why aren't the Democrats making the Iraq contracts a HUGE issue? . . .

[OneBlueSky]

because it really is a HUGE issue, if only they would latch onto it . . . I mean, open ended, cost plus contracts to companies that are in bed with administration officials, from the VP on down? . . . that's bad enough, but the REAL question is, if we're serious about helping to rebuild Iraq, why aren't these contracts going to Iraqi firms, which would use Iraqi workers, and help re-build not only the country but it's economy as well? . . . given what Iraq looked like before the devastation, Iraqi workers are obviously quite capable of doing everything that Halliburton and Bechtel are doing, and at a fraction of the cost . . . so why aren't the Democrats asking, and loudly: "Why are you giving all of this money to your buddies instead of to Iraqi industries and Iraqi workers?" . . . jmho . . .

[tom_paine]

1. One certainly wonders...

Timidty? Fear? Right-Wing Sub-Media? Anthrax Letters? Small-Plane Crashes in Bushevik Trifectas?

To me, the motivation no longer really matters. What matters are the actions (or inactions).

Scandals hang from the Bushevik Royal Train like so many purpled threads, and yet the Democrats seem to fear from tugging on them.

Plus, with the Right-Wing Sub-Media having all but parasitized and bullied the Mainstream Media (Corporate TV Pravda) into Imperial submission, one wonders, even if the Democrats were bringing it up daily, who would show it without 5 Bushevik "impartial commentatros" to attack the individuals and sneeringly accuse of ulterior motives...

:puke: :puke:

Imperial Amerika is one ugly, Orwellian place...and these are the Good Old Days. Wait until the reigns of Emeperors Jeb, Ahnold, and George P. Caligula.

[chiburb]

2. From a thread in Editorials...

Companies awarded $8 billion in contracts to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan have been major campaign donors to President Bush, and their executives have had important political and military connections, according to a study released Thursday.

The study of more than 70 U.S. companies and individual contractors turned up more than $500,000 in donations to the president's 2000 campaign, more than they gave collectively to any other politician over the past dozen years.

The report was released by the Center for Public Integrity, a Washington-based research organization that produces investigative articles on special interests and ethics in government. Its staff includes journalists and researchers.

The Center concluded that most of the 10 largest contracts went to companies that employed former high-ranking government officials, or executives with close ties to members of Congress and even the agencies awarding their contracts.

On edit, link added: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=18823

[RichM]

3. Just as in their failure to contest the stolen election, or to demand a

real independent 9-11 investigation, or to pursue YellowcakeGate, etc -- the Democrats are only capable of offering a very limited type of criticism. They will NEVER forthrightly make a full-fledged accusation that the President of the United States is a liar, a gangster, & a criminal.

Why do they stop well before that crucial line? Because their highest priority is not really defeating Bush. It's making sure that instability in the ship of American capitalism is avoided, at all costs. They don't want to destabilize or disgrace the government. They don't want to destroy the public's belief in the legitimacy of our political system. They would rather be a permanent minority party & accept public humiliation, than do anything that might conceivably unleash a tidal wave of rejection of the current social order.

Similar to the phenomenon of banks or other corporations that are "too big to fail," the Democrats accept the idea that the President of the United States is an institution that's too big to fail. They would like to defeat Bush, of course -- but only in a way that doesn't threaten the overall stability of the system.

[el_gato]

9. you got it

go post RichM

of course the "system" is fucking rotten

[catzies]

12. A most perspicacious point, RichM!

I am enlightened, and depressed.

[Beetwasher]

20. Yup, that's why Clinton didn't pursue Poppy

When Clinton got into office the economic devastation Poppy caused was critical. Clinton could have pursued a criminal case against them, but he chose not to. Unfortunately, that only enboldened these scum. They know they can get away with it because if they are ever exposed the fallout would be worse than anyone can imagine...

[Malva Zebrina]

4. Dunno

Idealism is out? Don't want to hurt the feelings of their friends? Are too safe and ensconced to care about cronyism, which they most likely indulge in themself? Beats me--I don't recognize my party anymore. :shrug::shrug::shrug::shrug:

[ninkasi]

5. It's a huge mystery to me...

it seems as if this would scream for investigation, instead of being ignored. It's costing the taxpayers millions, and since Iraqi unemployment is an issue, it would help in that respect, too.

I expect to have my concerns ignored by Repukes, they being reptiles, and all, but I wish my own party would start acting more like they at least understood the concept of a spine, even if they don't seem to possess one anymore.

[OKNancy]

6. Wesley Clark is

Thread in P&C
I'll go see what more I can find

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=71864

-------
Press release from clark04.com
-----
For Immediate Release
Date: October 30, 2003

Clark Questions War-Related Windfall for Bush Backers; Calls for More Transparency
Little Rock - The Bush administration has awarded U.S. companies up to $8 billion in contracts for postwar work-and perhaps much more. These companies have given more than $500,000 to the presidential campaigns of George W. Bush, according to a study released today by the Center for Public Integrity. The General Accounting Office is currently conducting two separate probes into these contracts.

Yesterday, the Bush administration announced an extension of Halliburton's no-bid contract in Iraq, even though Halliburton has been accused of gouging American taxpayers with an inflated bill for emergency oil imports.

"It is time for more transparency and less cronyism," General Wesley Clark said. "American taxpayers deserve no less. Leadership is about making the best deal for the American people, not extending sweetheart deals for supporters."

[sangh0]

7. if only they would latch onto it ???

do you mean to say that all is lost unless we get help form the Dems?

If so, I disagree

PS - I do seem to remember all of the Dem candidates, and a number of other Dems, making an issue of this.

