Don't be cowed by critics into abandoning our Democratic majority

[bigtree]

Despite the froth and blather over the vote for the one supplemental spending bill, the MAJORITY of Democrats are still ready and willing to vote for timetables AGAIN when they are presented in upcoming legislation. That vote for the DEMOCRATIC funding bill did not wipe away the majority of our Democrats' opposition to Bush's occupation. Our party members are still overwhelmingly in favor of setting a date certain for withdrawal.

I think the republicans would like nothing more than to see our party divided. If we step back and remember all of the dirty tricks that have come from this crop of GOP cretins, we can reasonably surmise that they are busy fueling much of the handwringing and caterwauling over the one vote for the one Democratic supplemental which contained many Democratic priorities which had been neglected for five years of republican rule.

Not only is our party on the correct side of the Iraq debate, they are also on the correct side of the other important issues that Americans expected them to address when they voted for them. On Defense, Health Care, Immigration, Energy, Veterans, Iraq . . . Democrats are providing plenty of opposition and leadership which should be highlighted and elevated whenever we have the opportunity. We shouldn't be discouraged by the failure of our individual initiatives into turning our backs on our party or the rest of the political process.

It would be more than a tragedy if we allowed the initial opposition from the beleaguered republican party to cause us to turn and eat away at our own until apathy causes us to lose support for our hard-fought-for majority. We need to stay in the fight, and continue to press to build a greater consensus and a larger coalition for these rejected proposals that we feel are paramount. The last thing we need to be doing is threatening the fragile majority we now have by repeatedly tearing at our party and party members until the public becomes so apathetic that they turn away from the process.

We need MORE Democrats to effect the changes we all want, not less. And anyone who thinks our party would be as restrained and conciliatory with an actionable, veto-proof majority is ignoring the active opposition which is being waged by our party, in committee, and in the efforts to forge compromises in the face of the present balance of power in Congress on legislation which would advance to confront Bush at his desk.

There is plenty our Democrats are engaged in in our majority to get behind and defend. It's my opinion that we should be looking for ways to support those efforts by our legislators in opposition to the Bush administration, and spending less time trying to tear the party apart. It's won't always be easy, but the best way to advance the goals and ideas we all share is to stay engaged in the process and BUILD on the majority we've achieved, not to continually tear at our legislators as if there was nothing redeemable which can be accomplished; or allow ourselves to be turned away from the process because we may be frustrated at the pace and direction of our legislator' efforts so far.

This is the latest of my messages of support for our Democratic party and for our tentative majority. I can express dissent as well as anyone, but that's not the purpose of this appeal. There's more than enough negativity, abuse, insults, and outright lies flying around this board about our party everyday, all day. DU should be able to tolerate a rare, unapologetic defense of our party now and again.

Thanks for listening.

[opihimoimoi]

1. Yup.....I stand w you on this....:o)

[Larkspur]

2. The Dems, especially the leaders, need to be horse whipped to do what is right

That's why criticism is important.

[bigtree]

3. I don't think our legislators need to be 'horsewhipped'

they do need support for the many actions they've already taken in opposition to the Bush administration. Very few of those see the light of day here at DU.

[zalinda]

4. You are right, I've been saying this for months

Show some support for our dems. Keep bashing them, and like a dog, it will cringe when it sees you coming. These all or nothing "dems" can do more harm then help. You nurture something into what you want it to be, you don't cut it into ribbons and then whine that it's not what you want.

The political game is not "whack a mole" but chess. For all complaints about the dems, they have been playing a chess game against these neo-cons for years, without knowing about it. These attacks by the repubs have been in the planning stage for decades, and even though it may look like it on the surface, they aren't playing "whack a mole". Have the dems made mistakes, yes, they are not perfect. But, when you look at the alternative they are a damn sight better than the repubs. And let's be honest here, there IS NO third party and there won't be until the dems are in a position to change it. Will they change the system, I don't know, but we know the repubs won't, so that is the choice.

