If the Dems can't say no to attacking Iran, I am done with them

[Nancy Waterman]

Right now they are saying nothing except the mealy mouthed: "Oh but we just can't let them have any nukes!!" This is straight from the Bush playbook. Never mind that tIran is surrounded by countries with nukes and that it would be the only way to keep us out.
Never mind that Bush won't even agree to not use nukes with them. Never mind that they haven't attacked anyone at all.

Mush: http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Democrats_in_Congress_lay_low_on_0418.html

[DELUSIONAL]

1. I'm with you on this . . .

there should be zero hesitation -- NO NUKING IRAN.

Otherwise throw out all the bastards.

[babylonsister]

2. They're not saying much, but they're not in session, and it's

all bluster at this point. I'm not freaking out just yet.

[SYNERCHOSIS]

6. Your country wants to nuke another country

and your not freaking out?

[babylonsister]

16. I mentioned 'bluster', didn't I?

I think it sucks that I have to depend on the BFEE to determine what's going on with my country, but I'm hoping that's not going to last much longer. As far as what they're going to do? I don't know. I just don't know how desperate they are for whatever their ultimate goals might be.
And welcome to DU, SYNERCHOSIS.

[SYNERCHOSIS]

22. Hopefully it is just bluster

Hopefully bushco will be out of business, hopefully we will all live in peace. The only thing is I don't have much hope anymore, everyday hope is replaced by depression. Depression gives way to apathy. Apathy enlists guilt, guilt turns to hate, hate manifests into despair. I don't know how to be happy anymore living in this society. I feel the suffering of the world is on my back and I just want a few fellow Americans to share the burden with me. Thanks for the welcome to DU, this is one of the few places that keeps me sane.

[rzemanfl]

3. It may well be we are just done, period. n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

4. Frankly, I think it's all a red herring.

Look, it's even got us arguing amongst ourselves.

[Harper_is_Bush]

5. Iran is saying some pretty harsh stuff at the moment.

I don't blame American Democrats for not ruling out action against them.

It's not wise to look for a blanket assurance. Bush is decided upon attacking in all likelyhood, as he was with Iraq. That's the difference between that idiot and your Dems.

Support the opposition.

[ewoden]

10. The problem with pre-emption policy is. . .

that the rest of the world has learned an important lesson with the situation in Iraq. Once the US sets its sights on you, regardless of whether you actually HAVE WMD, you are doomed. Unfortunately this does not deter nations from attempting to obtain such weapons. It is quite the opposite, because one is damned if one does and damned if one doesn't it pushes nations to actively think that WMD might be an ace in the hole to actually keep the wolf away from the door.

I hear the rhetoric coming from Iran leadership (Destroy israes, destroy the US). I don't believe it is a true expression of what they actually want. I belive they want a place of prominence in determining the future of the Middle East. They see themselves as the heirs to the one great Persian Empire and that alone is viewed as affording them more than a bit player role in events in their neighborhood.

Bush's openly keeping the nuclear option on the table merely ups the anti and eventually will force both the US and the Iranian hands. I wonder where the doomsday clock is right about now?

[Harper_is_Bush]

11. Dems are not supporting pre-emption though.

They are playing is smart IMO.

[GreenArrow]

13. should there arise some sort of "event"

'pre-emption will be a moot argument.

[driver8]

14. Action is one thing...to talk about using nuclear weapons is another.

Our idiot in chief is actually considering dropping nuclear weapons on another country to prevent them from developing nuclear weapons.

Does anyone besides me see the irony in this?

If shrub and company decide to use nuclear weapons, they are going to start a shit storm like the world has never seen. These people are absolutely fucking crazy.

[Harper_is_Bush]

15. I agree

but Dems should not be faulted for not coming out strong against all action.

[Porcupine]

7. Is there enough "Democratic Leadership" to hang dental floss on?

Sorry if I offend but I do despair.

MILLIONS of Democrats marched against the war and you would have thought we were completely invisible to most congressional Democrats. The "leadership" ran away from any anti-war candidate in the '04 election at light speed.

Shit they put up with Lieberman. Why would you expect them to oppose a new war?

[KoKo]

9. Maybe they are "Implant Candidates." ...

that "spine" thingy. :-)'s

[KoKo]

8. It's absolutely DISGUSTING...Carl Bernstein wrote a Beautiful Piece in VF

and where are the "cowering in the bunker DLC Dems?" The voices for truth have already spoken...but the rest of them hide in their holes waiting to see "the whites of their eyes" before they fire.

