Sad but true: Democrats and the War

[wiggs]

Regretably, this is what I believe about most of our dem leaders. There are too many examples of rolling over and benign neglect of issues for me to believe that our dems in congress, as a group, are representing us. Nothing new for a lot of us I think, but well put in the linked article and worth a save.

In this important battle, it is good to understand who's team you're on.


Entire August 31 article at Counterpunch: http://counterpunch.org/walsh08312005.html

The Democrats and the War

By JOHN WALSH

Standard fare in the mainstream media as well as in both Left and Libertarian blogs, web sites and magazines, is that the Democrats are spineless. But this view simply does not fit the facts, and it is dangerous to boot, because it leads us to underestimate one of our most sinister and cynical pro-war adversaries, the Democratic Party establishment. For, if left to their own devices, the Dems will do what Kucinich warned of and substitute a Democratic for a Republican version of the war on Iraq.

snip

No, the idea of the spineless but virtuous Democrat does not hold up. The real reason has to be that the Dems do not give a damn about the electorate. The Dem establishment must in fact favor the war. And the reason is not hard to find. They play to the same real but hidden constituencies as the Republicans ­ the oil tycoons, AIPAC, the barons of the military industrial complex and those who make their fortunes from empire, ranging from the banks to Bechtel. This is their class and if one of the pols dares play traitor to his class, he or she will soon be an outcast. Ask Ted Kennedy. When Kennedy called for immediate withdrawal from Iraq last January, he was virtually denounced by the rest of the Dem leadership. And although the media is afflicted with many and mortal problems, do not tell me that the media makes it impossible for the Dems to take a strong anti-war position. When Kennedy did so, it was all over the media from the front pages of the dailies to the Sunday morning TV talk shows.


The Dems know full well there is an enormous anti-war constituency out there. If they used their considerable resources to organize it and give voice to it, then it would quickly prevail. A sorry example is Cindy Sheehan's effort. Not a single major Democrat has shown up at Camp Casey. They are blowing off Sheehan just like Bush

end excerpt

[1democracy]

1. Without Democratic leaders who are unafraid

to stand up and denounce the war and the myriad of things wrong with this administration, we could lose to Republicans who turn on *ush themselves, and the Repugs thereby keep control of the Congress and WH.

We absolutely have to have Democratic leadership and NOW!-- or we could get another Repug who presents better to the public ( would take public longer to see through his lies) but exactly the same agenda.

We need a Truth speaker right now.

[applegrove]

2. I think Dems gave Cindy some room to be herself. If they showed up

it would have been easier for Bush & co. to shoot her down. I don't think any Democrat anywhere would argue with Cindy that the costs of war should not be hidden, nor the reasons why such decisions are made.

As someone who hated Saddam and believes that repetitive genocidals should be dethroned wherever they are.. I fell for Powell's speech (just like Powell did). I think Dem leadership are as afraid as I am about Israel not making it. I think they are afraid as I am about Islamists turning their tactics at building one single huge Islamic state from the Atlantic to the pacific. They are afraid of nuclear proliferation. There are bad things that happen in the world. The problem for such Liberals is that all you can do is criticize the unconscionable lies that led up to the war,the kool-aid, the horrid war planning et al - because you want the boys home - but in months - when Iraq has a chance. Otherwise we will be back there again in a few years. And this time the bin-Ladens of the world will have had twenty years to prepare..rather than the 5 they had on 9/11.

I may be playing the devil's advocate.. but I'd much rather see a Constitution that says some form of Islam & gender rights than Sharia Law all the way around. Thailand, the Philippines, Indonesia..thankfully the mass of these countries will have none of it. But within the middle east..there is the power through oil and the money through oil for people to dream big dreams and make things happen. And a huge Sharia country would be a nightmare for women than would not be penetrable until Oil runs out completely. And you can bet that if the Islamists in the Middle East get any stronger or join up..they will have the bomb. As some do Pakistan - Israel. And trying to find detente with religious fanatics will not be nearly as easy as it was with the Soviets. And that wasn't a cakewalk.

The neocons were awful in not seeing the danger of this - and putting off democratic reform in the Middle East twenty years ago. Or even 40 years ago. For all the West's thirst for OIl & Oil money. We are where we are. And though I do not belive Bush's plan was to form democracy in the middle east alone - it is a worthy outcome. I'd be very afraid to cut today from Iraq until their 200,000 troops have a year's training and there isn't some constitution peaceful people could opt for. I also hope Bush buys off the Sunnis. I really do.

[Kenneth ken]

3. nice

and does a decent explanation of why I haven't been around here much lately.

After he won the nomination, I became a reluctant Kerry supporter and voter. I tried to be enthusiastic on the basis of his campaign adopting the Springsteen song "No Retreat No Surrender" and hoped that if/when the election was stolen he would at least fight to bring the theft to light. I should have remembered the Kinks - (it's only) "Jukebox Music."

I spend too much time here and get sucked in to the delusion that left-right politics matters, when I know in my heart the only war worth fighting is the class war, and that corporate funded politicians are firmly aligned with the wealth class of which I am not a member.

[wli]

4. sad but true

There are only a handful of Dems that actually act as representatives of the people.