[0007]

8. Makes one think that perhaps

their money is invested in the money making war machines.

[Scott Lee]

18. Hardly surprising

I mean this is the same party whose "leader", Terry McAuliffe, thickheadedly brushed off criticism of his investments with "hey this is capitalism - if you don't like it, move to Cuba!"

And people wonder why the DLC is a laughable bunch of boobs.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

10. Democrats almost NEVER attack corporations and CEOs

Let's be honest, plenty of Dems are trying to get bribes, er, campaign contributions, from Halliburton. Plus, if they talk about "class" too much, they might get a reputation as "unelectable" since they take on the wealthy.

[TreasonousBastard]

11. Sure, it's a huge issue...

but to whom?

Seen a lot of letters to the editor about it?

Water cooler conversations about it?

Bar arguments over it?

Near as I can figure, most people out there just assume politicians have their fingers in the kitty, and just let it pass. They may not like it, "But what are you gonna do about it? That's just the way it is."

Candidates can't make issues as easily as they can address issues that people already told them they care about.

[sandnsea]

13. Why don't you know they are?

Sick, sick, sick of this shit. Pay attention. Go to the various web sites and read their speeches and press releases. Just because it isn't on CNN, doesn't mean they're not talking about it, and LOUDLY.

[Resistance Is Futile]

29. Getting the message out

If it's necessary to do research to find out what a party is saying, it isn't saying anything. The message must be delivered to the voters in force, not hidden where only the already-convinced might be able to find it.

If the media won't carry the message, then the party has an obligation to work around the media. Blaming the media doesn't cut it. The party is in control of its own destiny and is responsible for doing whatever it takes to get the message out.

[lovedems]

14. Because the dems are to busy bashing each other

in the hopes of winning that nomination. I strongly believe that once we have a candidate (a worthy candidate) all of these hundreds of issues will take the lead and Bushco. will have some 'splainin to do! Just look at his record (this is the second time I have posted this, it came in the form of an email from a friend of mine)


I attacked and took over two countries.

I spent the U.S. surplus and bankrupted the US
Treasury.

I shattered the record for the biggest annual
deficit in history (not easy!).
I set an economic record for the most personal
bankruptcies filed in any 12 month period.

I set all-time record for the biggest drop in the
history of the stock market.

I am the first president in decades to execute a
federal prisoner.

In my first year in office I set the all-time
record for most days on vacation by any president in
US history (tough to beat my dad's record, but I did).

After taking the entire month of August off for
vacation, I presided over the worst security failure
in US history.

I set the record for most campaign fund raising trips
by any president in US history.

In my first two years in office over 2 million
Americans lost their jobs.

I cut unemployment benefits for more out-of-work
Americans than any other president in US history.

I set the all-time record for most real estate
foreclosures in a 12-month period.

I appointed more convicted criminals to
administration positions than any president in US
history.

I set the record for the fewest press conferences
of any president, since the advent of TV.

I signed more laws and executive orders amending
the Constitution than any other US president in
history.

I presided over the biggest energy crises in US
history and refused to intervene when corruption was
revealed.

I cut health care benefits for war veterans.

I set the all-time record for most people worldwide to
simultaneously take to the streets to protest me (15
million people), shattering the record for protest
against any person in the history of mankind.

I dissolved more international treaties than any
president in US history.


Doesn't this look like the kind of guy you want for prez in 04? Lieberman looks like a prince compared to this!

[Bombtrack]

15. it's the focus of Edwards TV ads

go to his site and watch them

[tjdee]

22. But Edwards never gets ANY PRESS.

It's so frustrating, day after day with this.

Edwards HAS talked about the Iraq contracts. But he might as well be pissing it in the wind, because unless it's Dean or Clark saying it the press doesn't even bother.

Btw, Edwards' lead in SC is good and he's moved up to third in NH, the only one to move up (according to his people anyway) except Dean.
You think anyone notices this?

Of course not!

[sangh0]

16. Here you go

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=618707

[sangh0]

17. Another

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=191963

[TankLV]

19. We need another Harry Truman.

As I've said before.

This is a BIG issue.

BIG BIG BIG BIG BIG!

There's got to be some young/new democratic congressperson or senator that could use a career boost that should go after this bigtime.

Did I mention this issue is BIG?

[earthman dave]

21. They need those companies to be friendly when they get into office

[tjdee]

23. EDWARDS is!

But who cares about him, right? He voted for the war!

[eissa]

24. Why aren't the Democrats

making anything a huge issue? Geez, we have so much to work with here, and our leadership is totally spineless. They need to take a page out of the repuke's playbook; remember how they latched on to every little thing during Clinton's years and made an issue out of it? Bad real estate, blow jobs, travel. Here we are with a lousy economy (and I'm not buying that "upswing" bs), corporations in bed with the administration, an interational community that hates us, two wars with no end in sight, leakgate (and why aren't we demanding a special counsel on this?!), bannergate, you name it, and NOTHING!!! This is so frustrating :grr:

[leftofthedial]

25. when vast sums of money are involved

many people are corrupted absolutely.

[Woodstock]

26. Little Tommy Daschle says "Play Nice"!

Give your lunch money to the bullies, and they will leave us alone. The others follow his advice (with notable exceptions) and they are left alone, that's for sure.

That's what lost us 2002 and will lose us 2004. Which is why I want fresh blood like Dean or Clark to represent us. And the meaner they play, the better.

[zonmoy]

27. probably

because they are the puppets of the same cabal that controls the republicans.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

28. Why do you think Kerry and Edwards voted against the 87 billion?

Those 2 Dems know where to put leather to pavement. Sadly this is yet another example of their getting short shrift from the Deaniacs.