A question for those screaming at the Democrats

[WilliamPitt]

This legislation came up for three reasons:

1) SCOTUS trashed the White House with Hamden v. Rice;

2) The Democrats are in the minority;

3) It's an election year.

See #2 most specifically. Read:

"By mostly party-line votes, the Senate rejected Democratic efforts to limit the bill to five years, to require frequent reports from the administration on the CIA's interrogations and to add a list of forbidden interrogation techniques."

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/washington/AP-Congress-Terrorism.html?hp&ex=1159502400&en=7707704764fd6b3e&ei=5094&partner=homepage

How is that "pro-torture," as so many here seem to want us to believe?

They tried to limit the life of the bill, tried to get accountability from the administration, and tried to ban outright torture.

They were defeated.

Because they are in the minority.

A filibuster would have failed.

Because they are in the minority.

But they tried.

So I, for one, am refusing to listen to all the people here who want to use this to slander and smash Democrats. Your cries are falling on deaf ears.

"By mostly party-line votes, the Senate rejected Democratic efforts to limit the bill to five years, to require frequent reports from the administration on the CIA's interrogations and to add a list of forbidden interrogation techniques."

Now, I go eat dinner.

[rockymountaindem]

1. Ok, but...

Why vote for the final version of the bill then? That's what I don't understand.

[WilliamPitt]

2. To rob the GOP of an election-year platform

[rockymountaindem]

3. I know

But that's getting harder and harder to swallow.

[WilliamPitt]

4. Alternatives?

[rockymountaindem]

6. Yeah n/t

[earthside]

12. Salazar Voted YES

He's not up for election this year.

Go figure.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00259

[walldude]

40. Had high hopes when he got elected... too bad.. n/t

[seabeyond]

62. i did too. i had spent a lot of time in colorado. coors pisses me off

i am in the panhandle of texas and it is all red. i spent time in colorado and felt so good running into so many democrats adn people going after coors, the family man, that puts soft porn commercials on saturday and sunday afternoon football games for sons and daughters to watch while sittin with their fathers. (i digress).

that race really meant something for me. and then, ... i saw how salazar voted. so disappointed.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

7. yea, 'don't vote dem, they voted against Torture! how UnAmerikan!"

politics above people is just wrong.

[LuckyLib]

8. I would have preferred a unified Democratic Congress saying

as one voice, "No. We don't accept this. It is against the principles on which this country was founded. The American people are with us on this. And you will not be able to claim that we are soft on terrorism or that we wish harm on the country. No." The GOP will use it anyway. Might as well have some spine/principles on which to base the Democratic campaign.

[tblue]

49. Wouldn't that have been sweet?

Why don't they GET that? What a SLEDGEHAMMER we would've had to slam the Repugs with if only the Dems could have united. :banghead: Think that will ever happen?

[atommom]

80. Yes. That is what they should have done.

And if they had done that, there would be a lot less Dem-bashing going on here tonight. If they will not stand up against BushCo, they deserve the criticism, particularly if they actually cast a vote for this misbegotten bill. That is just unacceptable.

[Warren DeMontague]

16. Okay, Will. Here's the problem with that logic, in three little letters:

IWR.

The brilliant playbook you describe to "rob them" of this supposedly killer asteroid of an issue for the 2006 elections is the EXACT SAME ONE which many of our people came up with in 2002, when Karl Rove sandwiched them between the rock of voting for a clearly ill-advised Iraq war based on shoddy lies, and the supposed "hard place" of being labeled anti-war sissies for not charging into war with Iraq in the relatively immediate post 9-11 world.

Of course, we already knew Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. We knew it was a bad idea. But "conventional wisdom" said we had to vote for that turd, because the alternative would be too horrible to mention.. sure electoral defeat.

Well, most of our people voted for it. And we still got the electoral defeat. And we got the too horrible to mention, to boot. Now, three years into this clusterfuck, the LAST rationalization team Bush can come up with for the bastard is, "you guys voted for it, too".

No, I think the people who got robbed of an election year platform were our people who didn't stand on principle. And I fear, like the Iraq vote, that it will come around to bite us on the ass in the future.