:puke: I've had it...with them the "cowering Dems" who won't even stand up for: John Conyers,Henry Waxman, Louise Slaughter, Russ Feingold,Russ Holt, Dick Durbin, Dennis Kucinich, Bob Wexler, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and the whole BLACK CAUCUS...plus another handful I've left out because in "post haste" I forgot their names.

WHO WILL STAND WITH THESE HEROES? .......NADA......ZIP.....0000000000000

[GreenArrow]

12. not just from the Bush playbook

controlling that area of the world is long term US policy. We have "interests" there, said interests being why a majority of Dems went along with Bush's Iraq scheme, and if push comes to shove, will go along with Bush's Iran scheme as well.

[ladjf]

17. If Dems can't say no to attacking Iran, we're all done period.

[LittleClarkie]

18. They? All of them?

I kinda doubt that.

Some of the Dems, yeah. The party itself? No.

I haven't heard anything from the Chairman. Have you?

Pelosi piped up, but I have no idea if Reid had much to say.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

19. I was "done with them" when

Clinton gave up on single payer health care, signed the "Welfare deform act, and instituted N.A.F.T.A. Been a registered Green ever since. Sorry folks but if you believe the Dem's have the peoples interest in mind, you are not paying attention! They are heading toward the same goal, just a little slower. As long as you have government of multi-millionaires, by multi-millionaire's, for multi-millionaire's, you will have millionaire's running things. They do not have the interest of the "people" in mind.

Yes, I agree, the Dem's are more socially Christian than the Republicans but, the Dem's in power still have too much to loose to change the status quo. Just look at Di-Fies portfolio! Mucho defense contractor investments! Look at your portfolio, do you have a portfolio? Probably not! Welcome to the world of those of us who actually get to fight the war! Most of us are cannon fodder, helping to make the rich, richer! Fighting for the aristocracy like Bush, who has never seen a war, our children die so Halliburton can make a huge profit, so Chevron can make a hugh profit, so Kellogg, Brown and Root (see Tony Blair and George the 1st can make a huge profit. while our son's and daughters die.

Go ahead, vote for the Dem's like LieberBush and Miller and Fienstein, because they have a (D) behind their name. But don't expect change, they have too much money to loose! The citizens be damned.

[babylonsister]

21. Why the fuck are you here if you feel that way? And what DO you

believe in? Who will make it better for you?

[Douglas Carpenter]

20. I share your frustration but I think there is still a difference

NEVER - NEVER - NEVER UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF THE WAR PROPAGANDA MACHINE. I'm absolutely certainly they could convince people to support nuking Hawaii and we would be reading post right here on DU defending it.

And I am certain that there would be some key Democrats defending it AND many, many more who would know it is wrong but they are afraid to be labeled "weak on defense", "anti-American" or accused by the likes of Democrat and Time Magazine Correspondent, Joe Kline of "hating America".

Still there is a measurable difference that could make the difference between survival and destruction:

Democrats vs Republicans on War and Peace

I have compiled a list of Peace interest group ratings below contrasting the senatorial voting records of two liberal Democrats--Sen. Kennedy and Sen. Feingold two "centrist" Democrats--Sen. Clinton and Sen. Lieberman and that of two prominent Republicans--"centrist" Sen. McCain and "conservative" Sen. Allen.

There is still a difference on matter of War and Peace – Not as big a difference as I would like but still a difference:

Peace Majority – a compilation of scores from a number of different peace groups – see website: http://www.peacemajority.org/scorecard /

Sen. Russell Feingold: Final Score: 74.0/98.0 votes=76%

Sen. Edward Kennedy: Final Score: 79.0/97.0 votes=81%

Sen. Hillary Clinton: Final Score: 59.0/98.0 votes=60%

Sen. Joseph Lieberman: Final Score: 15.0/62.0 votes=24%

Sen. George Allen: Final Score: 4.0/98.0 votes= 4%

Sen. John McCain: Final Score: 4.0/95.0 votes= 4%
____________________________________________________

and

This is courtesy of project vote smart - link:

http://www.vote-smart.org/index.htm
_____________________

2004 Senator Feingold supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Kennedy supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 100 percent in 2004.

“Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 67 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 33 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 0 percent in 2004.
_________________________________


2004 Senator Feingold supported the interests of the Peace Action 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Kennedy supported the interests of the Peace Action 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Peace Action 75 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Peace Action 38 percent in 2004

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Peace Action 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Peace Action 13 percent in 2004.

[Neil Lisst]

23. That kind of thinking seems self defeating to me.

We have covered this before.