to make policy changes that stick?..."

------------------------------------

In other words, DD explicitly OPPOSES any action by Democrats to end the war. As the article points out, the Dems could end the war any time they liked, if a mere 41 of their 51 Senators were determined to do so; or if Pelosi & a handful of others simply refused to bring to the House floor any bill appropriating more war funding.

But when seen through the eyes of a brainwashed Dem Party partisan, ending the war would be BAD, because it might endanger electing Democrats. (Actually, if done properly & courageously it would probably HELP elect Democrats, but let's leave that aside for the moment.) Similarly, DD has said he's OPPOSED to any action by Democrats to impeach Bush & Cheney -- also on the grounds that it might endanger electing Democrats.

So we see that in Democrat-La-La-land, doing good things is BAD, because it might endanger electing Democrats. What, then, might be the rationale for electing Democrats? Well, DD tells us that first "you must WIN the government before you are permitted to make policy changes that stick." So apparently, the idea is that FIRST the sly ol' Dems will pretend to be very "centrist" (ie, go along with absolutely everything that Republicans do, without resisting -- indeed, often by actively helping). That way, they'll fool the media & big-money backers into letting them win big in the elections! And then, as soon as they sweep the elections, WHAMMO!! They'll suddenly leap magically into action, end the war, put Bush and Cheney on trial, & start undoing all the horrible things they allowed to happen during the last 7 years, without so much as a peep of resistance.

You gotta admit, that would be one sneaky surprise, eh! Just lying low, pretending to be on totally board with every single Republican crime for years on end, faking out the media & donors -- then suddenly jumping to life again the day after the November election! Suddenly, no more torture, no more preemptive war, no more endless war, no more NSA eavesdropping, habeas corpus restored, we get univ. health care, etc. // Sounds great, no?

The only problem with this diabolically brilliant strategy is that no such thing has ever happened, can happen, or ever will happen. Naive liberals who don't know history have talked themselves for decades into believing such silly fantasies about the Democrats. (Famous last words, invariably preceding the inevitable betrayals: "We must at least give them a chance...")

The unpleasant truth is that the US is a deeply militarist, imperialist, & corporatist state. It has ALWAYS been that, since its inception. Its entire social structure & economic system requires that kind of macro behavior, which is facilitated by the two-party system, both of whose parties have been carefully shaped to ensure that this macro behavior continues undisturbed. Anyone who thinks that either of the 2 parties is going to seriously challenge the general trajectory of militarism-imperialism-corporatism is simply deluding him/herself.

This year, the election will be on Nov 4. Win or lose, the Democrats are going to be just as supportive of militarism, imperialism, & corporatism on Nov 5, as they are today, and as they were 30 and 40 years ago -- namely,100%. It can't be any other way. The system is designed to ensure that -- just as surely as the primaries have been designed to weed out the Kuciniches & Gravels immediately (because they had the best ideas), then Edwards (because he showed at least some dangerous sympathy for good ideas -- which is frowned upon in ruling class circles), leaving only the Washington-business-as-usual Hillary, and Obama, who has cleverly managed to avoid deeply offending any powerful corporatist or militarist elements -- at least so far.

Obama is not pulling out of Iraq. He is only calling for bringing out the combat troops. The other 80,000 and the all the independent contractors, another 150,000, will stay. And the bases. And all of our 725 military bases and installations around the world. And he's going to add more troops and more to the military budget and bring more heat on Afghanistan (and we don't belong there, either).
What change?

Frank is right,there is no war in Iraq. What we are witnessing is a war crime, the illegal invasion of a country that had not attacked us. The behavior after invasion is a second war crime. This is US law! The punishment is execution! Nurenmberg = US law! Of course, like the shrub says, the constitution is just a goddam pîece of paper.

Today, in Iraq, people will die that would not have died if the US had not invaded. The same was true yesterday and it will be tomorrow. Who cares, as the number one and only issue in the election is the welfare of Americans? Big raspberry to us all.

