Parent of 9/11 victim: "...the Democratic Party is completely useless."

[Karmadillo]

Who will get more coverage? The parent quoted below or the parent of Natalee in Aruba? Who should get more coverage?

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/aug2005/911-a13.shtml

Four terrorists were known to military in 2000
September 11 victims’ relatives speak out on suppressed intelligence

<edit>

“If you follow the trail it’s easy to figure out that the government played a role. Cynthia McKinney has been saying this and they treat her in Washington like she is some sort of conspiracy nut.

“But you have to ask: why has there never been a proper investigation?

“<Vice-chairman of the 9/11 commission and former Indiana congressman> Lee Hamilton told us that even if he knew what was in the 28 redacted pages of the commission’s report, he would not tell us because of national security. Well, Hamilton was involved in Iran Contra and many of those people, including President Bush , should have gone to jail.

“Throughout all of this the Democratic Party is completely useless.

<edit>

“When people ask me how I can believe that the government was involved in September 11, I ask them why wouldn’t they believe that the government is involved? You can go all the way back to the Mexican War, to see that they operate by creating provocations, allowing them to carry out secret agendas.

more...

[BlueEyedSon]

1. The corollary is that the 'pubs DID 9/11

[tlsmith1963]

14. What's Scary...

...is that all the things about 9/11 that make no sense start to make sense when you assume that the neocons were behind it all. And I am not someone who usually believes in conspiracy theories. I think they hired al Qaeda to do it so they could establish a neocon dictatorship here & eventually take over the world. What they don't seem to realize is that everyone who has ever tried to take over the world has failed. You'd think that people would get it by now. I guess being power hungry makes you stupid.

Tammy

[Missy M]

2. The people of this country refuse to accept our government...

being involved in all the dirty deeds they perpetrate. Until the people start waking up to that fact it will continue. They could not get away with it if we did not allow it.

[indepat]

27. But we the people, the Congress, the Supreme Court and the MSM allowed it

[opihimoimoi]

3. Useless??? WTF? Are you saying Vote Red , that they will solve it?

[Karmadillo]

5. The parent who called the Party useless is referring to its role in the

9/11 investigation. Since it was allowed to happen under a Republican administration, I doubt he would encourage voters to continue supporting them. He would, I'm guessing, ask people to consider why the Democrats are so passive on the issue (as they are so passive on a number of other issues--global warming, rising gas prices, the debacle in Iraq).

[opihimoimoi]

6. Sorry, but he has a poor choice of words if he wants the Dems more

fired up. We cannot blame our leaders in the Dem Party. They represent US. It is the rank and file of the Dem Party to come together and find ways towards more success. We need a Democratic Pow wow.....

[soothsayer]

7. Wha? Yes we CAN blame them! But maybe expecting politicians

to be much more than sell-outs in a backslapping buddy buddy brotherhood is really naive. (Ok, maybe not every single one of 'em, but most.)

Ok, it's our fault too for not demanding/electing better, but jeezus I always feel like we're getting shafted by these folks.

[opihimoimoi]

10. Ita all about math: Smart voting = smart politicians=smart decisions=

better results=better lifestyles=contentment, fun, safety, richness, art, sports, efficiency, improvements, = more happiness......

[Al-CIAda]

13. Like Tim Roemer? Hamilton? (members of the Whitewash cOmission)The DLC?

Pfffffft...

Why haven't the Dems even exposed the PNAC?

[wli]

17. it's because they're afraid of ending up like Senator Wellstone

[katsy]

8. Hang on a minute...

Don't shoot the messenger.

Here's a snip from an article now posted in LBN:

<<<<

WP: Democrats Conflicted on Playing Rough
Lack of Support for Roberts Ad Raises Question of Tactics

By Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, August 13, 2005; Page A04


The decision by the abortion rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America to pull an incendiary ad attacking President Bush's nominee to the Supreme Court has produced a fresh round of recriminations within the Democratic Party and a return to a nagging question: Has the opposition lost its nerve?

