So Now Feingold and Obama are on the DU Sh*tlist?

[liberalpragmatist]

Let's ignore the question of whether or not the Democrats should consent to Condie. I have views on the issue as many others do and I'd rather not get into that here b/c that's a different discussion entirely.

However, can we at least agree that we don't have to agree with every action or view of every legislator? If we're upset with Obama or Feingold can we express our view reasonably instead of suddenly declaring them "DINO"'s.

I can understand some people being a bit upset at Obama b/c this is the first significant vote of his career. But can we please give him some time? Remember he represents the views of all his constituents, not just DU. And Feingold? Are we going to suddenly forget everything he's done right? To equate them with Zell is ridiculous.

I don't demand purity. If I only voted for someone who agreed with me on everything, there'd be only one guy I could vote ever vote for: myself. After all, I'm the only one who agrees with myself 100%.

[ailsagirl]

1. Feinstein?? Yes (she's my senator) Obama? No

I think he'll more than prove his worth. I'm certainly willing to give him a chance. He does NOT strike me as a person lacking in integrity.

Feinstein? Anyone catch Malloy last night?

[liberalpragmatist]

2. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc).

Not Feinstein. Actually to be honest I'm okay with Feinstein even though I have some major disagreements with her. However, I can understand some disappointment with her more than I can with Feingold.

[Zhade]

108. I'm not okay...

...with the way Feinstein's husband makes money off the war she voted for.

[Padraig18]

3. Of course they are, with some people here!

If a given Democratic senator voted to support a continuing resolution to fund governmental operations and Bush also favored said resolution, SOME dispshits here would call that senator a 'sellout', or worse. DU has its share of LW idiots who, in their own way, are just as idiotic as the RW idiots at that other website.

:eyes:

[Retired AF Dem]

16. Thank you

[Hippo_Tron]

129. Some of the complaints are legitimate, some aren't

I'm not one who bashes democratic senators too mcuh, as I've sort of gotten used to how truly truly terrible the reality of politics is.

[kamqute]

140. That's cruel

I agree with you, but they are not LW idiots. That suggests that somehow the mistakes can be traced to how far 'left' the people are. Rather, it is traced to how pissed they are. I will contend that the Dalai Lama is to the 'left' of Paul Krugman. But who is more in-your-face? That should be obvious. But at a more basic level, these 'LW idiots' are not nearly as stupid as 'RW idiots'--but judging only on this post, I would say you are guilty of a fair amount of oversimplification yourself--a form of idioitic behavior.

[Geek_Girl]

4. Overall I was happy with the questioning from the

Democrats and even some republicans. But I was disappointed in the overall vote. Obama and Feigngold are not on my poop list but I will remember this disappointment when it's time to vote in the primaries or donate to a campaign.

[RetroLounge]

5. Why can't people be unhappy with their votes

So many people are jumping for joy about Boxer and Kerry. Are people whining about them too?

If Boxer and KErry are the DEM superstars for voting no, then the others should be ready to take some heat for voting yes.

Can't have it both ways...

RL

[liberalpragmatist]

8. Disagreeing is fine - but calling then DINO's?!

That's overly harsh.

[TwilightZone]

6. It seems as though every Democrat alive is on the DU shit list

for one reason or another.

It's like a constant barrage. Every event is perceived as the end of the world and reason to have all Democrats drawn and quartered, regardless of the significance of the event and regardless of the accomplishments and prior actions of said Democrats.

Some of us appreciate Democratic politicians for the sum of their experiences; others look only at the latest perceived affront to their beliefs.

[Padraig18]

7. Thank you.

:thumbsup:

[sybylla]

17. No kidding

I've been avoiding this place lately (GD forums) as that seems to be the only attitude around here. I peek back in here and it still appears to be an issue.

So I guess I'm outa here until some sanity returns. I thought it would get better after the elections but it seems to have only gotten worse.

[DrGonzoLives]

28. Well said

Frankly, it's political naivete, and I think more than a few people saying those things are people who won't vote Democrat anyway (not infiltrators, Greens, predominantly) here to stir up shit.

[QC]

37. "Every event is perceived as the end of the world..."

Well, you know how it is: fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly, and drama queens gotta throw drama tantrums.

I honestly think that's it: some have gotten hooked on the high drama of weeping and wailing and gnashing teeth over the roll call vote on the motion to reconsider HRES 564487 and jumping up and declaring things like "I'll NEVER NEVER NEVER support the re-establishment of slavery" even though there's no chance of that and getting high-fived by all the other drama queens for making such a brave, noble stand, and staging tearful, melodramatic exits from the party two or three times a day, and so on.

I swear, Norma Desmond had nothing on these people.

[txaslftist]

74. Hear Hear!

[tishaLA]

89. It's infrequent--too infrequent--that a poster begins a post

with lyrics from Can't Help Lovin' Dat Man and finishes with a Sunset Boulevard flourish. I congratulate you on both counts. And the meat of your sandwich is quite fine indeed.

[ClassWarrior]

117. Don't think for one minute that the drama queens are true Progressives.

They're disruptors engaging in psy-ops, plain and simple. Trashing your own people is NOT a Progressive value.

NGU.

[Raskolnik]

144. Norma Desmond!

Well done, my friend. Well done.

People forget that this process is a marathon, not a sprint. I take that back. Its a marathon with a finish line that stays on the back of a moving truck. I take that back. Its a marathon with a finish line that stays on the back of a moving truck and your competitors are issued Vespas at the beginning.

[FromTheLeft]

64. The Problem in my Opinion

By the definition of politics in our world today the democrats are only slightly left of center, using a duel ended likert scale as below with 0 being the current state of each issue

-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

dems are probably a -1. Four years ago, and on a lot of issues today, the dems are simply fighting to keep things pretty much the same. On the other hand the reps are at a 3 or 4 on the other side. These are the majority of people who represent us, not nessecarily our individual views. Our government has a natural tendency to center itself, not on the scale above, but to those represenatives running our government. This would mean that our government is trending toward a 1 to 1 and 1/2 on the reps side. See republicans almost always vote "republican" because their views are so very different from the way our laws are today. Democrats on the other hand are forced to vote in opposition to their own party basically every time they are anywhere to the right on any issue. The Republicans have more wiggle room. Even if their beliefs are slightly to the left of their party they still often are going to be voting with them because the have not crossed that thresshold line at the 0 on my scale. Once we understand this fundimental difference in where our parties lie we can begin to affect change.

I know that moving farther left scares some dems because the believe it will alienate those moderates in our community, but what we are attually doing is allowing the center of the country to move right.

If you remember high school physics envision this. A see saw on a cold day. Two kids of approximately the same size on each side. The one on the left one foot from the apex the other 3 feet away. Now drip molasses on the center of the see saw and watch it slowly move towards the child that is farther away.

[txaslftist]

73. Good thoughts!

[clem_c_rock]

107. Not the ones that actually stand up for democracy

IE: Boxer, McKinney, Conyers.

I have my faith in folks like these.

[asjr]

9. I feel Kerry and Boxer were designated hitters. And Lincoln

Chafee had some good questions. I think they are holding back until Gonzales comes up. I will take Condi over Gonzales every time. Gonzales is the real worm in the apple. Condi may very well take a good deal of heat from our "allies." Maybe she can take it--maybe she can't. I certainly do not have any faith in her abilities to win friends.

[zulchzulu]

10. SO many turncoats here on DU...it's sickening

I suggest these mental lightweights move on to the Doofus Party. I think their logo is a tin foil hat.

Good riddance. Don't let the donkey kick hurt you on the way out.

:kick: :crazy:

[rodeodance]

11. neither of them are on my **it list, besides Russ is my Senator and I am

proud of him. I do not know Omaba well at all--he is such a youngin!!

[Lori Price CLG]

12. Well, Barak O-Sellout is on mine, along w. Feingold!

Both Russ Feingold and Barak O-Sellout *know* they are amongst the few precious 'stop-gaps' we have to at least hinder the insane actions of the Bush dictatorship.

Lori R. Price
Gen. Mgr., Citizens for Legitimate Government
http://www.legitgov.org/

Receive the (free) CLG Newsletter every day!
[e-mail]

[iwantmycountryback]

65. Yes, because eating our own best and brightest is the sure path to victory

Freaking reactionary people. Take a chill pill.

[propagandafreegal]

102. lol! Barack O Sellout!

[hollowdweller]

148. My buddy has been calling him O "Tom" A since his performance

[ArtVandaley]

13. Who cares?

Some people just love to hate, so let them. Everyone with 1/2 a brain knows that Obama and Russ ARE the real deal.

[Goldeneye]

14. Yes!

I hate them now.

[Rowdyboy]

15. ONLY on DU would Feingold and Obama be trashed by "progressives"

It would be funny if it weren't so sad...

It's literally loony tunes around here sometimes

[newsguyatl]

19. looney tunes?

or holding their feet to the fire?

this thread is just representative of the split in the democratic party...

some are fine with the middle ground, keeping things the same -- others want fighters and passion and change.

du has its share of BOTH ends of the spectrum...

while i'm certainly on one of these ends, i'd never refer to the other side as "loonies" -- these folks (myself included) only want what's best for the party and for the common good.

i've got my own word to describe the ass kissing middle grounders, but i'll keep it to myself.