[Toucano]

95. Well stated. n/t

[MrCoffee]

59. I respectfully dissent, sir.

The only reason to vote for the bill was to position yourself as "strong on defense/terror". While that's a legitimate campaign goal, it cannot, it cannot be a legitimate defense when the bill you supported and voted for includes a provision restricting habeas.

There was virtually no debate on the Habeas Clause at the convention. It was universally accepted that a hallmark of a free socitey is protection against and a remedy for wrongful imprisonment at the hands of a tyrant.

I do not accept the argument that a vote for the bill simply robbed the GOP of a platform plank, when that same bill eviscerated the Constitution.

Eviscerated is the only word that adequately describes today's action.

I respectfully dissent.

[Garbo 2004]

81. As if GOP election yr platforms were fact based? As Dem pols should

have learned by now, a vote "for" any such subject, take IWR for ex, doesn't "insulate" a Dem from attack on any basis. The GOP makes up their facts to suit. Decorated war vets are "cowards," people of reason and compassion are "haters," etc.

[Toucano]

94. We didn't rob the GOP of anything!

They got what they wanted, and the Democrats pandered for votes like weasels.

Stop pissing on my leg and telling me it's raining!

[Ignacio Upton]

101. But at what expense to our values as a country?

I can understand voting for something like the bankruptcy bill or even the Iraq War (at least based on the intelligence they had in 2002) but we CLEARLY know what's going on with Bush and torture. Reid could have enforced party discipline and made the other Senators vote no or "present." Unfortunately, this isn't just indicative of "DLC DINOS." Sherrod Brown and Bob Menendez are fiarly progressive, but both of them are up for election to the U.S. Senate. Their spinelessness on this issue shows that wimpyness in our party in an institutional problem!

This bill authorizes torture, plain and simple. I don't want to see people become apathetic about voting in November because of this, but shit like this makes intra-party frustration more understandable. However, we must not give up in trying to take back the party. Conservatives didn't give up in the 1960's and 1970's in trying to take over the Republican Party after setbacks (ie. oOldwater's loss and losing Senate seats to Democrats because they replaced moderate Senators with right-wingers in primaries.)

[never_get_over_it]

15. Come on you know

they're keeping their powder dry until something REALLY IMPORTANT comes up....

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

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

[LSK]

5. im not sure a filibuster would have failed

If Reid would have twisted a few arms.... oh well, next fight...

[damntexdem]

13. The next fight may be against the shackles ...

on the flight to Gitmo. This is not 'just another' loss. This one has to be avenged against all of its perpetrators -- that is, assuming there is ever a free election that would make that possible.

[LSK]

26. got a time machine so I can somehow undo the vote?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2244362&mesg_id=2244362

[The Backlash Cometh]

9. Bill Nelson from Florida has no excuse.

Too bad it's not too late to Lieberman him.

[Redstone]

10. That's ZERO FUCKING EXCUSE for 46 Democrats to vote YES.

Those 46 Democrats are traitors to their party, their nation, and Mankind.

Redstone

[gully]

32. Yes, and we should deal with them after we deal with the number one

threat - Republicans.

[Redstone]

34. Yes, indeed. Let us not forget this perfidy.

Redstone

[robinlynne]

36. 12. not 46.

[Moochy]

37. self-delete

wrong subthread

[Rex]

39. Well said!

NO one should vote yes on torture! I don't care if it is played off as 'strategy' or what have you. It is wrong and anyone who defends those folks is wrong too.

TORTURE IS WRONG. Voting yes on torture is even wronger.

[walldude]

43. I agree.. but it was only 12, here they are:

Carper (Del.), Johnson (S.D.), Landrieu (La.), Lautenberg (N.J.), Lieberman (Conn.), Menendez (N.J), Nelson (Fla.), Nelson (Neb.), Pryor (Ark.), Rockefeller (W. Va.), Salazar (Co.), Stabenow (Mich).

Sorry Will but I hardly see where 12 Dems voting yea is a "split among party lines". Since I'm stuck voting for Dems why shouldn't I be able to scream at them when some of them do something monumentally stupid. Besides this isn't just a torture bill, it's a bill to absolve the administration of violations of the U.S. Constitution and the Geneva Convention. And 12 Dems voted FOR IT! I think we aren't screaming loud enough.

[Individualist]

46. 34 House Dems plus 12 Senate Dems equals 46

[walldude]

76. Oh sorry... wasn't counting the house....

anyone have that list?