You play within the system you have, not in the system you wish you had. (To some what quote one of the bastards.) To rail against the system we have just seems childish, to plan how to change it and work toward that goal is the adult thing to do.

If the Greens had spent all their money and energy trying to change the political system within the dem party, we would be much further along in accomplishing our goals.

And let's be clear, most on this board share the same goals, just not on the method one goes about achieving them. We want an end to the occupation (in all countries). We want one person, one vote for everyone (and voting for any candidate). We want all people to have an equal chance at running for an office (not just those who can raise the most money). We want medical coverage for all (including safe legal, rare abortions). We want the best education for our children, no matter if they are rich or poor. We want sound environmental regulations (which err on the side of caution, not clean up). We want ALL citizens to be treated EQUAL and fairly. And, there are many more things that we agree on.

Discussing a problem is different than attacking the dem party because they didn't solve it they way you wanted or as fast as you wanted it, it does nothing to help the party achieve it's goals.

zalinda

[ellenfl]

5. thanks, my sentiments as posted many times here. eom

[leftofthedial]

6. I don't really give a crap what the "democrats" are *willing* to do sometime in the future

They've dropped the ball bigtime. they've stood for nothing, done nothing except trade the lives of our soldiers and another trillion dollars or so for some presumed political leverage in 2008 and squandered the grassroots support of the public.

Their sole notable accomplishment has been to squeeze through a weak minimum wage increase that does nothing to redress the lack of economic justice in this country.

Bah! The "democratic" party needs a complete overhaul. DC needs a purge.

[pocoloco]

7. You got that right and unfortunately the dems have their enablers

just like the repubs spouting the same shit!!

[welshTerrier2]

8. i like your post but i disagree with most of it

Like you, there is nothing i would like to see more than a unified, effective Democratic Party committed to making the very real and very significant changes the country so desperately requires. Those who are furious at the party for the last disgrace on the Iraq funding bill are not "party haters". We hate what the Dems did and we hate what they are failing to do.

Unlike yourself, I do not accept the "we don't have the votes" argument. I totally blame the party for not putting forward a meaningful progressive agenda.

Here's the major point: You need to separate the legislative process from the "platform" process. I'm not naive enough to argue that Congressional Dems could pass meaningful campaign finance reform to take big money out of the electoral process. It's probably not even worth trying to bring such a bill to the floor at this time. It would have zero chance of passing and zero chance of surviving a veto.

HOWEVER, and this is where the party is totally failing us, why isn't this one of the major topics being talked about by every Democrat? Passing legislation doesn't start in the Congress; it starts with the American people. If the Party really wanted to make this critically needed reform, they would be raising the issue every chance they got. They aren't. Have you heard any Democrat, save one or two perhaps, even discussing the issue? I haven't.

The problem with the party is NOT about which bill they pass; it's about the party's message to the American people. You don't need a veto proof majority to put out a message. Do I think the MSM is a problem? Of course it is but Democrats get plenty of news coverage and appear on many of the talk shows. Do you hear them talking about there being too much money in the electoral process? I don't. And the few who do certainly are not elevating it to a top issue.

Consider defense spending. Democrats are terrified about being "McGovernized". God forbid we get painted as being "weak on defense". Spending on wasteful programs while America's infrastructure declines, educational competitiveness declines, health care declines, retirement security declines and on and on, is NOT being "tough on defense." It is supporting CORPORATISM. There's gold in them thar hills and the Democrats are being spoon-fed and coddled by K Street.

Could Democrats pass a bill to cut the military budget a sufficient amount to pay for real health care for every American? Probably not. That's the argument in the OP. They just don't have the votes. But it's NOT at all clear they would support any such trade-off. That stinks. What's the point of protecting the country from some mythical invasion force if Americans are dying because they can't afford medical care? Democrats? All I hear is crickets ...