[sybylla]

20. If you can imagine Russ Feingold is anywhere near the middle ground

you're not looking closely enough. Knowing his record and his stands as I do, I can't imagine calling such an implication anything but loonie. There will always be differences between grass roots Dems and their representatives. Sometimes it's perspective. Sometimes shit happens. But the bullshit that's been going on around here lynching every Dem that doesn't toe the line at every opportunity is ridiculous. Seems to me the original poster was merely asking for some return to sanity.

So I guess that make me a ass-kissing middle grounder ass-kisser. I'm curious what your name is for that.

[newsguyatl]

21. number one

russ wasn't mentioned in the original post.

number two -- you can just GUESS what my name for you would be.

how's that.

on edit: my bad, i read feinSTEIN.

with that said, an appeaser's still an appeaser. period.

and my number two still stands.

[QC]

22. "russ wasn't mentioned in the original post."

You might want to take another look up there. His name's still Feingold, isn't it?

[zulchzulu]

23. I have the person you responded to on "Ignore", but have an idea...

..what the message was. It probably had a LOT to do with not knowing what the hell they are talking about.

I can guess Russ was trashed and somehow made to be percieved that he is "Bush Lite", a "flip-flopper", a DNC whore...yunno...the usual claptrap from knuckleheads aiming for a flamebait about how the Democrats are not "left" enough.

I'm pretty sure they are too jacked up to be decent grassroots soldiers and too unfocused to do their homework on the issues. So, frankly, if they decide to leave the party, it would be NO loss at all...it would be a strain wherever they whiningly went to...that is, if they do anything at all. What's the point in wasting time on these people?

We need smart grassroots people for the next races in 2006. Waiting around for Bucky"The Schmuck" Snotnose is a waste of time.

[ClassWarrior]

35. Cept those people who claim the Dems aren't "left" enough...

...are probably farther to the right than we can even imagine.

Because I know the TRUE Progressive left doesn't just whine and fling poo. They get their asses in gear and change things.

NGU.

[DrGonzoLives]

29. So

because some of us are not screaming for Biden's and Obama's and Feingold's heads on golden platters, we're ass-kissing middle grounders who lack passion, ideals, etc.?

I have a word for people like you who demand complete, 100% adherence to what you believe, but I'll keep that to myself.

[izzybeans]

83. I'd call them fascist if all they do is seek to

root out the impure among us. now is no time for reactionary politics to further divide the left in my opinion. That's certain defeat. We need these people on our side. I'm still unsure how being on the left means abondanding the confines of civil discourse-which is what many of them seem to want to do by giving up after one decision is made. I'd hope they tried to make a list of all the things these people who they abonden agree with them about first.

[txaslftist]

75. And some won't be happy until the whole party quotes Marx.

to get to the end of your spectrum.

[truebrit71]

42. Yeah, it's REALLY "progressive" to rubber stamp Chimpy's picks right?

RIGHT?

Gimme a break.

I don't want to hear anymore of this centrist/moderate bullshit. I want Democrats to stand up and call it like it is. I am TIRED of the spineless, pink-tutu wearing 'Democrats' siding with Chimpus Augustus every single time.

What is the difference between a democrat voting for her confirmation or a republican voting for her confirmation? Answer. None.

Until the head-in-the-cloud gang around here can get their heads around that basic concept we will become what the republicans dream of. A permanent minority.

If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.

[ClassWarrior]

113. Centrist/moderate??? Feingold?!!

BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA...

Sorry I couldn't read the rest of your post. I was laughing so hard I had tears in my eyes...

<LFMAO>

NGU.

[Leilani]

18. I don't think you can find a more principled Senator than Feingold

He has a stated standard & he sticks to it.

He says what he means, means what he says, & gives you the reasons why.

Obama, cripes, it was his first hearing...give the guy a break.

[Lori Price CLG]

27. Yeah, it takes *a lot* of integrity and principles to... vote for Rice. LOL

The entire Reichwing dictatorship is laughing at us... if the tables were turned, do you think Repuke senators would be voting for a liberal Democrat to be secretary of state? LOL, they would be digging up and presenting his/her report cards from the fifth grade, trolling for reasons s/he should not be confirmed.

Lori R. Price
Gen. Mgr., Citizens for Legitimate Government
http://www.legitgov.org/

Receive the (free) CLG Newsletter every day!
[e-mail]

[ClassWarrior]

36. I guess that's what makes us different from them.

Right?

NGU.

[Lori Price CLG]

46. Exactly. The Reichwing will always win, because the Left is too...

...cowardly to see this 'Red/Blue' struggle for what it actually is: a war. The Left seeks the approval of the Right, even though its leaders continually carry out illegal, immoral actions every minute of the day.

The Left is actually complicit in the Bush dictatorship, as it is too afraid to see this as a war, and fight. We need a Karl Rove on the Left...

And, before a moderate Democrat attacks me for being 'so far to the Left, I'm (actually on the) Right,' see my website.

Lori R. Price
Gen. Mgr., Citizens for Legitimate Government
http://www.legitgov.org/

Receive the (free) CLG Newsletter every day!
[e-mail]

[ClassWarrior]

48. Fear and hopelessness. Nice.

So is your post meant to be a prime example of the the cowardice and complicity of the left with Karl Rove's agenda?

NGU.

[Lori Price CLG]

88. Uh... re-read what I wrote. We need a 'Karl Rove' ON/FOR the LEFT.

We need leaders with the strengths that the Reichwing leaders posses, in order to level the playing field. 'Democrats' such as Joe LieberBush and Barak O'Sellout are typically not on our 'side.' That was my OBVIOUS sentiment; do not twist my words.

Lori R. Price
Gen. Mgr., Citizens for Legitimate Government
http://www.legitgov.org/

Receive the (free) CLG Newsletter every day!
[e-mail]

[ClassWarrior]

114. I did. You wrote, "The Reichwing will always win."

"Will ALWAYS win. Lots of hope there. So which words am I twisting?

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

138. By the way, I have seen your web site, and you around here...

...and from what I've seen, I'd expect better than irresponsible trashing of true Progressives. I guess it's not always easy to maintain one's values, even for the standard-bearers.

:pals:

NGU.

[Kipepeo]

153. I do agree that too many

Dems seek approval from the Right....like abuse victims trying to make nice with the abuser.

[followthemoney]

156. I agree with you

If Bush's clone were put on the Dem ticket the repugs would trash him for his funny talk and monkey face. The media is the republican's house, and no Dem will be respected in their house. Every Dem appearance in the media is an away game. Bring back the Fairness Doctrine. This is step one.

[LittleClarkie]

40. It takes a lot of integrity and principles to vote no on the Patriot Act

Please don't ever forget that this was the only Senator, the only Senator, to vote no on the Patriot Act.

It is in part because of behavior like this from DU that I fear for Boxer the first time she votes for something folks don't like. Suddenly it will be "Fuck Boxer" too. Right now, some people are acting as if she is the only Senator. "Who needs ____________ when you have Boxer."

Let her off the pedastal before she falls off. Hard. I'd hate to see that happen to the good lady.

[theboss]

103. They did under Clinton

I think Albright was a unanimous vote.

[followthemoney]

157. She spoke the language of Repug values

The deaths of 500,000 children were worth the price of the Sadam sanctions. From her mouth. Of course everyone knew it was the brown peoples children and not ours she spoke of.

[deadparrot]

24. I agree.

We at DU have varying points of view. Rarely do two users believe the exact same thing about every issue, yet we still get along for the most part.

Why can't we say the same for our elected representatives?
We're not going to agree with everything every Democratic/liberal politician does; even at DU there are mixed opinions. There will NEVER be a candidate who pleases every DUer on every issue, so let's stop screeching at every politician who votes in a fashion with which you disagree. We can talk, rant, discuss, debate.

But don't label them DINOs or other derogatory terms just because they aren't in lock-step with your every opinion. You don't have to love, or even like, any Democrat, but let's stop this witch hunt.

[NVMojo]

25. Karl Rove and the Swiftboatfeckers are smiling! Dems are pounding

on Dems worse then they pounded on Kerry to take us all out.

[ClassWarrior]

33. Dems aren't "pounding on" anyone! "Pounding on" people...

...isn't a Progressive value. Don't you recognize a massive psy ops project when you see it?

NGU.

[truebrit71]

43. So what's the choice? Move even closer to the centre...

..abandoning most, if not all, of our principles and become indistinguishable from the "moderate" republican model the MSM and Herr Rove has carefully crafted..or sit here and pound on those in power that SHOULD be representing us but aren't until they get the message that we will no longer tolerate spinelessness?

[seabeyond]

26. feingold kiked ass, biden and dodd did too,

i appreciate what all the dems and some repugs did yesterday and today

[w4rma]

30. There are a few narrowminded, shortsighted fools in every large group (nt)

[ClassWarrior]

31. Maybe with some disruptors imported from Le Free Republique.

But not with true Progressives. We're not that stupid.

NGU.

[RevCheesehead]

94. Nah - them disruptors wouldn't have anything to do with the French.

I prefer to think of this time as "the unveiling."

Curtain calls to follow.

NGU, sweetie!! :hi:

[Darknyte7]

32. *sigh*

:eyes:

[LynneSin]

34. We have bigger fish to fry that Condi Rice

She's one of many fools serving in the idiot's cabinet.

We(Congress) cannot filibuster everything that happens the next 4 years even though we (the DU) wish they would.

Cabinet members go away when the idiot is out of office.

Judges last as long as they can breathe - which when you think that so many of Bush's nominees are in their 40s, that means they could be around 3-4 decades!! Plus some of these socioeconominic bills that will affect us personally need to be filibustered too.