[americanstranger]

83. Umm...

I think you have the numbers reversed.

12 voted for it.

(On Edit) Didn't realize you were counting the House, too. I stand corrected.

- as

[damntexdem]

11. A filibuster would have succeeded, ...

had they ALL tried. There are some Democratic senators, as well as Republican, who are traitors to this country.

[Ksec]

14. good points.

I hate it but its politics. Politics is an ugly business..

[damntexdem]

19. No, it is NOT politics! It is treason; it is criminal; it is inhuman.

This is further making the U.S. a pariah nation. If this cannot be reversed, it will be impossible to ever be proud to be an American again.

[Ksec]

21. I agree but first you must win a majority , then

you go about the business of changing these fascist policies.
Its like selling your soul to the devil for a chance to change things later. Its an ugly business, really ugly.

[Bluerthanblue]

60. if you think you can win a deal with the devil,

by living under his rules in hopes of finding an opportunity to de-throne him, your gambling with a known cheater-

I don't know how to 'frame' this in a positive way. And I'm sick to DEATH of 'waiting till the (next) election', what real hope do we have that the next election will not be screwed with like every one since this fresh hell took office?

Not meaning to be my usual voice of doom, but my pockets are empty of hope...

Yeah, most of the Dem's understand the importance of being earnest- but its an all or nothing battle.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

73. Some principles are beyond politics

I cannot stand this lame excuse of "WAAAH! We're not in the majority, so we can't take a stand, because we won't stand up for any principle unless we're sure we'll win!"

It comes perilously close to the sociopath's favorite excuse for swindling or taking advantage of the vulnerable, "If I don't do it, somebody else will."

If a legislator can't vote literally for truth, justice, and the American way when all those things are under attack, what's the point? Is there ANY moral line that they won't cross?

[atommom]

121. You hit the nail on the head, Lydia.

And apparently, the answer is no. If they crossed this line, they'll cross any.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

17. It's all election-year Kabuki.

They all know the bill is industrial-strength unconstitutional. They wrap themselves in the flag, raise a big hoo-hah about protecting Our Families from Terra, and claim anybody (read: Democrats) who doesn't support torturing people and abolishing habeas corpus supports the terrorists. It's about as cynical as you can imagine. Some Democrats, mostly those in the House (and the usual DLC suspects in the Senate), cravenly voted for it too, because they were afraid of being seen by the voters as weak. They, too, know it's unconstitutional on its face. So everybody plays the game and waits for a case to work its way to the Supreme Court. If the Supremes rule it unconstitutional (and Rumsfeld v. Hamdan suggests that even this court might do so), Bush and his stooges can whine and blame them lib'rul activist judges. But at least THEY tried to perteck 'Merka from Terra.

[niallmac]

18. Just five years of torture? Gee that's not bad.

:wtf:

I can't believe today has happened.

[derby378]

57. Hell, Auschwitz was only in business for - what, only FOUR years?

What's another year between pro-torture politicians?

[bowens43]

20. I'm with you all the way.

[mtnsnake]

22. Maybe people are screaming at Dems cause Dems just aren't screaming

LOUD ENOUGH. Yeah, Democrats are in the minority, but they could scream just a LITTLE bit louder themselves instead of always leaving all the screaming to us.

[tblue]

54. A lot of them were.....but only on C-SPAN. After we win in November, we

1) Restore the Fairness Doctrine
2) Overturn this asinine torture bill
3) Indict/Impeach, Remove

Not necessarily in that order.

[Generator]

23. At some point there has to be a line in the sand

If you never draw it, it becomes harder to. And anyone expecting a different outcome after doing the same thing over and over-definition of insanity isn't it?

They didn't give this their heart and soul. They didn't stand up for the Constitution, man! They knew that without giving it their all it was doomed. Wow, if they ever tried it would be something, I'm sure. They didn't give the fight against the two supreme court justice their all. They haven't EVER given their all that I have EVER seen in watching them since Bush was selected.