Global warming. What are the Democrats offering? If global warming could really threaten all life on the planet or cause the permanent evacuation of major coastal cities or cause severe breaks in the "food chain" or cause all life in the oceans to die, maybe we need more than "incrementalism". It seems to me we have to throw "everything we possibly can" at the problem. Again, what are the Democrats offering? They're calling for very marginal increases in CAFE standards. Well, that's nice. They're calling for very moderate increases in the use of renewable energy sources. That's nice too. What they're not calling for, and it is CRAZY, is real conservation and significant changes in our lifestyles. Could it be that would be politically risky? What if the right thing to do is to call for a 50% reduction in auto use? What if mandatory programs were called for to require employers to reduce "commuting time"? What if we again cut the military budget and transferred some serious money into funding a real mass transit system instead of the current "Lionel" toys we have running (when they run)?

Again, could the Democrats get all this environmental stuff passed right now? Of course not. Should they at least be talking to the American people about it? Your damned straight they should be!! But they're not ...

The party's left wing couldn't be angrier with mainstream Democrats. The choices confronting us right now transcend the mundane legislative considerations raised in the OP. Perhaps you don't agree with the severity of the problems the left is citing: 1. global warming could destroy all life on earth in the next few decades and. 2. big money has totally poisoned any semblance of democracy in this country.

The left wants to save the planet and the left wants to restore democracy in this country with a second American revolution (hopefully peaceful) that overthrows the ravages of the corporate state. We want OUR PARTY to lead the way in these efforts. Instead, what we see are compromised candidates and a total failure to put these critical issues at the very top of the party's national agenda. The fact that it may be too "politically controversial" is NOT acceptable; many of us believe we no longer can afford to make that choice.

At some point, if our party keeps saying NO to us, even given the horrors we've seen from republicans, we may see little choice but to refuse to "just go along." I've just about arrived at that point myself. The Democratic Party needs to engage all of its constituencies in active dialog and negotiations if it hopes to keep the big tent intact. Should they fail to do so, they do so at their own peril ... and ours ...

[zalinda]

9. And tell me, who would you listen to?

If you have two groups, one continually tells you that you are doing the wrong thing and is constantly yelling at you, and the other that tells you how well you are doing and helps with your campaign fund, which one would you listen to?

This is the problem the left has, it has become a shrill, whiny group. When the dems take a step in the left direction, they aren't told that they did well, they are yelled at because they didn't take a giant step in the left direction. Meanwhile, people from their district are telling them they are doing a great job by staying in the middle, and they are getting money from these people. Who to listen to?

If the left doesn't change how they react, they are going to be constantly disappointed. And the shame is, they will bring down the country with them. NO ONE likes to be told that they NEVER do anything right. Even a person who becomes a politician for all the correct reasons, will tire of the constant harangue and will turn his/her back on the left.

Yes, we put them in office, but they are not our slaves, we do not own them. They are governed by their districts, and the left is only a very small part of that district. How we treat them, is how they will treat us. I think the Golden Rule is key for interacting with anyone.

zalinda

[welshTerrier2]

11. the left is going to bring down the country?

i think some on the left wish they could. the left, today, has no power.

and you can keep your "shrill, whiny group" comments too. that's a load of crap. i see no truth in your unfortunate generalization. in fact your whole post is a generalization, generally speaking.

how many "left-wing" of the party people fought hard for Kerry in 2004 in spite of their differences with him? i had all kinds of issues with him. i hated his IWR vote. still, i worked my ass off for Democrats and sent a pretty good chunk of change to help. is that whiny? is that intolerant? is that demanding perfection? such generalizations are crap!

there are two critical issues that MUST be addressed. and they will be addressed one way or another. it doesn't make a damn bit of difference whether the push to address them comes from the left or the right or anywhere else. it's not a "left" agenda; it's just a critical, national agenda.

one crisis is clearly global warming. if you or the Democratic Party think the current range of token solutions will solve the problem, I hope you're right. I don't. I consider the foot-dragging to be putting all life on the planet at risk.

and the second crisis is regaining control of our democracy. do you call such views "left"? i call them patriotic. i called them Constitutional. i call them fighting for fundamental liberties. if you'd like to identify such things with the left, that's fine with me i suppose.