Let King Fool have his minions and focus on the bigger battles!

[LittleClarkie]

38. I can't do that to Feingold. He did what even Boxer didn't do

stood up to the Patriot Act. Plus he's my Senator. I worked for him as well as Kerry this election year, in the coordinated campaign. I've heard too many good stories about him. He has a good heart and serves his constituents well. Never misses a vote, they say. Had some damn fine young people working for him too.

Obama, I don't know him well enough and I'm not basing my judgement on one vote.

Not on the shit list, but that doesn't mean I don't ponder their votes.

So proud of Kerry and Boxer. Go them.

[robbedvoter]

39. I thought you wanted us to take a break from the 24h Kerry bashing

One would think you'd be happy we listened to ya. No way pleasing you. Nudge, nudge, nudge...
And don't worry about not having who to vote for - you have no vote to worry about ;-)

[fishwax]

41. Some of it is just venting

I think Condi is a horrible choice for SoS. I listened to as much of the hearings as I could, and still don't see why anyone thinks she's qualified or what her or her supporters defense was for her various weaknesses. I cant' get that worked up about it, though, because it seemed pre-ordained that the nomination would go through.

Other people, though, are upset and they're blowing off steam, which is a pretty natural activity on a board like this. Some may be pissed off at Feingold or Obama today, but that doesn't mean they're working to defeat them in the next primary.

By and large I agree with you. I'm not happy about it, I can't for the life of me understand the reasoning that has brought the nation to this point, but I know Obama and Feingold are still on the right side. Just my $.02

[Bozvotros]

44. I just want them to tell me why...

Tell me what their strategy is in confirming someone with so much demonstrated and obvious incompetence and such a huge apologist for this junta's foreign policy fiascos. Rice lied repeatedly. Rice is a big part of the reason why other countries have come to hate and fear us.

If Feingold and Obama can give me a reason why Bush should be allowed to name such an obvious shill who could do even more serious damage to our reputation, then I would be less critical.

But I listened to them grill and question her motives, actions, competence and honesty and I saw her without any real defense. And now they indicate they are going to confirm someone like that who they expose as weak and possibly corrupt? It's like having a pretend trial.

What the hell reason can there be to say yes to her? To play nice? If they believe Rice's confirmation will bite Bush in the ass, then they should say that. I just want them to tell me why? Biden was particularly galling. He had not a single reason to say yes, except that he thought she would be confirmed anyway and he wanted to be able to work with her. I wanted to choke him. He does this kind of thing far too often and I can't see any advantage attached to it.

I am getting desperately tired of just accepting things like this from my party without being given a reason that makes any sense.

[Cookie wookie]

45. I agree. We are at a point where a line has to be drawn

which the Democrats refuse to cross. Voting for confirming someone who is duplicitous and incompetent, when that incompetence could possibly have resulted in the deaths of thousands of Americans -- that is a line that is as clear and bright as as day and night.

It's our responsibility as citizens to hold our leaders accountable. Rove smove. We are not blind sheep, nor should we allow our leaders to cross this line without knowing that we disapprove and that they stop.

This isn't a case of compromise of some "normal" issue like how much money to spend or what program to fund. They are dealing with life and death issues, with the fate of our democracy. Any vote for any person or policy who corrupts our society is a wrong vote, no matter who is voting.

That Kerry and Boxer voted no means something to me. That the other Dems voted yes was aiding and abetting. We can't have it both ways. If we are adamantly opposed to * policies and administration, then we must also be opposed to those actions that support them, however they may be justified as "what's the use it won't make any difference". It does make a difference. To oppose actions is no disloyalty. But in any case, our final allegiance has to be to democracy.

Randi Rhodes said today that Feinstein's husband has some link to business that profits from the Iraq war. If this is so, Feinstein should have abstained from voting because of a conflict of interest.

[sundog]

47. Obama has quickly gone down the trail of compromise

once you start heading down that trail, it gets harder & harder to get off.

It's sad to see, and I hope he pulls something out of the hat soon.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[txaslftist]

76. LOL

[ClassWarrior]

50. I remember when Russ voted to confirm Ashcroft.

I went to his web site to read his statement. He said a president should be able to choose his own advisors - but he also alluded to the fact that this courtesy would NOT be extended to other Bush** appointments; that is, to his Extreme Court appointments.

I was also curious when he voted to proceed with a Senate trial against President Clinton during the attempted Radical RW Coup. His statement said that, after much study and reflection, he felt the body had an obligation to hear the arguments being presented.

I may not agree with everything last thing he does, but the man is thoughtful, responsible, and principled. I'll take that in an elected leader any day.

Besides, you can't put a saddle on a maverick, God bless him.

NGU.

[Bozvotros]

52. So with this logic if he wants to make Ken Lay Sec of Treasury

it is OK, since he has the right to choose his advisors. How about if he chooses other obvious stooges with massive conflicts in interest? Oh, that is right....he did. Why have hearings or even attend them if you feel that way?

Secretary of State is not just someone who advises the President. That person also advises and informs other nations. If they are deeply compromised with a history of lying and prevarication and is implicated in a horrible series of international actions, then the President shouldn't get the choice of confirming them. Isn't that why they have hearings? How bad will Bush's appointments have to get before Feingold says that's far enough? Bush shoved through a couple of rejected judges with recess appointments. What was Feingold's response to that? (I really don't know) Clucking disapproval is just not enough.

My respect for Feingold and other Dems who voted to give Rice a full Senate vote just dropped. They can win it back by voting her down in the Senate. I am not holding my breath.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClassWarrior]

118. So if they vote down the Condoliar, do you think Bush** is going to...

...apologize and nominate Howard Dean?? No, he's going to nominate "other obvious stooges with massive conflicts in interest," to use your words. I don't want her as my SoS, but - quite frankly - I don't want ANYONE this prick is going to nominate. So why waste time on a pointless exercise when there are more important matters, like wars to end and children to feed??

NGU.

[Bozvotros]

123. Pointless exercise?

Exactly how much more time will it take to vote "no" vs vote "yes?"
Dems won't have the votes to stop it but they can send a message which says that at least for the Dems, those people that screwed everything up are not acceptable for further promotion. The American people would understand that.

This way when Condi screws up royally, as she will because she is totally in the bag for Bush, the Dems can point to their unity rather than hang there heads as the RW pundits point out how many Dems supported the nomination.

[loyalsister]

84. He's consistant

I give him credit for that.
One thing that is going ignored here, is that they are letting Bush lie in his own bed. He's making it, he can lie in it and be responsible for the results.
At the same time, it is of paramount importance that they choose battles wisely. I agree with other posters who have noted that judges are the priority. The neverending appointments that can shape constitutional issues MUST be stopped!

[wildwww2]

133. Letting Bu$h lie in his own bed is not their job. Opposing the destruction

of the constitution is. Rice`s incompetence in the 9-11 issue alone gave way to the unpatriot act. And unpatriot act #2 is almost down our throats if I am not mistaken. I still think Feingold is more interested in not pissing off lobbyist`s than doing his job. Which should be stopping the continued shredding of our constitution by the Bu$h Family Evil Empire which Condi Rice is a part of. Russ has done some things I agree with but he is appeasing the enemy in my opinion. You really think Feingold is going to stop the appointment of judges? When someone that gets away with lying about 9-11 gets a few tough questions. And then a yes vote. I won`t be holding my breath waiting for it. We either collectively grow a spine. Or we become more of a fascist state than we already are. Russ could have proved to me he cared by voting against the worst Secetary of State yet.
Peace
Wildman
Al Gore is My President

[DrGonzoLives]

54. They can't stop her confirmation

Period. They don't have the votes, they never will, unless we get a reverse 1994 next year. Filibuster? Nowhere near the political capital to pull that off.

By doing what they're doing, they are bringing attention on Rice. Think about it, what has the news been about? Rice dodging this question. Can't answer this one. Doesn't seem to hvae a good plan to end nuke proliferation. Doesn't really know how many Iraqi troops have been trained.

Some people here, however, would rather the story be all about those "partisan" Democrats who are "petty" and "obstructionist," holding up Bush's nominations.

This one was pre-ordained, period. Voting no would be a useless symbolic act that accomplishes nothing - would you rather they expend energy fighting Rice, or SCOTUS appointments later?

[robbedvoter]

69. They can't stop ANYTHING. Period. They can have principles though

How is not having principles helping? Whom is it helping? Not you.

[American Tragedy]

51. Feingold isn't perfect, but he's still one of the best we've got

His overall voting record is excellent. I don't know about everybody else, but he'd really have to do something terrible for me to cast him in the doghouse.

[clem_c_rock]

55. I'm sick of Democratic loyalist - MoveOn/MMoore you as well

Maybe it's time we wake up and realize the difference between Dems and Repukes is really like argueing Coke vs Pepsi. As far as foriegn policy, I see very little actionable difference. They all voted for this war, and don't fu**ing believe for one minute they were decieved by "poor intelligence". If we knew that was a lie about 2 years ago, all the Dems in Washington DEFINITELY KNEW AS WELL. 99% didn't have the courage to be a bump in the road or go against their flock.

I'm sick of MoveOn's loyalty to the Democratic party over the true constitutional foundations. This country has been hijacked in a violent political sense and we're expected to settle for a moderate voice that's going to find middle ground on issues so far in outer space that a middle ground is going to be the far right anyway.

Washigton politics is the equivelent to the mafia. Aside from the few and the brave (Obama not included) You don't do anything to endanger your future career.