But I know in my heart, EVEN IF they have a real majority come November the are not going to stand up to Bush and his numerous crimes. I know what they are made of, they have shown me time and time and time again.Some of them are really just Republicans with a D behind their name. Others, like Kerry for instance, know they are in the midst of unadulterated pure evil. And his solution is to wait for 2008. The last solution was to wait for 2006. So if we lose, or if we get a majority and they do nothing to stop Bush are you still going to get on DU and implore us to vote for those that no longer represent us? At what point do we stop living in denial and admit..drum roll please...it's not just the Republicans fault, it's also the "Democrats."

So damn right, I'll vote Democratic, out of pure cynicism because I'm no longer expecting them to be my saviors. (YEAH, the good guys, Conyers and Boxer, will try but they will never convince the other "Democrats" to join them. EVER)

That boat has sailed. And I just want everyone to see how worthless they really are when they get majority. I can't live in denial. It's bad for my health.

[earth mom]

107. We shouldn't have expected a different outcome...

Don't really know why we all expected more of those DINOS, because it's been obvious for a long time that integrity means nothing to them and neither does the Constitution.

in·teg·ri·ty (n-tgr-t)
n.
1. Steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code.

[Kingofalldems]

24. Democrats were in a bind on this

The media will scream RW talking points if they filibuster-----and the repubs will wind up gaining seats in Congress. Our focus should be on taking control of one or both houses so Congress can fulfill in Constitutional duty as a check to Mr. Bush's excesses.

[mmonk]

77. There is no bind when it comes to protecting and defending

the constitution. Either you are for the constitution of the US and the Bill of Rights or you are not. It should be reflexive unless your priority is all wrong.

[Moochy]

25. Slander and Smash

Deaf ears blah blah blah blah.

Enjoy your dinner.

[leanin_green]

103. Hehe n/t

[Triana]

27. I'm PISSED but...

...it ain't changing my vote in November. Big D and nothin but.

[bullwinkle428]

28. Will, someone got pissed at me when I said I was voting for a

Democratic CHALLENGER to a Republican that voted No on the torture bill! This place is turning into something exactly like that Twilight Zone episode that Olbermann referenced a couple of weeks back, where aliens started manipulating mechanical objects in a town to get the townspeople to turn against each other...maybe I need to take a break from here for a short time.

[Moochy]

33. Wrong

It is incorrect to say "dems voted against it."

11 voted for it in the senate, and 34 in the house. Don't gild the lily, and yeah probably best for everyone to take a torture break.

The Twilight zone is what this country is at. But what the hell , all this anger is misplaced, everyone's an infiltrating freeper but you, right?

[bullwinkle428]

41. You missed my point completely - I never called anyone an

infiltrating Freeper, and I never said or even implied that all Dems voted against it. The original post I had referred to was an airing of the conflict that existed in my own mind over the fact that the incumbent Republican was one of the rare ones to vote No on the bill, but I still felt compelled to vote for the Dem. challenger as I have actually HEARD him speak on a variety of issues and had full confidence that he would never for a bill like this. I actually called the offices of both senators from my state, so I can still look at myself in the mirror over this...I'm disgusted enough as it is.

[Moochy]

45. You are right, I'm sorry

I re-read your first sentence more carefully, and after I re-parsed it I now understand what you meant.

That is pretty f!@#!ing wacky, to have someone recommend voting for the republican opposed to torture, over the democratic challenger.

Apologies for that misread, but I thought you were saying that opposition to the terror bill in general was where the "Twilight Zone" comment was coming from.

Cheers, and good on ya for callin your senators.

[bullwinkle428]

64. Thanks - apology accepted! I was hoping it was just a case of

misinterpretation, and if I just got into more detail with the explanation it would make more sense. I figured I wouldn't have much chance of getting Grassley (R) to vote no, but if enough calls caused him a little sleeplessness over this matter, it was the very least I could do! :thumbsup:

[seabeyond]

30. with you Pitt. dems voted NO. repugs passed this bill. they are the

party of torture. simple and clear

[bigtree]

31. 5th rec!

thai-lime chicken breast and lime-rice pilaf and peas for me

[mmonk]

35. Sorry Will. Though I agree with you most of the time

and certainly agree that we must vote democratic in November, I can't see a positive spin out of any democrat voting for this monstrous garbage nor can I take lightly dictatorship which this president has wanted having just been legislated. I do see danger in this. I see more abuse in the meantime while this works its way to the Supreme Court if it indeed makes it. And remember, THERE IS NO GUARANTEE democrats will win a majority in November to UNDO this.