[zalinda]

12. Start reading some of the comments about the dem party

You will find at least 10 negative to 1 positive posts on most any thread. If dems politicians read the threads on this site, they would become quite discouraged, in fact even an ordinary dem reading here would wonder why be in, or work for the dem party.

And, what did you do? I didn't attack you personally, but you took it that way. You got pissed off, and then told me how you worked for Kerry. And then attacked the dems again.

In a weird way, you made my point. I didn't say anything about you, but the left wing of the party, but you took offense. Are you telling me that you like me any better for saying what I did and making you feel how you felt? Or do you now think that I don't know what I'm talking about and it's best that you ignore my further comments?

Politicians are human, they are not machines, they have feelings, just like you do. If they are working their ass off to try to get something done for the good of the country, and all they get for their efforts is smacked around by the left side saying they aren't doing enough, fast enough, do you think they will want to listen to you? They are already hampered by the media bashing them, the repubs thwarting them, the administration lying to them and ignoring them and then they get angry emails, calls, faxes, letters and blogs from the left about what a terrible job they are doing.

I know as a human being, that when some only yells at you, you start to turn their voice off. It's protective. Could it be that our dems are turning off the voices of the left to protect themselves?

zalinda

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. Awwww..poor wittle politicians are getting their tender fellings hurt.

Tell it to the people they get killed by funding an immoral war.

[zalinda]

15. Then please, run for office

I'm sure you could do a much better job.

zalinda

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. Thanks for your support. Please send your donations to my campaign.

And, like any good politician, I'll promise to fulfill all your dreams.

[zalinda]

31. Great...........file the necessary papers

Get the petitions signed and I'll donate. After all, I'm sure you will be honest and do exactly what you promised. Oh, which reminds me, you better put what you promise in writing. I will want to check back and be able to yell at you if you don't fulfill your promises, as soon as I want them fulfilled (or any other promises that I thought you had made).

Or, are you all talk?

zalinda

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

32. Well, I would but I'm not sure I "would have the votes".

In answer to your other question, if I were to become a politician, one of the job requirement is to be "all talk".

What some of us, non-politicians, are doing exactly what you advocate. We are yelling when they don't fulfill their promises or do the jobs that we hired them to do. I consider the responsibility of the citizenry to push, shove, yell, insult, politicians when they, as usual, make a mess or, as usual, fall prey to Lord Acton's axiom.

Apparently you feel compelled to trust the bosses and applaud them even when they screw up, lie, cheat, or weasel around tough issues because it might hurt their precious feelings.

I don't.

[zalinda]

33. You still don't get it

I have not said give them a pass for what they have promised, but I did not hear my reps say anything about ending the war. I did not hear my reps say anything about impeachment. So, unless they said it, I can't chide them about it. They did not promise me.

You do not become a politician to be "all talk", some may, but most go into it wanting to change government for the better. It is not easy, you have to sell your soul practically to even get elected and then there are battles with the other party and then battles within your own party.

Your job is NOT to yell, push, shove, insult your reps, that is a bullies way. Your job is to let them know civilly what you want, and how they are doing. Your job is to let them know when they have done something right and when they have done something wrong. We, on the left, are supposed to be the civilized ones. We are the ones who educate ourselves, we are the ones who think diplomacy is better than bombing, we are the ones who think all should have a quality education, we are the ones who think everyone should be entitled to quality health care, we are the ones who think we should walk softly on this planet, we are the ones who think people should decide what they can do with their own bodies and we are the ones who think we are better working together than working apart.

WE ARE NOT BULLIES, WE ARE BETTER THAN THAT. I get so discouraged when I see that all the left seem to be able to do is stomp their feet and say we aren't going to play any more, if you don't play by my rules and go join a party that doesn't have a hope in hell of making a difference.

zalinda

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

34. I beg to differ.

Politicians may, on rare occasions, go into government to hoping to change it for the better. But, the evidence is, that most go into it for other reasons, most involving a hunger for power. Most may believe that the power they gain is for the "good" of the country or even of the people. But, belief doesn't make it so. There's a whole slew of Republicans who "believe" that they're doing the "right" thing for women when they attempt to abolish women's rights. There are also a number of Democrats who will go along with them, in part, to retain their power by playing "practical politics", or as you said, "selling their souls". Democrats voted to start the war, and continue to fund the war. Democrats voted to ban "partial birth abortion". Democrats supported "no child left behind". Democrats voted to seat Alito and Roberts. Democrats cut deals with the Republicans at the expense of the environment and health care.