What's so great about Obama anyway? I fail to see why he's so hyped.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[clem_c_rock]

57. Funny, I thought it had to do more w/ Democracy on the Dem party

And you're answer to everyone that disagree w/ you is to leave I suggest you go over to free republic because that's the policy they have.

Wasn't there a redneck cave dweller expression that went "America, Love it or leave it" that reflected your moronic stance rather well?

[Lori Price CLG]

92. Well-said, clem_c_rock!! n/t

[clem_c_rock]

58. Also, free speech on DU should be priority

If you disagree w/ that, maybe you should F***ing leave!

[Susang]

60. DU is a privately owned internet forum

You don't have the right to ask anyone to "fucking leave!", nor to demand that "free speech on DU be priority".

[clem_c_rock]

67. I was told to F***ing leave first. I would never use this language on

DUer first.

Why's free speech such a problem on DU? I thought everyone on DU would welcome that? I don't have a problem w/ anyone posting an opposing point of view here. If someone posts something controversial, I have always had faith in the intelligence of DU posters to handle someone w/ controversial ideas in a constructive manner.

Again, you will never hear me tell anyone to F***ing leave here unless they tell me to do it first.

[ClassWarrior]

63. Progressives believe in free speech - and we believe it should be...

...exercised with responsibility. Coming to a message board "for Democrats and other progressives," as another poster so astutely pointed out, and trashing "Democratic loyalists" doesn't strike me as particularly responsible.

And this isn't about disagreement, constructive criticism, or healthy challenges. I'd like to get back to that, thank-you. This is about plain disruptive behavior and trashing of our own people - WHEN THE ONLY PEOPLE WE SHOULD BE TRASHING ARE THE REAL ENEMIES, BUSH**, CHENEY**, AND THE RADICAL RIGHTWING.

Unless of course you don't consider them enemies...

NGU.

[clem_c_rock]

71. No - ok maybe a little harsh - it's a depressing day

w/ the Inaguration and all. I'm just depressed that it most of the Democrats are complacent in selling this country out from under our feet.

Look at the way the recount issue was bashed when Conyers brought it up?

He was treated by many Dems as an embarassment to his party.

Read my original post also, get past the subject line, and I you will see more of where I'm coming from and it's not so controversial.

[Lori Price CLG]

90. Do you? Your constant references to Freerepublic is puzzling... n/t

[ClassWarrior]

109. Gee, I wonder why anyone would make those kind of references...

When the poster calls Dems complicit with the Radical RW, says he/she is sick of "Dem loyalists," and trashes every Progressive idea advanced around here (check his/her other posts), it sure is a puzzle why anyone would think he/she and his/her defenders are disruptors.

NGU.

[Susang]

61. No offense, but I think you need to read the rules again as well

MESSAGE BOARD RULES (SHORT VERSION)

1. This is a message board for Democrats and other progressives.
2. Treat people with respect. Don't be rude or bigoted. Discuss the message, not the messenger.
3. Don't post entire articles. Instead, post short excerpts (not exceeding 4 paragraphs) with links.
4. Respect the wishes of the moderators and administrators.

No mention of "Loyalists" there. Sorry.

[FromTheLeft]

66. Lets all be a little more adult that this

I just started posting here so you may feel that as a newbie I should not be saying this, but just before I started post here I attempted to start posting on FR. My reason for this was because I thought perhaps we could all learn from one another. Being a liberal I want to try and understand where it is that conservitives view come from because it is not until then that we can begin to change both their and our points of view. Unfortunatly I made on post there and immidiatly had my posting privileges removed. I said nothing hateful or slanderous I simple explained that I was a liberal look to both learn and teach. They silenced me with not a reason as to why. Lets be bigger people than them, lets understand that it is only through informed debate that we as a country can come back together as one cohesive unit.

[clem_c_rock]

78. Thanks you - my thoughts exactly

This is the last place I thought I would EVER find people w/ the problem of free speach.

[ClassWarrior]

110. Yes, let's trash our own people and say how sick we are of our fellow Dems

There's maturity for you.

NGU.

[clem_c_rock]

68. "And other progressives"

So if someone from the Green party wanted to participate in DU, they wouldn't be allowed?

[Lori Price CLG]

91. You're right, Susang... n/t

[wadestock]

59. I feel your pain as well....

I have been rationalizing all this for way too long. I tried to rationalize the votes for war out of the fact that it was "authorization to use force"...but too many have been way too quiet about what's going on recently. At this point, the war is truly outrageous on all accounts. Outrage is the only possible response.

Where are the dems who should be screaming in outrage about social security "reform"? 20% of full time working people have pension plans, with the number sinking each day. Our prized possession of technology is being sold to China, who is soon to be the next superpower. How will we get any technological infrastructure back?

We're witnessing our country coming apart at the seams. My recent research concentrates on the national debt and the interest paid each year. Why can't the dems put forth a "Perot" like presentation which shows how this country will soon be paying 1 Trillion dollars a year ON INTEREST on the debt after it grows to 12 Trillion and interest rates potentially go to 5%? At that point, it's all over, with interest being the lion's share of all outlays.

The public is oblivious to this mass incompetence. Where are our representatives in this? It's reached a level of overall rollover that I never thought was possible.

[clem_c_rock]

62. Exactly, Good point on the financial mess

In the last 2 months, I too have been digging into this too and it's terrifying to me. We are truely in danger of teetering on what could make the Great Depression look like

I'm feeling completely betrayed by Washington on nearly everything.

Sounds like Congress, both Dems and Repukes alike, voted the new national budget into place. It's a massive pig fest that reflects absolutely no hint of possible economic crisis.

I'm terrified about our future. We need a real change, real quick!

95% of Washington's dems don't seem to hint at delivering that.

[Kipepeo]

154. Please explain to me how

MoveOn shows loyalty to the party over principles...which is what you are insinuating, though not illustrating.

[txaslftist]

70. Thank you for a "finally" thoughtful post...

Your name says it all.

Rock on.

[mb7588a]

72. Russ Feingold is a DINO?!

1. Voted against the Patriot Act
2. Voted against NAFTA, NAFTA, GATT, Fast Track, and Most Favored Nation status for China
3. Voted against the No Child Left Behind Act
4. Coauthored the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2001 (McCain-Feingold), for which he received the Profile In Courage Award from the JFK Presidential Library
5. He's a champion of civil rights, fighting against racial profiling
6. He's on the front line of health care reform
7. He's a leading deficit hawk in the U.S. Senate
8. He's not afraid to vote on his convictions, and principles, and does so will immeasurable courage.
8. He has kept his three (later 2 were added) original garage door promises (http://www.russfeingold.org/promiseskept.php):
--- I will rely on Wisconsin citizens for most of my contributions.
--- I will live in Middleton, Wisconsin. My children will go to school here and I will spend most of my time here in Wisconsin.
--- I will accept no pay raise during my six-year term in office.

--- I will hold a "Listening Session" in each of Wisconsin's 72 counties each year of my six-year term in office.
--- I will hire the majority of my Senate staff from individuals who are from Wisconsin or have Wisconsin backgrounds.


And that's just off the top of my head. Fuck all y'all who don't respect the best senator in the business. It's time to take a good long look at the gems we have in the Democratic Party, and honor them as they have CERTAINLY earned. You've obviously lost sight of political reality - an increasingly rampant virus here on DU.

[txaslftist]

77. Someone said repubs vs. dems is like coke vs. pepsi...

It's not.

It's like Coke vs. every other beverage you can imagine, including swill.

And every other beverage wants to be #1 and beat Coke, but first they have to beat each other senseless to show they are #1.

DU is where we beat each other senseless. Meanwhile Coke is saying, "Hey, we're Coke. We aren't anything but Coke, 'cept maybe a little Diet Coke and maybe a little vanilla or cherry flaverin in there, but we're Coke."

We need to think a little more about unity and a sense of direction. We ain't Coke, but "we ain't Coke" ain't cuttin' it. We need to be about "Here's what we are" and less about "here's what we aren't."

Milk and Pepsi can get along and still not be Coke.

Obama and Feingold are two of the democratic party's brightest stars. So what if the dems in Washington haven't figured out how to be a "loyal opposition" party. They'll get it.

[sherilocks]

79. Very well said, thanks Tex Left eom

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

80. Not Pepsi. More like skim milk.

They wimped out.

[txaslftist]

81. So of course we immediately pounce...

and shred them vigorously. Meanwhile the republicans look over at us and laugh, "They eat their own, the dumbasses."

I had a long, long drive in the Texas countryside yesterday, and the only radio station that was talk was R/W Radio, featuring Rash Windbagh. I hated just about everything the man said, but I recognized one truth in his fat bastard rant. He said the Republicans have a single coherent message, and the democrats don't stand for anything except we're not republicans. He also said the democratic party is self-destructing and they don't even know it, which is horse-puckey.

The truth is being a democrat DOES mean something. We need to be getting about the business of letting our natural constituency know what it means, and quit tearing each other down.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

82. Terrific. When they stop voting for Republicans and their policies.

Then, maybe, they can formulate their own instead of going along with the ones given them by BushCorp.

[ClassWarrior]

111. We're not beating each other senseless...

Disruptors are trying to provoke us into beating each other senseless. Real Progressives wouldn't do that to one another. Caring and fairness are two of our most treasured values.

NGU.

[clem_c_rock]

139. Being 100% anti colonialism and anti war

And I see democratic congressmen voting overwhelmingly for this war - Yeah, stupid me - I feel quite betrayed.