[TheBaldyMan]

38. sorry WP - I am disgusted at anyone that voted for this legislation

be they democrats or republicans, they have stained their character by not voting against the bill. I understand why you are rooting for the team but that doesn't absolve the complicity of those of both sides that voted for wholesale deprivation of civil liberties and human rights.

In my book it doesn't matter if it's doomed to defeat - you should still stay on the side of the angels. Letting everybody see that you are sends a signal to the crooks who are still in power that they will be looking over their shoulder for the rest of their natural life. Pinochet found out to his cost that you can pack the judiciary, award yourself a full pardon and still get thrown in jail, it might take years but eventually only the grave will cheat justice.

[jazzjunkysue]

42. I question the assumption that a yes made them safer in November.

I think the public is getting caught up now on the GOP lies, and will actually know about this, and will care, and it will backfire.

This doesn't make us look strong. It makes us look like an immoral, lawless monarchy.

This sounds like something Stalin would do.

[mdmc]

44. have a nice dinner

:patriot:

[FourScore]

47. I'm not agreeing with you this time Will

They needed to defend the Constitution. There's no losing that battle in the public's eye. They needed to filibuster.

[JeffR]

48. They didn't try hard enough and you damn well know it

And if you don't, you need to think it through some more.

[havocmom]

53. Curious about what else they could have done,

short of blowing up the building.

[JeffR]

56. Oh, that they had

But a straight party line No vote would have been in the ballpark. Or a filibuster, not because it would have worked, but just on principle. Or an attempt, going back weeks, to reframe the debate for what it is, not for what Bush and his rubberstamp brigade wanted it to be...

[FourScore]

63. Exactly!!!

[JeffR]

69. Your user name says it all, brother

Where, indeed?

[FourScore]

86. Someone pointed out to me

the other day the abbreviation of my acronym (wimp). I hadn't noticed that before. Seems sadly appropriate for our party today as well.:toast:

[JeffR]

89. Naw. The real wimps are on the other side of the aisle.

Though it's not as if the Democrats covered themselves in dust & glory today. A few did, happily. Too many did not. Of course, I'll be voting straight ticket D. Again. Ya just have to wonder: when does the party I support begin to support me, and a lot of us? When?

[FourScore]

91. Yep. I hear ya'.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

50. The Senators who voted for torture were playing petty politics when

the game was really morality and ethics and basic principles of justice.

Fortunately, my Dem senator voted against the bill (my Republicanite senator is Norm Coleman--'nuff said).

But politics, their own political careers, supporting their golfing buddies, getting a new dam in their district if they support the bill, being fwightened of Big Bad Kawl Wove--I'm sorry, but no excuse is good enough for me.

This vote should have gone along straight party lines, with every single Democrat in both the House and Senate voting against the bill.

Then the Democratic Party could have stood tall and declared themselves defenders of the Constitution, just as they did on the frankly surprising occasion when they stood together to defend Social Security.

If I had been Minority Leader, I would have told every member Dem member of the House or Senate not to expect any help in their next re-election bid if they went with the Republicanites on this question. I would have told them to expect a well-funded primary challenger if they broke ranks.

If those individuals can't stand up for the Constituion, what good are they?

[leanin_green]

106. See #104, glad I'm not alone in thinking this way.

Hey Lydia!!!

:hi: :hug: :yourock:

[gumby]

51. The amendment theater was foo-foo.

Why did they even bother? I could almost see the tutus twirling on the Senate floor.

What happened today was heinous -- politics be damned. What happened today was not only a grave strike to our constitution and to this country, it was an attack on humanity.

There is no excuse for the Democrats. They failed miserably.

[Wiley50]

52. So Will,my friend. How does what you say explain OUR DIRTY DOZEN?

Carper (Del.)
Johnson (S.D.)
Landrieu (La.)
Lautenberg (N.J.)
Lieberman (Conn.)
Menendez (N.J)
Pryor (Ark.)
Rockefeller (W. Va.)
Salazar (Co.)
Stabenow (Mich.)
Nelson (Fla.)
Nelson (Neb.)

[Wiley50]

61. Oh. Yeah. Will DISAPPEARED from his OWN THREAD 48 POSTS AGO!

Guess he can't figure out how to plug the hole
in his own logic
RE: THE DIRTY DOZEN

Way ta go, Buddy.