O beautiful, for spacious skies,
For rolling waves of pain,
For purple mountains' majesty,
Above the stolen plain...

America,America,
God shed his blood on thee,
And crowned thy good with a black hood,
for everyone to see....

I used to love this place,fuck.

Thank you bottle.

Those 1 million murdered Iraqis, that horribly criminal act by the US , is being forgotten as people worry about their homes and the price of gas. Americans seem to think any number of deaths "over there", are justified as long as it helps theiir bid for the World Obesity Title.

For a heavyweight version of the same pov
in this article, see the Noam Chomsky speech today at Democracy Now (and better,
print it out and otherwise circulate it).

I don't mean to be too critical of something with which I agree. The job of
the journalist here, however, is to make Obama and Hillary WINCE, to so embarrass them that they make Iraq once again the central issue of debate, just as it was in the midterm elections. It's not enough to cheer-lead.

Reporters should ask hard questions: How
many Iraqis are dead, how many have fled?
Why has there been less violence? Why won't politicians reflect popular sentiment in Iraq and the United States?
How is the situation any different from forty years ago when Arthur Schlesinger
decided to reject the 100,000 troops "surge" then? Why isn't Iraq the central issue? How did Lord Petraeus achieve his reputation? How has his accomplishment held up? Are you either
encuraged or silenced by the "good news" about Iraq? How do the principles of the Nuremberg Tribunal apply to Iraq? Why doesn't Michael Gordon care what the Iraqis think? How many times has terror
increased as a result of the invasion? Compare our situation in Iraq to that of the Russians in Chechnya (please). Who are the "unpeople"? What is the underlying assumption that makes this country so retarded when it comes to Iran and how would you change that? Why didn't
North Korea keep its end of the bargain we made with it? Why does none of this stuff get reported? What's in our Declaration of Principles (for Iraq) and why haven't you objected?

A filibuster is a great idea, and it's a really viable option. John "Straight Lies" McCain can kiss my booty. I wouldn't cross the street to see Richard Gere sex down his wife for big time money, but I might do it for big time money and use the money to support the restoration of democracy in the USA.

Kernel February 26th, 2008 2:58 pm

"It so happens that DD and myself have a grasp on reality..."

Follow those who are seeking the truth. Run from those who claim they have found it.

I wrote the following note to the Obama campaign:

If he showed the judgment to oppose the war before it began, then why has he voted to fund the war after it started? If he votes against funding the war now, or organizes a filibuster to refuse to allow the war funding to go on, then he will get my respect, my money, and my vote.

I urge others to do the same.

You are spot on. They have the power and they could use it and should use it.

What leadership is that! NONE!

It's time, way past time. I am glad you called them all on it.

Karita Hummer
Edwards Democrat

I could be wrong, but I think that Kevin makes a very valid point.

Either stand up for what's right or sit down!!!!

I have confidence that whoever leads the effort to defund the war would trigger a landslide of public support and literally cause a sweep of public offices in support.

I strongly feel that those of you who are preaching 'go along to get along' as a plan are not giving the citizenry enough credit for basic humanity. In fact, it seems as if you are guilty of using the same 'bait and switch' mentality tactics we are trying to end.

I think that people finally seeing the Congressional majority stand up and do the job they were elected to do would restore some credibility and hope to our process.

Who knows, there could be enough support to prevent Bush and/or his cronies from implementing Security Directive No. 51.

IMHO

There's a sense of injustice that fuels the anti-war movement. We feel that a crime has been committed and we can't understand why so many Americans don't share our outrage.

I'm afraid most of our fellow citizens feel that a mistake, not a crime, has been committed in Iraq. They don't want justice, they just want it to go away with the least amount of shame upon America.

Our elected leaders are responding to them...not to us. If you want more action from Congress, you have to start working on your own neighbors.

curmudgeon99: I think your disagreement with Kernel and Daniel David has nothing to do with ultimate results, but with TIMING. As Daniel wrote, "Why do progressives not "get it" that you must WIN the government before you are permitted to make policy changes that stick?" Looking reality in the eye, what Kevin Martin suggests here would be perfect fodder for McCain's campaign. It's not only WHAT we do, but WHEN we do it that matters.