As for "We aren' going to play anymore", I'll leave you with a few words from another Democrat, who had the temerity to challenge the system.

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." --Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789.

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." --Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795.

And, to be fair, some from someone who could be described as a conservative,

“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." --John Quincy Adams

[Le Taz Hot]

10. I didn't abandon the Democratic Party.

They abandoned me. When they get back to working for the common person, I might consider re-joining. Until then . . . Country before Party.

[bigtree]

21. they don't get to cast votes for supporters

and there is absolutely NO other party or organization which has the power to effect the changes we all say we want as ours does in the majority. Pulling support seriously threatens to doom our issues and concerns to minority status. Who's responsible then?

I suggest we stay engaged in working to build support within our party for the changes we want and not allow ourselves to become so dismayed by the republican obstruction that we abandon the progress we have made in taking back control of the agenda in Congress with our majority. The alternative is certainly failure. As we stand right now, there great opportunity to overcome the predictable, initial republican resistance as their elections draw closer.

[lonestarnot]

13. Cowed? That's for cowboys!

[slipslidingaway]

16. Iraq becomes prime training ground for export of Jihadists

Look what continued funding of the Iraq war is producing!


http://news.brisbanetimes.com.au/iraq-becomes-prime-training-ground-for-export-of-jihadists/20074919-j7h.html


"The road to Baghdad was a one-way road, it has become a two-way highway," said Mohammed al-Masri, a researcher at Amman's Centre for Strategic Studies.

In a report released in April by the US government, Dennis Pluchinsky, a former intelligence expert in the State Department, said Iraq veterans were the most dangerous because they were better trained than their Afghanistan counterparts.

In the Al-Qaeda camps of Afghanistan, volunteers almost never see real fighting, according to those who have passed through.

In Iraq, if he survives, a Jihadist will have acquired unbeatable experience having been pitted against the world's best army."


http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/28/1335231

"REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: The Democrats could have refused to send a bill forward. We didn't have to fund this war. We're not under any obligation to keep the war going. And yet our leaders took another path. Furthermore, Amy, you may be interested to know that the 2008 budget, which is before Congress today and will be voted on tomorrow, contains another $145 billion for the war, and on top of that, they're putting another $50 billion for the war in fiscal year 2009.

So this talk about ending the war by March or by September belies the fact that the budget has money in it to keep the war going into 2009.

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: Our decisions have to be way above politics. We have the lives of our troops at stake here. There's no military victory in Iraq. We're there illegally. The occupation is fueling the insurgency. Democrats can still, after president Bush vetoes the bill, which he will, Democrats can still take the right position, which is refuse to fund the war, use money in the pipeline to bring the troops home."

[bigtree]

20. the ONE supplemental bill is not what is holding our troops in Iraq

Bush and his republican enablers are. A clear majority of those who voted for that one Democratic funding bill also voted for the legislation when it contained timetables. That question still stands, unaltered by letting funds flow to troops already deployed and stuck there because of the refusal of REPUBLICANS to support timetables and provide a veto-busting margin.

It's as absurd as claiming that holding back the one, limited supplemental was going to move Bush off of his occupation as it is to claim that Democrats, in support of that supplemental are keeping the troops there. One veto-proof vote for timetables would bring the troops home, money and all.


And the Kucinich argument is absurd on its face. He argues that withholding funding would force Bush to end his occupation, yet admits that there is money "left in the pipeline." If ther is money in the pipeline to effect a withdrawal, there is money available to Bush to continue, at least for the limited term the supplemental covers.