When democratic congressmen vote overwhelmingly for the last pig feast of a fiscal budget, when we're teetering on the brink of a massive economic crisis, Yeah, stupid me - I feel quite betrayed.

When democratic congressmen lie down and let 2 elections be fraudulently stolen, Yeah, stupid me - I feel quite betrayed.

Yeah - I'm sorry - I'm sick of war, more war, and more war talk going on in Washington. Obama has not shown me anything outstanding -especially, when preemptive strike ideas come out of his mouth.

Now - I will tell you the Democrats that are my heroes right now.

Barbera Boxer, Cynthia McKinny, and John Conyers.

These people give me hope, they have guts, and if this original post was sticking up for any of these folks, You would have heard not a peep from me except praise and encouragment.

[Raskolnik]

169. I'm glad that Boxer, McKinny, and Conyers agree with you 100% on 100%

Otherwise, I'd suggest that you may be a bit of a hypocrite. But obviously you've gone over their records and they haven't cast one vote or uttered one syllable that you have disagreed with. They also must have spoken up and fought to the death for every single issue you consider important, otherwise I'm sure you'd consider them shills and dupes.

Thank god they have never, ever done anything at all that you didn't support wholeheartedly. Lucky you.

[clem_c_rock]

85. Here's a reason Obama is on mine: (more warmongering base on lies)

<snippit>
As Obama told the Chicago Tribune on September 26, 2004, "he big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures , including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point ... if any, are we going to take military action?"

He added, "aunching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in" given the ongoing war in Iraq. "On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse." Obama went on to argue that military strikes on Pakistan should not be ruled out if "violent Islamic extremists" were to "take over."

<snippit>

[Raskolnik]

95. And which is the warmongering and which is the lie?

What part of that statement is untrue?

What part of that statement is advocating war?

[clem_c_rock]

98. Well - depends what official story you buy

If you buy this little PNAC-remap the middle east/disguised as "We are all in danger of being attacked at any moment" rhetoric then his statement seems rational.

I, for one, refuse to buy any of this. Iran/Pakistan are not a threat and Obama even mentioning the possibility of military action in Pakistan is war mongering in my book. If Iran is rapidly expanding their military right now it's in reaction to the US presence and intentions in the middle east. If military action falls into any form of PNAC plan it is war mongering plain and simple. There are nothing in their goals except for the dominance of US policies throughout the world and the middle east is the first part of that plan. If Obama buys into this sh** in anyway, and is not going against it, and furthers their agenda, then he's as good as one of them. Come on, really, how many times do we have to be lied to before we stop buying these stories? Was there any truth in the US pretense for the invasion of Iraq? Are you really buying any of this Iran sh**, the exact same story that they gave for the Iraq invasion. If Obama is going to try to make arguments based on these same lies, and yes, he knows really what's going on, then he's part of them.

This War on Terrorism is the exact same thing as the Cold War. 95% of the time it was used as an excuse to further US/Russian political/economic agendas in developing countries. Take a look at Latin America and try to tell me that it war a viable threat to fall prey to Communism.

The main threat to world peace is the PNAC agenda.

[Raskolnik]

100. Admitting that the world is a dangerous place is war mongering?

If you don't "buy" that Iran and/or Pakistan aren't very dangerous countries, then you aren't paying very much attention. Pakistan has nuclear weapons and is one coup away from starting a war that will likely kill hundreds of millions of people. Iran is run by some of the most backward, stone-age motherfuckers on the planet.

That's not warmongering, that's facing the facts.

You seem to think that addressing these issues is akin to endorsing a plan for preemtive war. It isn't. Its taking back the debate about national security that Democrats have ceded to Republicans far too often. ONLY when Democrats address these very real issues in a credible way do we have a chance to steer the policy. One of the reasons the Bush administration was able to hoodwink the U.S. about their Iraq policy was because there really wasn't any Democrat that was standing up and facing the issue and offering a real-world alternative to the shitty plan we ended up with.

[clem_c_rock]

106. Escuse me - And the US is not stone age?

The Bush Administration isn't? Speaking of Stonage/Barbarism. How 'bout the US's history of genocide and slavery. Both of which have been, in historical terms, akin, to only days ago. It's like me coming out of the Betty Ford clinic and starting a US anti drinking campaign the next day.

Oh wait, I forgot, US stonage, genocide tactics right at home just in the last year: http://www.unobserver.com/index.php?pagina=layout4.php&id=1788&blz=1

US not barbaric after 100,000 plus Iraqi's killed for oil, strategic footprints, and the protection alies who are themselves, occupiers.

I'm sorry the main country's actions that I fear could spark a mushroom cloud somewhere in the world would be the US. The main danger to world peace is the PNAC/Bush administration. Maybe the preemptive actions of this administration are escalating a massive arms escalation all over the world. And also, things like this: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/summer-pulse.htm


Your argument comes straight off the front page of CNN.

[Finding Rawls]

115. Wow

If you don't think that there are thousands upon thousands of muslim extremists who, if given the chance, would use nuclear weapons against the US, Israel and other Western countries, then you're keeping your eyes closed.

[clem_c_rock]

122. And the latest Pentagon report backs this up

You're right but it's 95% due to provocation.

For a good read, investigate the repercussions of Clinton's bombing of the Al Shifa chemical plant in Sudan in 1989. We do things like this all over the world, support a terrorists occupying state like Israel an expect the Arabs to suck it up and be happy.

Just in the case of Iraq. Look at the western world's manipulation of that country in the last 90+ years starting w/ the British oil invasion of 600,000 troops.

Americans don't know these things so it's so easy for them to say were the good guys and everyone's out to get us. The Arab world has to live w/ these events that are hidden from the American public. Open your eyes a bit and go a bit deeper than the official stories we're given and pay attention to history a bit more.

This is supposedly a Democracy then some of us would like to end this Country's history of behind-the-scenes meddling in other countries affairs.

[Finding Rawls]

127. Sorry Buddy

But the fact that we've meddled in other countries affairs doesn't equate to people wanting to use nuclear weapons in a large American city. If we were even close to as awful as these terrorists we'd have used nuclear weapons and then slaughtered every middle eastern country. We don't do that because we're not monsters.

It is irrelevant that our own actions have caused these people to want to do this to us. They want to kill as many of us as possible. If we were as immoral as them, we WOULD kill all of them.

[Name removed]

135. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Raskolnik]

142. Is that what you have to offer?

"So glad CNN and Bush's propaganda rules your life. They have need for gullible people just like you in their imperialist army."

Grow up.

[Finding Rawls]

146. Stop

You're all worked up over something that is completely irrelevant.

Iran, acting as a state, would not use nuclear weapons against us. An individual, however, would use a nuclear weapon against us. And who has the money and infrastructure to create nuclear weapons? States. We can not allow states to create nuclear weapons and nuclear technology, especially when those states have large contingents of muslim extremists with the desire to hurt Americans.

[followthemoney]

159. Would the U.S. be spreading thousands of tons of D.U. if

we thought we were subject to retaliation. A fraction of that "harmless" material spread in a populated area would provoke extreme panic provided the government agencies saw fit to inform the public.

[Raskolnik]

125. Compared to Iran?! We're the fucking Jetsons!

Your whole argument seems to be predicated on the following assumption: if we acknowledge the fact that Iran is run by a brutally repressive theocracy and it is in our best interests to have a smart plan for dealing with that regime, we must therefore be saying our own actions are morally pure. That's a false dichotomy and it just doesn't stand up to any reasonable scrutiny.

I have absolutely no problem stating that Iran is a very dangerous country run by some very bad people. I am simultaneously able to remember that our own country has done bad things in the (not so distant) past. One does not negate the other. If you are unable to hold these positions simultaneously, you do yourself and the discussion a rather large disservice by assuming that no one else can either.

[clem_c_rock]

126. I know what you're saying but, we need to step back

And take a look at this War on Terrorim. Do you for one minute believe that this is not exactly, and I mean EXACTLY, the same thing we heard about Iraq? Now, are we going to let our folks in Washington to scare us in to another preemptive event? I would love to have someone argue that all this is not part of the PNAC aganda of remapping the middle east for strategic benefits, for economic benefits and, for the security of our alies-primarily Israel.

Any more preemptive action by the US is only going to put us closer to a 3rd world war and will NEVER improve national security.

And furthermore, true, big bad Iran is a brutally repressive theocracy and Saudi Arabia is practically just as bad. When is this all going to end? I'm sorry any politician talking more preemptive strikes in this world will NEVER get my support. He/She will get just the opposite.

[Raskolnik]

134. Do I think this is different? Hell yes this is different.

This time around people like Obama are smart enough and brave enough to address the issue *before* it comes to a head and Republicans have a monopoly on the discussion.

That's what didn't happen with Iraq, and that's a big reason why Bush was able to sell his bullshit so effectively.

And who is arguing for preemptive action? Obama spoke about the need to have a realistic plan to deal with Iran should military action be required. By addressing unpleasant facts about Iran, Obama retains the credibility to help decide when or if that action is required. That's a good thing.

[clem_c_rock]

137. Show me the last Colonialist war Iran started

Oh wait, I forgot, this Iraq thing was about democracy! Yes good 'ol democracy! Naw - don't you listen to these crazy people who don't watch TV news who keep saying it's all about Economics, millitary gains, and the protection of US alies (You know the one's: the guys that have over 200 Nukes, over 80 UN human rights violations).

Show me the last country Iran nuked.