C'mon Will. I thought much better of you
and then you go off and hide

[Moochy]

67. Refusing to listen... to the straw man

"So I, for one, am refusing to listen to all the people here who want to use this to slander and smash Democrats. Your cries are falling on deaf ears."

Refusing to listen, because he knows he's right? Who is chosing this to slander and smash? Such a pathetic strawman.

So how about those who choose to use this opportunity to call the 12 the dirty dozen, yet STILL vote for these weaselly fascists?

[mmonk]

55. Here's what CCR has to say. They also say they will

challenge though they don't indicate how.
-snip-

"With the defeat of the Specter Amendment to the Military Commissions Act, Congress has sacrificed any semblance of a meaningful balance of power. Congress is now rubber-stamping a bill that was written by the President which gives the President expansive power to detain without judicial oversight. If the Military Commissions Act is passed, it will grant the President the privilege of kings, allowing him to imprison any critics as alleged 'enemy combatants,' never to see the inside of a court room or to have the chance to challenge their detention or their treatment.

-snip-



http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/reports/report.asp?ObjID=3in4Yl9iUG&Content=848

[BigBearJohn]

58. ok. then answer me this. what POSSIBLE reason could ANY Dem have

for voting FOR this bill?

[Bluerthanblue]

65. they see

the future? and it ain't good?
They're coverin thier rear out of future fear-

[Jcrowley]

66. People's lives

are not just fun and political games.

If you vote for a bill that codifies torture or support any who vote in this manner you are an appeaser of the most vile acts of humanity.

"Any person subject to this chapter who intentionally uses a distinctive emblem recognized by the law of war for combatant purposes in a manner prohibited by the law of war shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter may direct."

Anyone who doesn't understand what is happening here is asleep at the wheel.

[Moochy]

72. asleep at the wheel

(Sleepwalking at the keyboard, rah rah Dem's! goooo Dem's! we were in the minority what didja want us to do? )

So we caucused and realized we didn't want to waste any dry powder and we did the "smart" thing, we allowed the traitors to have their day in the sun, and gave the right wingers in our midst "political cover"

bullshit. plain and simple. But I guess folks are choosing to "Slander and smash" :eyes:

[Pachamama]

68. If the Dems take the House and Senate, couldn't they change the law?

:shrug:

Granted Bush could veto, but I just wanted to know if that could be a strategy as soon as we take back Congress....

:hi: Will! Thanks for your posts...they keep me sane...

[mmonk]

71. We're probably in a dictatorship for a couple of years at

least. Who will die and who will disappear in these black holes with no right of redress in any manner? Those that die, on who's soul will that lie? The answer is anybody who voted for any of this and any who did not fight it.

[Moochy]

74. And those that defended their votes

as astute political strategy.

Just to remind everyone.. This is what we are fighting against:

[savemefromdumbya]

75. yes

[troubleinwinter]

70. 27% of Democratic senators voted for it.

17% of Dems in the House.

Of course I'll vote Dem. in November. But I will not be happy or overly proud.

I am worn out from begging Dems to stand with us on these issues and never seeing Dems stand together. Yeah, I know we are the 'minority', but I'm sick of begging them to do the RIGHT thing and heaing them say, "Well, the senator is waiting to see what constituents think. We are tallying phone calls." WTF?! They are clueless about what the RIGHT thing is?! How many times have we gone on phone/fax/email campaigns for filibusters or to satnd against a fascist SCOTUS nominee?

Whether they work or not, they'd get some attention to THE RIGHT THING, and FUCK how it's 'spun' by media & republicans & Rove!

We need people of HONOR STANDING UP for the right thing. STANDING for PRINCIPLE.

Today, it is apparent that we have a mere 73% of Democratic senators who stand for honor, principle, the law and doing the right thing.

From 'To Kill A Mockingbird' (thanks to Xipe Totec on another thread):

"I wanted you to see what real courage is, instead of getting the idea that courage is a man with a gun in his hand. It's when you know you're licked before you begin but you begin anyway and you see it through no matter what. You rarely win, but sometimes you do."

~Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird, Chapter 11, spoken by the character Atticus Finch

[tblue]

78. Voting for torture is the same as executing the torture yourself.

Just like voting for the death penalty is the same as flipping the switch. I could never vote for it, as much as I want to tear every child molester's thing off.

The vote is the same as doing the deed. The ones who voted 'yea' are torturers. What in the world did they imagine they'd gain?

[BuyingThyme]

114. Worse.

[Patchuli]

79. Thank you. I'm tired of those that want to give up

because I agree with Patrick Henry.

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/related/henry.htm

[leesa]

82. Our system of government doesn't work at all. I wish we could switch to

a Parliamentary system. We want to export this crappy system?

Our much-touted Constitution doesn't mean a damned thing if the majority party decides not to play ball. It's a non-binding contract. Bush is right. It's just a piece of paper.

[Tatiana]

84. Some arm twisting of half of those 12 senators and we'd have a filibuster.

I think the anger and frustration expressed by many has nothing to do with the expectation of miraculous heroics. Instead, it was just the seemingly defeatist attitude on the part of Democratic leadership to truly go all out to defeat this thing. I'm sure if a bit of pressure had been applied to Stabenow and few others, we could have seen a different outcome. I'm reminded of Bill Clinton's confrontation of Chris Wallace on Faux. He'd admitted he failed to kill Bin Laden. But he said he tried, and the proof was in his actions as President.

I don't think anyone would have felt bad if the Dems had failed to outright defeat the bill. However, a party leader does what he/she needs to do when critical votes are at stake. Reid should have been working Stabenow, Salazar, Lautenberg, etc. over like nobody's business. If there was even an inkling that a filibuster was in the works and that it had a chance to succeed, I think some of those Dem Senators would have voted differently. We didn't work this issue like we needed to. This should have been a prime opportunity to clearly delineate a fundamental difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. We believe in the Constitution, in fair and humane treatment of individuals; we want to keep our troops safe and free from being tortured themselves. This would have been a great issue to use against Republican opponents: that they want to make it more likely for our troops to get tortured.

We missed a golden opportunity here and that's what makes me angry and frustrated.

Edited to add:

My point is, we didn't really TRY. It's one thing to try and fail. But to not take the (admitted) risk of filibustering - to not TRY on a issue as moral as torture makes me wonder what in the hell would it take to get one? Remember, Reid is the same guy that back in 2003 almost single-handedly led a very successful NINE HOUR filibuster as minority whip. He read from a damn book for NINE HOURS. I didn't see the same fire and determination this time, when we really needed it. Those 12 Democratic Senators felt comfortable voting the way they did near mid-term elections because there was no pressure applied to them by our leadership to do otherwise.

[NanceGreggs]

85. Amen to that, sister ...

... amen.

It's too bad we can't recommend an individual post on a thread, because I'd give you a big K&R on THAT one.

[FourScore]

87. Beautifully said!!

[JeffR]

88. You put it beautifully

And I wish the "we have to win so we can go about undoing all the bad shit we countenanced in a nakedly calculated attempt to win" crowd would read, contemplate and assimilate what you've said.

[Toucano]

93. True, true, ture. Except it's only 11 Democratic senators.

Lieberman is not a Democrat. He's running an independent campaign against a Democrat, so he doesn't count.

[Tatiana]

96. Point well taken.

Specifically, I was referring to the group of Carper, Johnson, Lautenberg, Menendez, Rockefeller, Salazar, Stabenow, and Nelson (FL). Reid could have pulled 6 votes out of that group, giving Landrieu, Lieberman, and Nelson (Neb.) a pass.

[WA98296]

90. Don’t peddle this bullshit, William Pitt

TRIED? Like hell our democratic senators tried to stop this. Which ONE of them stood up and said the reason for this legislation is to provide Get-out-of-Jail-Free cards to the criminal administration?

Any ONE of them?

Instead, they stood back FEARFUL of actually DOING ANYTHING. Fearful of what the GOP would do to them, Fearful of what the media might report about them, Fearful that they might not be gifted with another term. Not one of them deserves to serve, not even one.

An election year is not justification for any part of this -- it is shameful, it is disgraceful, it is disgusting.

[Moochy]

105. Well said n/t

[Toucano]

92. More tired excuses for failure.

Were in the minority...boo hoo.

It's an election year...boo hoo.