Sometimes this is very painful, as in the case of the impeachments that most CDers (including me) are yearning to see, but won't; the Bushies were clever about boxing in the opposition by having so many troops in harm's way SO LONG AFTER the Iraq occupation began. The timing is wrong for impeachment too, despite how excruciating THAT is. My focus is on surviving the final year of this shameful administration, and working for a true Democratic sweep in November. Then we can do what's right, from a position of strength.

Well, Green Pat, I invite you to come read what I have to write over at OpEdNews.com. My name is Kevin Gosztola. I am a frequent publisher of articles. Check out my author's bio. You will see that I am on your side.

Your dissection of my words was good in that it showed that I chose specific words to show that I was in favor of the Green Party and in favor of the Democratic Party taking up issues the Green Party takes up because the Democratic Party refuses to touch them.

I think Hillary and Barack won't do what we Americans really want. But I really don't care. We should still tell them what we want.

Democracy requires citizen participation like that. If we are to just quit when we feel politicians won't do our bidding, than democracy in America will never become people-powered. It will always be corporate controlled.

It is almost impossible to have hope right now.
After five years of war and occupation it is more than a little tiresome to ask, again, that people of goodwill put themselves on the line once more to press our elected leaders to act now.
Nevertheless, this is the moment in which we must show the greatest possible resolve in rescuing the fundamental values of respect for life and dignity from those who offer empty promises leading to a downward spiral of militarism and domination. As Martin Luther King, Jr. said, "A time comes when silence is betrayal, and that time has come for us." So, if you're in DC next week, join your voice to another cry for peace on March 7 (http://olivebranchinterfaith.org/), and if you are there on the 19th, raise your voice yet again (http://www.unitedforpeace.org/index.php).
Our efforts may come to little immediately. Still, this is surely not a time to keep silent.

curmudgeon99,

The "life ring" is Obama winning the White House and the reigns of the American MIC. We ARE trying to grasp the life ring. The author wrote an article asking for Obama to get silly and lose. No thanks. It's a dumb idea, especially when we are all getting closer every day to actually winning.

Kernel,
I like to think most folks are trying to remain positive and keep hope alive in their comments and suggestions.

You may call what you say as reality, but it seems as if all you and DD do is throw cold water on others' attempts to grasp a possible life ring out of this 'fine mess' our country has become.

Methinks the person doth protest too much.

If the shoe fits...etc.

Please accept that at least I try to show I could be wrong. After all, being a curmudgeon is not always fun.
None of us has the ONLY 'grasp on reality' as you put it, in spite our egocentric biases.
It must be hard to always be the only one who knows the right answer with DD.

ccurmudgeon99__ Many times people that are up to no good purpose accuse others of what they themselves are doing and I believe you are a fine example of that. It is hard to remember when if ever you had a constructive thought as all you want to do is trash everyone as if that helps.

It so happens that DD and myself have a grasp on reality, which is all there really is to work with, and figure all of the dirty name calling with no idea of anything that will actually help the miserable situation is worse than a waste of time.

Chi1088 says, "A Clinton filibuster would kill Nader's candidacy instantly. It would kill the Green Party too, which is gnawing at the base of the Democratic party." This is total nonsence. First of course, is the fact that Clinton will not filibuster about anything. She is content with the Bush doctrine and her corporate funding. It is this position of the Billary that caused Nader to run.

The Green Party is not 'gnawing at the base of the Democratic party'. The Greens are attempting to open up the whole of the Democratic Party by urging loyal Democrats to remove their blinders and drop their long held belief that the Democratic party has the interests of the working people of this nation at their base. The base of the Democratic Party is made of corporate 'donations'. These bribes have purchased the Democratic party and our whole government to do the job assigned them by the Military Industrial Complex that Eisenhower warned us about.