Show me the last country Iran supported 100% while that were gassing people.

I'm glad you think the "War on Terrorism" isn't a smoke screen for imperialism.


God bless TV news!

[Raskolnik]

141. Um, did you even *read* the other post?

Because your argument just regressed to same tired point you were trying to make before. (namely: Iran just can't be bad/dangerous because the U.S. has done bad things before)

Its a rather silly argument and it doesn't speak well of your position that you have gone back to it.

"I'm glad you think the "War on Terrorism" isn't a smoke screen for imperialism"

If you can show me a single sentence that I wrote that can reasonably be interpreted as support for Bush's policies in the Middle East, I'll give you one American dollar. If you can't, I'll expect an apology for that rather passive-aggressive bullshit you posted.

[KnowerOfLogic]

152. Yeah, it's pretty much just war-mongering. And dems legitimizing

Bush's macho bullshit just makes it more likely that said "threats" will end up kicking us in the ass. Look, there have always been threats, and politicians have always tried to create and take advantage of crisises, real or imagined, to seize power and pursue their self-serving agenda. The Dems are enabling the Bush administration in this, pure and simple. If you think that they are just taking cool-headed, prudent steps to protect us from 'threats' you are dreaming. The best thing that they can do to protect america is to stand up to the Bushistas.

[Raskolnik]

161. In what way is admitting facts "legitimizing" Bush's agenda?

If Democrats hide in the corner because they're too scared to talk about national security issues (as they did leading up to Iraq), we end up with Republicans monopolizing the debate. And then we end up with a situation like we have now.

There are real threats to America in the world, and just because Bush is an asshole with horrible policies doesn't mean we have the luxury of burying our head in the sand. In fact, Bush's incompetence means that we need MORE people like Obama to stand up and deal with unpleasant issues *before* its too late.

Ignoring national security won't get Democrats back in power, and it won't make the world any safer.

[followthemoney]

158. I am against non-proliferation

Evidence of being vulnerable to attack is inviting an attack. Iraq was attacked ONLY because they had no nuclear weapons available to deliver. Those with nuclear weapons know they are not subject to attack (see Korea). Attack is with nukes suicide. Suicide may be attractive to the young warrior, but not to the old plutocrat.

[Raskolnik]

160. You're PRO proliferation?

You assume a world in which every actor is completely rational, in which the cost-benefit is measured in every choice, and unfortunately we don't live anywhere close to that world.

I sincerely doubt you actually think the world would be safer with fundamentalist theocracies like Iran producing and distributing nuclear weapons.

[followthemoney]

162. You face humans every time you drive a car

who have an incentive not to drive into you for reasons of survival.
of course, many drivers are somewhat suicidal which accounts for the 40,000 yearly deaths in the U.S.

The problem is nuclear weapons cannot be dis-invented. Even if they were all eliminated they could appear again out of the realm of the expected, geographically or otherwise.

[Raskolnik]

163. You lost me with that one.

I honestly have no idea how that post is supposed to address my point.

Do you really believe the world would be safer with Iran producing and distributing nuclear weapons?

[followthemoney]

168. Do you remember MAD?

Mutually Assured Destruction.

No one would attack first because the result woud be suicide. The policy exercised by the leaders of the world during the cold war. The policy that prevented the U.S. from nuking Vietnam. Self interested behavior intended to avoid sure death. Does this ring a bell with you?

When you are driving a car and another driver annoys you, the issue of the personal damage you may incur prevents you from slamming your car into the other to destroy it.

One developes a sense of empathy, concern for the other, when faced with death. A respect for life developes when faced with your own death. See "Fog of War" for an idea of how close we have come to death in a nuclear inferno.

The world would be safer with all nations acting on their best behavior knowing that the party is over if you don't.

Besides, proliferation is unavoidable and inevitable. If not sooner than later this situation will be dealt with. The world has been informed by the preemptive attack by Bush that disarmament is not an option.

[Raskolnik]

171. Could not disagree more with your logic.

"The world would be safer with all nations acting on their best behavior knowing that the party is over if you don't."

No kidding. The world would be better if *everyone* acted with their long-term interests in mind. The world would also be a lot better if there were cotton candy trees and every time I sneezed a gold coin flew out my ass.

Understand this: THAT IS NOT THE WORLD WE LIVE IN. Not every decision made by a nation state is rational. This is not a debatable point. It is simply a fact that you either acknowledge, or you're not living in the real world.

The more nations that possess nuclear weapons, the greater the probablity that one of the decisions to use or distribute those weapons will be made by someone NOT acting rationally. Eventually, the probability will approach 1, and that is when the shit will truly hit the fan.

"If not sooner than later this situation will be dealt with."

If you believe this, then why the hell do you fault Obama for trying to have a rational, credible plan for doing JUST THE THING YOU SAY IS NECESSARY?

[followthemoney]

176. Seems to be a misunderstanding here

In the world we live in nuclear proliferation is happening to a greater extent than is acknowledged. The recent Pakistan event is a case on point. Gold coins out the ass is the belief that proliferation can be ended or that disarmament is possible. Maybe it can be slowed down but the actions of Bush are more than likely to make proliferation politically necessary for those without nuclear attack capability.

"The more nations that possess nuclear weapons, the greater the probability that one of the decisions to use or distribute those weapons will be made by someone NOT acting rationally. Eventually, the probability will approach 1, and that is when the shit will truly hit the fan."

This statement would suggest that because someone in the U.S. may act irrationally and launch an attack, that the U.S. should disarm. We are as capable of acting irrationally as any nation. I don't believe disarming would make the U.S. safer.

I will not dispute your point about the danger of irrational behavior. A religious fanatic may believe he is acting on some god's orders. Hitler's order to destroy cultural centers shortly before his death is an example of this. Fortunately, Hitler's officers disobeyed these orders. I don't believe this nation is immune from the threat of having an irrational response to a perceived threat.

The U.S. has been very diplomatic when dealing with nations capable of stinging back when assaulted. I would like to see more diplomacy of this type rather than threats of the wrath of some god.

Can you show me my criticism of Obama you find so offensive?

Have a nice day.

[Raskolnik]

177. Not misunderstanding. I think you're just very, very wrong.

It is quite peculiar that you would consider the world a safer place with *more* nations, not less, in possession of nuclear weapons.

Let me ask you very direct question: do you think that a fundamentalist theocracy such as Iran possessing/distributing nuclear weapons makes the world less safe or more safe?

If your answer is the former, you have should have no quibble with someone such as Obama trying to have a sensible plan for dealing with that situation. If your answer is the latter, then consider my mind blown.

[followthemoney]

178. Do you believe a Christian Theocracy in possession of nukes

and planning to make them smaller and therefore no longer "unthinkable" constitutes a safe world. Bush claims to be listening to voices in in head that represent to him the voice of God. The man is out of touch and lives in a bubble.

I'd feel safer with an atheist there. Not one who believes that a nuclear war is only the next step toward a higher plane of existence.

Of course, maybe your concept of safe means everybody dies except us (another example of American exceptionalism).

The CIA never believed Saddam was likely to use nukes, if he were to have them, unless he was cornered with no way out.

[Finding Rawls]

180. NON STATE ACTORS

Stop talking about states using nuclear weapons.

It's non-state actors that are troubling and they don't have the resources or the infrastructure to create nuclear technology. States might provide the nuclear weapons to non state actors.

[Raskolnik]

183. I'll take that non-answer as agreement.

"Of course, maybe your concept of safe means everybody dies except us (another example of American exceptionalism)."

Lovely. Just lovely.

Since you avoided my direct question, I'll assume that bullshit sentence serves as notice that you're out of arguments.

[followthemoney]

184. The U.S. can either violate the sovereignty of pre-nuclear

nations (or non-nations, illegal-combatants etc.)and fear them when they become nuclear powers, or it can engage diplomatically to prevent the perception of the U.S. as an threat rather than as an ally. This will require a transformation of the U.S. from hegemon to international law abiding citizen of the world. This respect has only occurred in relation to nuclear armed nations.

The fear that Saddam would have given nuclear weapons to Bin Laden underestimates the antipathy between these two. Again, they may be crazy but not necessarily stupid. Do you think anything Bush has done has made an attack by a suicide bomber less likely? I think he is creating a myriad of attackers.

[Finding Rawls]

173. I've never heard such an argument. . .

and I'm happy that it only exists on DU.

Pro-Proliferation. wow

[followthemoney]

179. No, the idea exists out in the real world

I believe a proponent of this idea lives outside of the U.S. and was responsible for aiding the development of the Russian bomb. A book about him said his estimation of the international scene was that it was too unbalanced and would likely result in another atomic attack by the U.S. In light of the post-war McCarthyism fever and the two previous U.S. invasions of Russia, his argument may have had some merit.

The indisputably insane Stalin, who killed his supporters as well as his opposition never used his bomb. Crazy people are not necessarily stupid. Saddam fell into that mold.

Only uninformed dreamers believe that one day the whole world will disarm and give each other a big hug. Or that a superpower holding the power of life and death over all of mankind will be benevolent.

[Finding Rawls]

181. One more time

It's not the state that is the real threat to use nuclear weapons against us. It is an individual or small group, most likely an islamic terrorist group. Such groups however lack the resources and technology to create a nuclear weapon. There may be states, however, that would be willing to pass a nuclear weapon along to a terrorist group for its use against us. This would enable them to strike against the US while maintaining innocence. We can't allow states to gain nuclear technology when a large part of their population is openly antagonistic towards the US. It is simply an unnacceptable situation

[returnable]

86. The people bashing Obama now...

...obviously never understood him or his candidacy in the first place.