[slipslidingaway]

22. There has been more than one supplemental bill approved

over the past five years. Although the two recent supplemental bills did have the benchmarks that this administration has been arguing for, notably the Iraq Oil/Hydrocarbon Law, and we returned the funding bill to him stripped of the Iran clause and the weak timetables from the first bill?

Bush would have been forced to make a choice on what to do with the money that was left in the pipeline knowing that a new supplemental was not forthcoming. What is absurd about that? When you realize that your income is being cut off do you charge more on your account or do you keep it for necessities.

[bigtree]

26. I think expecting Bush to notice or care about some funding shortfall

to the point where he would give up his occupation is the absurdity. The 'defunding' scheme directs him to do NOTHING. Where are the levers of accountability in that?

[Virginia Dare]

28. Precisely...n/t

[slipslidingaway]

37. We gave Bush exactly what he wanted, funding with HIS

benchmarks in the bill, do you think that is holding him accountable?

He noticed and cared about "some funding shortfall" nearly everyday when he requested a bill be sent to him without a timetable.


How To End The War
Russ Feingold
February 02, 2007

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/02/02/how_to_end_the_war.php

"Russ Feingold is a United States senator from Wisconsin.

Our founders wisely kept the power to fund a war separate from the power to conduct a war. In their brilliant design of our system of government, Congress got the power of the purse, and the president got the power of the sword. As James Madison wrote, “Those who are to conduct a war cannot in the nature of things, be proper or safe judges, whether a war ought to be commenced, continued or concluded.”

Earlier this week, I chaired a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee to remind my colleagues in the Senate that, through the power of the purse, we have the constitutional power to end a war. At the hearing, a wide range of constitutional scholars agreed that Congress can use its power to end a military engagement...

In the United States of America, the people are sovereign, not the president. It is Congress’ responsibility to challenge an administration that persists in a war that is misguided and that the nation opposes. We cannot simply wring our hands and complain about the administration’s policy. We cannot just pass resolutions saying “your policy is mistaken.” And we can’t stand idly by and tell ourselves that it’s the president’s job to fix the mess he made. It’s our job to fix the mess, too, and if we don’t do so we are abdicating our responsibilities."

[bigtree]

39. I don't think he cared at all about the money. I think he just wanted to avoid the timetables

and used the lie about our party abandoning the troops as his political wedge. We countered, and kept our pledge that those funds which were intended for the troops wouldn't be held hostage to our politics. The timetables still stand, with the majority of Democrats still ready and willing to vote for them again.

[slipslidingaway]

43. You are correct in one sense I believe, bush only cared about

the money in the supplemental long enough to secure the proposed Iraq Oil Law. That is one of his benchmarks that the Dems approved of and are not eager to discuss. From everything I have read about the draft oil law this will not benefit the Iraqi people, do you think we should stand behind our party while they try and force this law on the Iraqi government and people?

[slipslidingaway]

44. FYI, here's one article on the proposed law and a link to the Oil

Workers Union in Basra. Dennis Kucinich has been the most outspoken on this issue which I believe could come back to haunt us and/or our children, I hope I am wrong.

Whose Oil Is It, Anyway?

by Antonia Juahsz, New York Times
March 13th, 2007

http://www.bushagenda.net/article.php?id=369


"TODAY more than three-quarters of the world’s oil is owned and controlled by governments. It wasn’t always this way.

Until about 35 years ago, the world’s oil was largely in the hands of seven corporations based in the United States and Europe. Those seven have since merged into four: ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell and BP. They are among the world’s largest and most powerful financial empires. But ever since they lost their exclusive control of the oil to the governments, the companies have been trying to get it back.

Iraq’s oil reserves — thought to be the second largest in the world — have always been high on the corporate wish list. In 1998, Kenneth Derr, then chief executive of Chevron, told a San Francisco audience, “Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas — reserves I’d love Chevron to have access to.”

A new oil law set to go before the Iraqi Parliament this month would, if passed, go a long way toward helping the oil companies achieve their goal. The Iraq hydrocarbon law would take the majority of Iraq’s oil out of the exclusive hands of the Iraqi government and open it to international oil companies for a generation or more.