Seven names on the list are NOT UP FOR RE-ELECTION! Three of the remaining four enjoy substantial leads in the polls. The last, Menendez, is going to lose anyway.

A fillibuster could have been sustained, even if we gave a pass to those up for re-election.

Democrats FAILED to stop Bush's consolidation of Presidential Power because they're PRO-TORTURE IDIOTS.

[JeffR]

98. Wish this had been response #1

& the thread could have sunk, mercifully, away to the back pages...

[Toucano]

100. Thank you. n/t

[Hippo_Tron]

97. There are places to draw a line and I think this is one of them

In 2002 Democrats were saying the same thing about the Iraq War Resolution, and they (John Kerry in particular) paid the price for it.

That said, this isn't stopping me from voting in November. I don't think Harold Ford could really do much of anything to convince me that he isn't better than Bob Corker.

[geomon666]

99. What exactly is your point?

That it was better for the 'dems' to vote for torture because it'll save their asses come election time? Is that what I'm hearing?

That's really nice. It's nice knowing they have a nice job and they have a D in front of their names so of course they represent me but oh...yeah...I DON'T FUCKING SUPPORT TORTURE! So they don't represent me do they? But they have the magic D, so it's all good. The more D's there are the more happy thoughts I can think but the D's keep voting for TORTURE!

Maybe I'm all mixed up.

[bbgrunt]

102. they were in the minority, but they could have

used all the procedural tactics they threatened during earlier confrontations. I think I will steal the line from another poster:

Now they can use their dry powder for suppositories

[leanin_green]

104. An act of collusion and complicity by the Dems.

Did anyone forget we are talking about TORTURE here people. Just where is the discussion?

Once again, a missed opportunity to stand up on principle and be counted as the party with a soul! Geez, how can there even be any compromise on such an issue?

Will, I love your loyalty and passion. But, my brother, you don't play politics with torture. And I become wary of any representative that tries to gain political advantage over such a vote or anyone else who seeks to try and find strategy in debating the same. There's just some things that politics doesn't apply to, and this is one of them. Join the rest of us great unwashed here in the trenches and grab a shovel!

[geomon666]

110. Don't hold your breath Green.

I'm still waiting for Rove's indictment. :eyes:

[Moochy]

111. Snap!!

[omega minimo]

108. Habeas Corpus, much?

[JeffR]

109. please, om

Quaint issues like habeas corpus don't matter. We have to retake Congress so we can re-assert the primacy of habeas corpus.

Or something...

[omega minimo]

112. Funny how there's always "Next Time"

:sarcasm: :eyes:

[JeffR]

115. Yeah. It's apparently up to the die-hards to always allow for "next time"

and it's become so damn tiresome, hasn't it?

[Moochy]

113. Like that Village in Vietnam

You know the village that needed to be bombed in order to be saved?

Truth is Fiction. War is Peace!

[JeffR]

116. An unfortunately apt comparison!

God help Amerika. And God help the Democratic Party. God help us all.

[mhatrw]

117. Why exactly would a filibuster fail?

Are there less than 40 Democratic Senators?

[BelgianMadCow]

118. You have not posed a question

[It was not a pretzel]

119. Swing voters go for Bush

partly because they see him stand by his "principles", even if they disagree.

Being "weak on terror" is not what lets the Dems down, it`s being weak on principles!

[OneBlueSky]

120. goddammit, the American people will stand up for the Democrats IF . . .

the Democrats fucking stand up for the America people! . . .

again . . . the American people will stand up for the Democrats IF the Democrats stand up for the American people! . . .

a strong and unified front in absolute and total opposition to the War Criminal Protection Act of 2006 would resonate positively with the vast majority -- IF you explain WHAT the bill contains, and WHY it cannot stand . . . hell, most are desperately hoping and praying for someone to step forward and stand up to the criminals who are destroying their country! . . .

the Democrats are missing a HUGE opportunity here to establish themselves as the de-facto leaders of this nation -- the ones protecting its foundation and preserving its values . . . but they have to stop living in the artificial, fear-mongered world created by BushCo and the media and return to the real world -- to the reality that BushCo THINKS they can manipulate . . . the reality where torture really IS abhorrent and unthinkable . . .

if we don't stand up to them now, we may never have another chance . . .