Obama's strength in the Illinois legislature was his ability to reach across the aisle and work towards compromise. That was THE message of his campaign. This vote comes as no surprise to anyone who has paid any serious attention to him and what he has been saying for years now.

[Tinoire]

97. You mean like his support for missile strikes against Iran?

That kind of third way compromise :shrug:

Some of us understand all too well. This "New" Democratic Party knows that real progressives are on to its machinations and it desperately needs a white horse, an unknown one. Enter Barak Obama. Being "groomed" to try to pass as a progressive.

It's not for nothing that the DLC admired/s him so much.

http://www.google.com/search?q=Obama+%22not+progressive%22&hl=en&lr=&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2004-37,GGLD:en&start=10&sa=N

[Raskolnik]

101. You mean like intentionally misrepresenting what he said?

Iran is a very dangerous country that is acquiring/has acquired nuclear weapons. (do you disagree with that?)

We are currently in a bad position to contain any nuclear threats from Iran because of our ill-advised Iraq policy. (do you disagree with that?)

If Iran deploys or threatens the use of nuclear weapons, we sure as hell better have a good plan to deal with it. (do you disagree with that?)

[Tinoire]

104. WMDs in Iraq! 45 minute threat! WMDs in Iraq! 45 minute threat!

I posted the quote. No misrepresentation there. Sorry if Obama's own words hurt.

WMDs in Iraq! 45 minute threat! WMDs in Iraq! 45 minute threat! WMDs in Iraq! 45 minute threat! WMDs in Iraq! 45 minute threat! WMDs in Iraq! 45 minute threat! WMDs in Iraq! 45 minute threat! WMDs in Iraq! 45 minute threat! WMDs in Iraq! 45 minute threat! WMDs in Iraq! 45 minute threat! WMDs in Iraq! 45 minute threat! WMDs in Iraq! 45 minute threat! WMDs in Iraq! 45 minute threat! WMDs in Iraq! 45 minute threat! WMDs in Iraq! 45 minute threat! WMDs in Iraq! 45 minute threat! WMDs in Iraq! 45 minute threat! WMDs in Iraq! 45 minute threat! WMDs in Iraq! 45 minute threat! WMDs in Iraq! 45 minute threat! WMDs in Iraq! 45 minute threat! WMDs in Iraq! 45 minute threat! WMDs in Iraq! 45 minute threat! WMDs in Iraq! 45 minute threat! WMDs in Iraq! 45 minute threat! WMDs in Iraq! 45 minute threat! WMDs in Iraq! 45 minute threat! WMDs in Iraq! 45 minute threat! WMDs in Iraq! 45 minute threat! WMDs in Iraq! 45 minute threat! WMDs in Iraq! 45 minute threat! WMDs in Iraq! 45 minute threat! WMDs in Iraq! 45 minute threat! WMDs in Iraq! 45 minute threat! WMDs in Iraq! 45 minute threat!

[Raskolnik]

124. I'm not aware of any quote that you posted.

Thanks for addressing the points I made. You really make a cogent argument about why you feel we shouldn't bother to have any contingency plans for dealing with Iran.

Oh, wait, you didn't do that at all, did you?

(And if pasting something over and over again is the best argument you can make, you may want to go back to the drawing board.)

[clem_c_rock]

105. Exactly - this guy is a PNAC wet dream

I'm so glad someone else has mentioned this. When he supports anything like Iran missle strikes it's so transparent.

Repukes have their PNAC the Dems have their Progressive Policy Institute. Both are great ways to start WWIII.

http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?contentid=252144&subsecid=900020&knlgAreaID=450004

[Finding Rawls]

116. If being progressive

means ignoring very real threats from other nations, then I guess I'll call myself. . .um. . .a traditionalist? (Thanks O'Reilly)

[Pushed To The Left]

93. Excellent post!

I'm in the same boat as you are. I would have to write my own name in on the ballot to agree 100% with a candidate. There seem to be two factions forming: The "move-to-the-right" crowd who want to distance themselves from progressives, and the ideological purists who think that any Democrat who agrees with them less than 99% of the time is a Zell Miller clone.

Meanwhile, anti-government libertarian types are celebrating the success of the big-government non-libertarian religious right. Now, if those two groups can band together to battle a common enemy, progressives who agree on most things should be able to do it with ease.

[leesa]

96. That's right. Anyone who votes for Condoleeza, a known traitor and liar

deserves no repect.

[oecher3]

99. would it have made a difference?

no.
but it's the principal that counts.
Can you criticize them for?
No.
Start with your own nose!
I wish both of them more luck and backbone for their next vote!

[Liberty Belle]

112. Go to www.backbonecampaign.org & send them

a "Spineless" certificate. Tell 'em you hope you can present them with a "spine" award next time!

note: This is a group started by Bill Moyers. I always thought he was great!

[mvd]

119. They're not on my s***list yet

Feingold voted against the Patriot Act, which is a more important thing. Rice is too incompetent for the job, but I doubt Bush would choose anyone better. Obama is on my watch list, particularly for voting no on the Ohio protest - but I'm giving him a chance until he establishes himself.

[maxudargo]

120. For me the issue here is Rice

It has nothing to do with whether the Democrats on the committee are left enough, it has to do with having the courage to stand up and ask why someone who has made such bad decisions and performed so poorly is being PROMOTED. This is the same thing as giving Bremer and Tenet medals, only much more important to the country as a whole. Those Senators have a responsibility to ask the right questions and hold Rice accountable. They were the only ones who could, since the Bush administration obviously won't.

This situation is exactly why Senate confirmation is required. This is where checks and balances was supposed to come into play. Bush is too delusional to realize Rice should not be given this responsibility, and the Senate was supposed to prevent this from happening. Every Democrat and Republican on the committee had a responsibility, and only Kerry and Boxer seemed to take it seriously.

I'm not going to hold this against Obama or anybody else, but I don't understand why they abnegated their responsibilities.

Maybe because they want Rice to be there as it all comes crumbling down around her. But they still shouldn't have been so... cheerful about it all.

[donheld]

121. Trashing Obama after 2 weeks in the senate?

That's just plain stupid IMHO. Now Feinstein, Feingold, and any of the ones who have served a term or more say what you want. Obama has barely had time to find his seat. Give the man a break.

[digno dave]

128. Political tact is not a term many are familiar with on this site

WHat is Obama supposed to do, burn down everything in site the first week in office? He will pick his battles, as he should.

[Raskolnik]

143. Every fight should be a fight to the death that burns every bridge!

Why bother even thinking of issues that loom in the future? Who cares if Obama needs to spend his capital on fights he has a chance of winning?

We want instant gratification even if it costs us dearly in the long run!

[senseandsensibility]

130. Yes

they are. When elected officials don't stand up to these thugs, there will be a downside for them. They can deal with it.

[Califooyah Operative]

131. haha, add 'em to the list... its gettin crazy in here..nt

[Hippo_Tron]

132. This week's episode of The West Wing interestingly relates to this

If you've watched the show, you know who about President Bartlett. You know that you love the guy, and you wish that you could vote for him in real life.

Leo McGarry, the President's former Chief of Staff had left his job because of a heart attack. He returns to the office and decides to basically decides to slap some sense into the administration. It's their last year in office and they don't have much time left. He then goes around the room and asks what kind of things that they still have left to do. The staffers all respond with things like healthcare, policy toward Latin America (the war on drugs), etc.

The point of this is, that while Jed Bartlett and his advisors may be people of great integrity who genuinely wants to do good things for the American people, in seven years of their administration they really haven't done all that much. Bartlett believs in universal healthcare and ending the war on drugs, and treatment over prison, but in 7 years of his administration he has championed these things and been unable to accomplish them because of the realities of a Republican congress that he has had through his ENTIRE presidency, and politics in general.

I think the same can be said for some of the democratic senators. Many of them are genuinely trying to fight the good fight, but politicial realities, in particular the politics of compromise, keep them from doing so many things that they would otherwise love to do.

Politics is one of the pitfalls of a Republican form of government.

[First International]

136. Re: bourgeois democracy

Hm, most candidates are shills for the ruling class power structure.

[TankLV]

145. Obama is a BIG TIME disappointment for what he has said and done

since being elected.

A BIG FUCKING DISAPPOINTMENT.

All hype, no follow-thru.

Mighty disappointing.

[Raskolnik]

147. I bet you get disappointed a lot.

Politics isn't about instant gratification, its about the long-term.

If you want Obama to blow all his credibility on an argument he can't possibly win at the expense of later fights that we'll need him for, then don't wonder why we lose those later fights.

[ArtVandaley]

151. Hahaha, are you serious?

He hasn't been in office for a whole month yet! What exactly did you think he'd get done thus far?

[TankLV]

174. I am deadly serious. It is amazing - hasn't even been a month and he

spews the shit he has alread.

If you want to find out - just read what he has said.

Like I said - a BIG disappointment.

Don't like it? Too bad. A lot of persons agree with me - I'd say "most". But all he has to do is please just one - me - and he's failed.

We shall see - after all, it's only been a month.

We shall see.

But that doesn't change how I feel which is based on what he has done/said.

BIG DISAPPOINTMENT so far.

[ArtVandaley]

182. No

"But all he has to do is please just one - me - and he's failed."