When conservatives complained about the ad -- which suggested that nominee John G. Roberts Jr. condoned violence against abortion clinics -- a number of prominent liberals joined in the criticism and elected Democrats ran for cover rather than defend the ad, which was dropped. >>>>

[Karmadillo]

9. Thanks for posting. The Dems don't seem very conflicted, though.

They seem to have made up their minds not to fight on a number of fronts.

[katsy]

11. Not fighting is a strategy that worked in the Schiavo circus...

but that was unique and effective. Will it be memorable in the minds of voters next election? Who knows.

The problem as I see it is that every event is "strategized" by politicians. People want representation and expect honesty. Politicians strategize. The only interests being served here are those of the ones with the power and the ones who want that power... politicians. Voters count only at election time and that has soured them on both parties.

It's a vicious circle. I'm convinced the majority of Americans know the gop sucks. They just weren't convinced that the gop sucks a whole lot more than the Dems during the last election.

Take a look at events surrounding every unethical or criminal act committed by this administration. Was the Dem response heartfelt and honest... a carefully contrived, strategic power play... or taking cover?

Conyers and his small band of Democratic leaders seem to be the only one tackling some of the scandals surrounding this administration. Why? Without the party united behind them, they are painted as disgruntled losers instead of the conscientious lawmakers they really are.

Anyway... I feel for the parents and loved ones of 9/11 victims and for the people who lost family members in the service when they accuse one party of criminal actions and the other of complicity or at best being "useless".

Maybe we should examine why it's the families of 9/11 victims and a mom taking a stand in Crawford are the ones trying to keep these vital events out front and center even as our reps are nowhere to be seen. It would have been nice if the 38 lawmakers who wrote to * asking him to meet with Cindy were standing there right behind her. It would be nice if the Dem leadership held public meetings addressing the concerns of these relatives of 9/11 victims.

I don't know who the Dems are trying NOT to piss off by taking no stand on important issues. Maybe they should be out there pissing everyone off by publicizing the heinous actions of the * adminstration instead.

[Karmadillo]

18. Your post is very insightful.

I think you pretty much have it right. As much as I like to project all sorts of progressive intentions on the Democrats, I'm not so sure these days they're really all that interested, the Party taken as a whole, in being progressive. It's bad enough they leave easy issues like gas prices on the table, but it's really, really bad they leave life and death issues like climate change and the war in Iraq on the table.

Someone posted something the other day by Jim McGovern that noted you can't build a movement by showing up every four years and asking for support. You have to work at it full time. The Democrats, for better or worse, aren't working at it full time. As you note, people are aware the gop isn't the best thing in the world for the country, but there's not much reason to believe the Democrats would be substantially better (of course, Bush et al are so bad, the Democrats would be substantially better, but they sure aren't out there making the case).

[katsy]

19. It depresses me Karmadillo.

IMO, if a total gop screwup translates into a Democratic Party (DP) win... we've gained NOTHING. The DP can't possibly believe they will be a viable force in politics simply because voters have a love/hate relationship with the gop at any given moment in time.

For instance, let's say the country is fed up enough with * in 2006 to give the gop a major spanking. Instead we lose 5 to 15 seats in the House. They hate bush... and we lose seats. Why?

Okay, I haven't given you much info here about why this may happen and you know what? If it does happen, the DP won't have a goddamned clue any more than you do as to why this happened but they'll automatically attribute it to not being even further right of the center than they are. Not one of them will have a clue as to why and they'll do is let gop talking points delivered via MSM guide their agenda.

This happens time and again because, as much as I hate to think it, the DP covets power as much as the gop. It's always style above substance.

The 5+ seat loss I fear in 2006 relates to the NAFTA vote. Let's hope voters either have a short memory or full pocketbook. Even if *'s poll numbers are really bad at that time, voters aren't going to the polls to vote for president.