In March 2001, the National Energy Policy Development Group (better known as Vice President Dick Cheney’s energy task force), which included executives of America’s largest energy companies, recommended that the United States government support initiatives by Middle Eastern countries “to open up areas of their energy sectors to foreign investment.” One invasion and a great deal of political engineering by the Bush administration later, this is exactly what the proposed Iraq oil law would achieve. It does so to the benefit of the companies, but to the great detriment of Iraq’s economy, democracy and sovereignty."



Friday, February 09, 2007

‘History Will Not Forgive Those Who Play Recklessly With Our Wealth’- Oil Union Leader’s Speech on Oil Law

http://www.basraoilunion.org/2007/02/history-will-not-forgive-those-who-play.html


And one other posting on DU. Try calling the candidates or leader's offices and ask them why we are supporting this bill against the wishes of the workers in Iraq and let me know if you receive a reply, I have tried without success.


Why is Iraq's "Oil Law" being discussed in a "closed session" of the US Senate?

Posted by welshTerrier2 in General Discussion: Politics
Fri Jan 12th 2007, 09:40 PM

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/welshTerrier2/109

[mmonk]

18. I keep my eyes wide open.

I know not all are for leaving Iraq without the real intention of the invasion remaining intact. The bad thing about what we've done is show we do not abide by any international standards concerning warfare or the sovereignty of nations. That's why I believe in complete withdrawal with regional help (not exploitation). I hate keeping the American people highly propagandized and uninformed of reality.

[Orsino]

19. They abandoned me first.

Oh, I'll vote against Republicans...but wouldn't it be nice to have a Democratic majority that actually opposed the creeping corporatism that has so corrupted the GOP? I hate having to choose the lesser of two evils.

For now, I'll get behind the actual progressive moves by Congress, and be relieved that at least those are all coming from Dems. I'll even look forward to the day when the party earns my loyalty.

[RestoreGore]

23. It's called freedom of speech

Just because people are not goosesteppers regarding the Democratic party leaders like Republicans are doesn't make those who validly critique their performance or lack thereof liars or abusers, and I don't think that is exactly how you conduct a reasoned debate...that is, by saying that unless you agree with what your party leaders are doing your opinion doesn't count. I expect that from the Fascists already placed in power by all of us, but not from people who claim to cherish our right to dissent. The either you are with us or against us mentality is not something I subscribe to and I am far from being a liar, but I am most certainly an American first who sees something drastically wrong with this country and it didn't get to that point by just one party having a hand in it. Perhaps when those on all sides who put party before country to the point where this country is now sinking in partisan political poison see that, perhaps then we can actually accomplish something of substance and value for our children. Until then, Congress on all sides must either own up to their oath or the people will hold them all accountable.

[bigtree]

24. so speak. I'm not stopping you. I'm just appealing for folks to stick with the progress we've made

in achieving a majority, and to not become so dismayed by the republican opposition to our efforts that we abandon the ONLY effective vehicle we have available to confront the administration and its republican enablers.

The with us or against us stuff isn't what I'm getting at. I'm appealing for folks to avoid abandoning the party because of some predictable resistance. We should build on what we have, not begin to tear it down just because our ideas or initiatives haven't yet prevailed. We need to stay engaged in the process, not shy away from it just because it's frustrating or difficult. The Democratic party remains the *best platform from which to do all of that.

edit: *

[RestoreGore]

25. What majority? There's a majority?

And sorry, but unless you impeach these bastards you aren't confronting them, and those not fulfilling their Constitutional duty regarding that regardless of party WILL see reisistance from me.

[bigtree]

27. well, we are confronting them and it serves nothing to deny it.

There are other 'constitutional' levers of authority which our majority has at their disposal, and are exercising, which don't necessarily rise to the level of an impeachment. And, I don't believe that impeachment is the panacea that it's been promoted as.