Wrong. He has to please the people of Illinois and the American people as a whole, not just you. Politicians need to vote according to what is right for the American people, not to satisfy you. That is a very selfish attitude.

[ailsagirl]

149. I've changed by mind

I said in an earlier post that I backed Obama but now I am furious over his stand on Iran-- he's all for attacking it.

That's absolutely unacceptable to me. Shame on him.

[Raskolnik]

164. Obama said no such thing.

Go and read what he said. Shame on you for not being honest.

[ailsagirl]

165. Honest??? What are you talking about? This was from Malloy's

program.

And stop being so damn sanctimonious.

Thank you


Obama would consider missile strikes on Iran

By David Mendell
Tribune staff reporter
Published September 25, 2004

U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama suggested Friday that the United States one day might have to launch surgical missile strikes into Iran and Pakistan to keep extremists from getting control of nuclear bombs.

Obama, a Democratic state senator from the Hyde Park neighborhood, made the remarks during a meeting Friday with the Tribune editorial board. Obama's Republican opponent, Alan Keyes, was invited to attend the same session but declined.

Iran announced on Tuesday that it has begun converting tons of uranium into gas, a crucial step in making fuel for a nuclear reactor or a nuclear bomb. The International Atomic Energy Agency has called for Iran to suspend all such activities.

Obama said the United States must first address Iran's attempt to gain nuclear capabilities by going before the United Nations Security Council and lobbying the international community to apply more pressure on Iran to cease nuclear activities. That pressure should come in the form of economic sanctions, he said.

But if those measures fall short, the United States should not rule out military strikes to destroy nuclear production sites in Iran, Obama said.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0409250111sep25,1,7098310.story?coll=chi-news-hed&ctrack=2&cset=true

[Raskolnik]

167. Honest??? I still don't think so.

Show me where in that article Obama comes close to saying that he is "all for" attacking Iran.

It seems pretty clear to me that he stated that our first, best option is diplomacy, followed by pressure from the international community, followed as a last resort by military force.

How could you possibly interpret that as advocating attacking Iran?

I hope like hell we have a smart (i.e., not designed by Bush) plan of dealing with Iran should they produce and distribute nuclear weapons. These are some bad mofos that don't have our best interests at heart, and if we sit in the corner and let Bush monopolize the debate, we end up with another Iraq. And I say nuts to that.

[Malva Zebrina]

150. Today I had a conversation with a Bush supporter

I tried to point out the lies told by Bush in order to satisfy his lust to invade, conquor, and destroy Iraq--not Saddam, but Iraq and 100,000 of it's innocent civilians.

I pointed out how Ms Rice lied to the Senate Foreign Relations committe re the rational for going into Iraq--ie that Saddam was a bad man who was a threat and needed to be taken out. I pointed out the evidence presented by Senator Boxer and the Ari Fleicher quote about WMD being the reason we need to invade Iraq, which we all know now, with certainty, was a lie.

The reply? That Democrats voted to confirm Condi, so what Boxer said is null and void.

There you have it. Think about that.

How much longer are we expected to hold the ground, when our own make it easy to humiliate us and embarrass us? How much longer are we expected to circumvent the embarrassment of our own representatives making it HARDER for us to fight this fascism and making it harder for us to defend our viewpoints?

[Tinoire]

170. And there you do have it! In a nutshell..."The Politics of Victimization"

Eloriel posted this.. It's very too the point about the situation we're in.

The Politics of Victimization

(Mel Gilles, who has worked for many years as an advocate for victims of domestic abuse, draws some parallels between her work and the reaction of many Democrats to the election.-- Mathew Gross)


Watch Dan Rather apologize for not getting his facts straight, humiliated before the eyes of America, voluntarily undermining his credibility and career of over thirty years. Observe Donna Brazille squirm as she is ridiculed by Bay Buchanan, and pronounced irrelevant and nearly non-existent. Listen as Donna and Nancy Pelosi and Senator Charles Schumer take to the airwaves saying that they have to go back to the drawing board and learn from their mistakes and try to be better, more likable, more appealing, have a stronger message, speak to morality. Watch them awkwardly quote the bible, trying to speak the new language of America. Surf the blogs, and read the comments of dismayed, discombobulated, confused individuals trying to figure out what they did wrong. Hear the cacophony of voices, crying out, “Why did they beat me?”

(snip)

The answer is quite simple. They beat us because they are abusers. We can call it hate. We can call it fear. We can say it is unfair. But we are looped into the cycle of violence, and we need to start calling the dominating side what they are: abusive. And we need to recognize that we are the victims of verbal, mental, and even, in the case of Iraq, physical violence.

As victims we can’t stop asking ourselves what we did wrong. We can’t seem to grasp that they will keep hitting us and beating us as long as we keep sticking around and asking ourselves what we are doing to deserve the beating.

(snip)

And watch the Democratic Party leadership walk on eggshells, try to meet him, please him, wash the windows better, get out that spot, distance themselves from gays and civil rights. See them cry for the attention and affection and approval of the President and his followers. Watch us squirm. Watch us descend into a world of crazy-making, where logic does not work and the other side tells us we are nuts when we rely on facts. A world where, worst of all, we begin to believe we are crazy.

How to break free? Again, the answer is quite simple.

First, you must admit you are a victim. Then, you must declare the state of affairs unacceptable. Next, you must promise to protect yourself and everyone around you that is being victimized. You don’t do this by responding to their demands, or becoming more like them, or engaging in logical conversation, or trying to persuade them that you are right. You also don’t do this by going catatonic and resigned, by closing up your ears and eyes and covering your head and submitting to the blows, figuring its over faster and hurts less is you don’t resist and fight back. Instead, you walk away. You find other folks like yourself, 56 million of them, who are hurting, broken, and beating themselves up. You tell them what you’ve learned, and that you aren’t going to take it anymore. You stand tall, with 56 million people at your side and behind you, and you look right into the eyes of the abuser and you tell him to go to hell. Then you walk out the door, taking the kids and gays and minorities with you, and you start a new life. The new life is hard. But it’s better than the abuse.

(snip)

Even if you do everything right, they’ll hit you anyway. Look at the poor souls who voted for this nonsense. They are working for six dollars an hour if they are working at all, their children are dying overseas and suffering from lack of health care and a depleted environment and a shoddy education. And they don’t even know they are being hit.

http://mathewgross.com/blog/archives/001041.html

[followthemoney]

155. Let Obama know what you think of his performance

He's new. Give his some gentle nudges in the direction he needs to go. It's far too early to give up on him. Give him some incentive to do what we should all hope he wants to do.

I talked to him once and I don't think he got the whole picture of what I tried to get across to him. He's what we've got. Time for some bottom up "small d" democracy in his ear.

[radio4progressives]

166. Feinstein is a DINO - Obama did what he had to do as a newbie..

While I was disappointed with Obama's and Feingold's vote, I didn't expect to be any different. I did think that Obama actually did the most to give it to Condi - it was likely to be too subtle for most observers, i suspect (or perhaps much too nuanced considering the impact of the the role she played in making the case for war), but the expression on Ms. Rice's face after Obama got done with her after the second or third round (if memory serves)was an image of a sister that was righteously and brutally humilated by a brother in the middle of the town square. It was far more humiliating than Boxer's exchanges with her.

In fact I very nearly felt sorry for her for a very brief nano moment, until I remembered all the blood that had been shed, and all the innocent lives lost based on her lies to the American People, promoting an agenda that had nothing to do with National Defense, which is the only reason, other than intervention, when a nation should ever have the legal right, and the moral authority to go to war with another.

[mt1000]

172. Zionist

It's that Zionism deal :nuke: ... and the WWII & WWIII nusance.
__________________________________

Obama would consider missile strikes on Iran
By David Mendell
Tribune staff reporter
Published September 25, 2004


U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama suggested Friday that the United States one day might have to launch surgical missile strikes into Iran and Pakistan to keep extremists from getting control of nuclear bombs.

Obama, a Democratic state senator from the Hyde Park neighborhood, made the remarks during a meeting Friday with the Tribune editorial board. Obama's Republican opponent, Alan Keyes, was invited to attend the same session but declined.

Iran announced on Tuesday that it has begun converting tons of uranium into gas, a crucial step in making fuel for a nuclear reactor or a nuclear bomb. The International Atomic Energy Agency has called for Iran to suspend all such activities.

Obama said the United States must first address Iran's attempt to gain nuclear capabilities by going before the United Nations Security Council and lobbying the international community to apply more pressure on Iran to cease nuclear activities. That pressure should come in the form of economic sanctions, he said.

But if those measures fall short, the United States should not rule out military strikes to destroy nuclear production sites in Iran, Obama said.

"The big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to take military action?" Obama asked.

Given the continuing war in Iraq, the United States is not in a position to invade Iran, but missile strikes might be a viable option, he said. Obama conceded that such strikes might further strain relations between the U.S. and the Arab world.

"In light of the fact that we're now in Iraq, with all the problems in terms of perceptions about America that have been created, us launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in," he said.

"On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran. ... And I hope it doesn't get to that point. But realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved, I'd be surprised if Iran blinked at this point.

[fujiyama]

175. While they shouldn't be equated with Zell

it should be made clear to all Dem senators that this is unacceptable. We don't support the party to simply go along and get along with republicans.

We wanted an OPPOSITION. We want roadblocks to this administration's agenda and we want this administration to be given hell along the way.

Enough bullshit. Enough excuses. These senators aren't stepping up and doing their job. They're giving this administration a fuckin rubber stamp.

It's making me sick.