And then just when I've given up hope... someone like Paul Hackett comes along, speaks their mind and upsets the status quo by his stronger than expected showing in a gop stronghold.

Hackett is a breath of fresh air in an extremely jaded political arena.

More than any other factor, Hackett's accomplishment may be signaling a need for reasonable term limits for Congressional reps.

[Erika]

20. The GOP are thirsting for complete control

The Dems want balance.

[katsy]

22. And Americans want representation.

[Erika]

23. Bush and his Bushbots don't want any other voices to be heard

Reminds me of King George subjects.

[katsy]

24. Erika, everything you state is a fact.

It does not however address my concerns.

Just look at the number of eligible voters vs. the number of people who vote.

People do feel disenfranchised. The difference between the 2 parties is blurred.

Why did NAFTA pass? People expected the gop to sell out on this. I doubt they'll get spanked too badly for it. Who would have expected 15 Dems to sell out? I didn't.

Why didn't the Dems vote en masse against the Bankruptcy Act?

On what bloody street corners are the Democrats standing and screaming against policies that help employers outsource jobs to china?

Why is Cindy camping out in the texas heat without even ONE Democratic rep out there standing by her? Thanks for the letter of support... but it would have been nice if these leaders (and I commend them for taking the 1st step) stood out there with her. It's not like they are in session right now.

Why didn't EVERY DEM show up for Conyer's DSM hearing?

There were Dems on the intel committee... why weren't they screaming bloody murder en masse at the fudging of facts.

WHY? Because they're too polite? Jaded?

I remember during the Clinton Presidency, Dems would gather on the steps of the Congress and bitch their little hearts out about various issues. Now we get press releases. Not good enough.

[Karmadillo]

25. Pretty persuasive when you put it that way.

What I can't figure out is the why. Do they really think not fighting is going to lead to eventual victory? If things do go to hell under the Republicans, it's much more likely people will turn to the man on horseback than to the party that chose to alternate between complicity and silence.

[katsy]

28. I don't know.

Maybe getting out around their constituents more, and with lobbyists less would help.

And I don't know if these guys actually hire "image" consultants... but if they do, they should fire them immediately. FIRE the phoneys. They are foolish and make you look stupid. Speak your own mind or STFU.

The DP should take heed of this piece of wisdom you put forth:

"If things do go to hell under the Republicans, it's much more likely people will turn to the man on horseback than to the party that chose to alternate between complicity and silence."

[rman]

36. why: conflict of interest

in the Dem party is almost as pervasive as in the Repub party.

I think Ted Kennedy is correct when he says 95% of Repubs and 75% of Dems are corrupt.
And apparently many Dem officials think they can get by with just keeping up appearances. It's kindof like a bad cop/good cop setup; whichever side you choose, the result is the same.

[Jacobin]

4. Not true at all!!!

It's only "almost completely useless"

[Al-CIAda]

16. He stands corrected. nt

[gulfcoastliberal]

12. Agreed NT

[lateo]

15. And they are correct.

The Dems are letting Bush Co. get away with all their crimes.

[Erika]

21. No the GOP are letting Bushco get away with crimes

and applauding.

[rman]

35. most Dem officials do practically the same

perhaps applauding, for the most part

[AngryWhiteLiberal]

26. Democrats interested in self-preservation above national interest/tyrrany

There are useless Democrats...the majority of whom are in the higher eschelons of power and appear regularly on the MSM as "taking heads."

Then, there are useful Democrats...the majority of whom are forced to meet ad hoc in the basement of the Congress or to apologize on the Senate floor for making truthful statements about our current coup de etat.

JB

[Al-CIAda]

29. .

[Al-CIAda]

30. .

[Al-CIAda]

31. .

[rman]

32. A few party officials are usefull, most are not.

And indeed the Party as such is not.

[Al-CIAda]

33. .

[Al-CIAda]

34. .