[RestoreGore]

29. Oh yes, I'm sure they're shaking in their boots

"I don't believe that impeachment is the panacea it's been promoted as." Excuse me, but impeachment is a moral duty under the circumstances regardless of what you believe or whether the votes for it are there or not, so at this point I don't want to hear warm and fuzzy answers and more promises about all of the socalled constitutional levers they are going to push as long as it allows these criminals to remain in power for political purposes. It's as simple as that for me. I have waited, I have supported, I have voted, and I have watched my beloved country raped of its soul and I have yet to see the changes promised to us for years, and FYI, I am one of millions out here that feel the same way.

[bigtree]

30. the rest of their obligations are 'moral duties' as well

and they have a perfect right, and responsibility to weigh the effect of an impeachment against those other 'moral duties' of oversight.

What guarantee (or assurance) do you have that impeachment would actually effect the changes you say are so important?

And who's to say that impeachment wouldn't just leave the targets, 'in power' given the present balance of power?

It's just not the slam-dunk it's being sold as.

[RestoreGore]

35. You are blowing smoke

And I have no more patience for people who assist in the crimes of this regime by supporting the enabling of him.

[bigtree]

40. That's just great. I've respected your opinion and debated it sincerely

But, since you disagree, you say I'm blowing smoke. What a load of crap. Why you think I would bother to spend my time just bullshitting here is beyond me. I spend a great deal of time explaining what I believe. I don't deserve to be cast as some bullshitter just because you take a different position. It's not like I couldn't just pull back and make a similar charge . . . which I'm clearly not.

Go do whatever appeases your 'patience'. I really don't give a shit.

[RestoreGore]

45. Oh, so since your talking points didn't work in placating me

you show your true colors just because I happen to believe that on impeachment you are making excuses? You don't want to admit I am right on it so you attack the semantics. Whatever. Democratic members of Congress who do nothing to hold these bastards accountable are not going to be given a free pass by me, so spare me your self righteous rhetoric. When it concerns the kind of country and world my child will have to live in, you can bet I will be doing what appeases my patience and more importantly, my conscience.

[bigtree]

46. oh, you're back with the ridicule

what I believe and write are mere 'talking points' and excuses and what you write here is gospel. Got it. Great debate.

[RiverStone]

36. September, September, September....

Is when the next vote to re-authorize more funding for Shrub's war will happen.

85 or so DEMS joined the ranks of lock-stepping rethugs to continue to support this madness last month.

After I finally chilled (and had written all my reps in anger) I'm still with the DEMS --- they are the party I have worked for and voted for during my entire 30 years of being eligible to vote!

But in September, I will not cut the DEMS one further ounce of grace or slack. I fully expect a (close to) unanimous wave of disapproval for the continuation of the Iraq fiasco. Period! All the other well intended work of the new DEM Congress will pale in comparison if they vote to give Shrub another blank check (AGAIN!) for his endless war. It must stop in September!!!

It is both fair and reasonable to hold DEMS to that expectation come September, IMHO --- of course:)

[blues90]

38. By sept from now 350 more troops will be dead at the rate we are going

add more since they handed bush his funding and more coming home missing limbs and who knows how many Iraqis will die .

If this was the best the Dems could do then what can I say .

[bigtree]

41. I don't think that a 'defunding' would compel Bush to allow troops to come home

by September. And the funding in the bill doesn't extend all that far from September.

The responsibility for the continued occupation is STILL the sole responsibility of Bush and his republican enablers.

[blues90]

42. I repectfully don't agree

It was bush who started this attack but not without the support of many ignorent warmongers in this country and not without the help of some Dems who were not up to speed on what the reality was in Iraq .

Iraq was under 12 years of sanctions and then they didn't read the intel reports .

Bush and cheney were just the front runners to this horrid attack , perhaps if more Dems at least stood up and paid attention things would be alot different . After all , there was no immediate danger posed by Iraq , we know they had no possible way of firing any missiles to the US and up until this point they have never attacked us .

With just common sense the Dems could have slowed this down if not stopped it and perhaps informed the public who were so for this war and changed their minds or instilled doubt .

I feel the entire thing did not have to happen and many were ignorent .