Anybody who hasn't been locked in a closet for the past 16 months KNOWS exactly what Clinton, Obama and every other member of Congress and Senate are doing to end the occupation this year. Just look at their voting records !

thanks chi1088 for the thoughts.

Sometimes I think kernel and Daniel David are puppets and agents de provaceteur of the Bush administration to try to keep the negativity flowing.

For a real action beginning to gain ground, check
http://www.sickofitday.org/

We really, really have to cease referring to the ILLEGAL OCCUPATION of IRAQ as a "war." We're supposed to be progressive, we're supposed to be re-framing the issues, we're supposed to be spreading the truth.

The truth is this: the United States of America is NOT at WAR with any nation on Earth! The more WE call it what it is - an Illegal Occupation of an allied nation - the more Americans will be de-brainwashed.

How important is this?

"The foremost reason given by supporters of John McCain for why he should be president is that McCain is best qualified to lead the country during this "time of war."

Now imagine that ending with, "during this time of illegal occupation."

"Don't hold your breath", "Are you joking?", or "Not gonna happen" are all phrases used by Democrats, progressives, liberals, or just naturally good minded Americans these days. They have lost hope for change and many of these people have accepted Hillary's hope or Obama's "Change We Can Believe In." Not bothering to ask if that hope or change is good enough for the problems we face, they put energy into an election rather than putting energy into ending this war and impeaching Cheney.

Supporters of Hillary and Barack should be asking Hillary and Barack to filibuster. Indeed, the first to do such a thing would become president in November.

In fact, if Hillary wishes to trounce Obama, she will fight for impeachment now or filibuster legislation on the war in Iraq.

I applaud Kevin Martin for calling attention to what SHOULD be done. Instead of asking what COULD be done, he gives people a vision to fight for.

Wouldn't it be great to see Obama or Clinton redeem themselves and do something good for the American people?

For those fearing the wrath of Nader, an Obama filibuster or a Clinton filibuster would kill Nader's candidacy instantly. It would kill the Green Party too, which is gnawing at the base of the Democratic Party.

Step outside your shell Hillary and Barack supporters. Push your candidates to be something more than corporate Democrats!

And once again, here's another woefully mistaken author who thinks that if we can just get Obama and Clinton to suspend their campaigns, go back to "the well of the Senate" and behave just like Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul, that "the first to get there will become President in a landslide" and the war will be over.

Thankfully Obama has better sense to know that his own leading of a filibuster at this time would not only assure McCain's victory, but probably prolong the wars for years to come (as a result of McCain's victory).

Why do progressives not "get it" that you must WIN the government before you are permitted to make policy changes that stick? Dennis and Ron are acting as you'd like, but has anyone noticed they CANNOT actually get elected to make any real "Change"?

Obama's main accomplishment in life is in his present activity of consensus building in the electorate. Some, such as this author, would have him waste the whole darn thing is a moment of grandstanding. And for what? For voters to run to more Republicans?

In a recent online video entitled "Resisting the Drums of War" I offer a psychologist's perspective on how the Iraq war and occupation have been sold to us, and I suggest ways to counter warmongering appeals from Republicans and Democrats alike. The video is available for viewing HERE.

Kevin___You have some interesting points there and it would be great if that could happen. However as for stopping funding of the occupation, if we want to see a demonstration in Washington, that would probably do it. The people have been so hyped for 5 years about supporting the troops they would not stand for that even if they are against the occupation. As for the impeachment and removal from office of Bush and Cheney, tomorrow would be good, but don`t hold your breath waiting for it to take place.

Ah forget the elections... the results are in!
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/diebold_accidentally_leaks

I agree: stop the gravy train now!

You're joking, right? They've had over a year with majority control of both houses. They have been consciously choosing to fund the war. All they would have to do to end the war is NOTHING. And while they won't stand against the President, they take a stand against the people and actively vote to fund the war.
Expecting someone to change when they repeatedly have shown that they won't... that's crazy.