3,200 military families who are opposed to the war protest-----the DEM Leadership!

[RiverStone]

Ok folks, this was not something I ever expected to see; anti-war military families protesting the DEMS! Was not our theoretical anti-war positions the most compelling issue voted upon last November? Considering the timid approach our DEM leaders on the Hill have exhibited on Iraq since assuming the majority - I'm not surprised it has come to this. Why not BOLDLY put forth more assertive initiatives (per Russ Feingold and Ted Kennedy) that bring the troops home sooner? Even up against rethug filibusters or other parliamentary bullshit, it is better to be voted down on the principals that put us in the majority in the first place; then capitulate to rethug threats. That way, we hold the obstructionists to ending this damn war to the light. Eventually, we would win the vote because that's what We The People of America want!

At least 188 united States soldiers have died since the DEMS took over leadership in January.

http://icasualties.org/oif/

I know we can say we inherited this mess, but when does the rising death count start to fall more on our shoulders then the rethug minority? Can someone answer that?

:shrug:


MFSO Says Pelosi Plan Condemns at Least 1,500 Troops to Death
3/8/07

WASHINGTON, DC - March 8 - Military Families Speak Out (MFSO), an organization of over 3,200 military families who are opposed to the war in Iraq, expressed dismay and outrage at the plan unveiled by House Democrats today that would delay the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops until the fall of 2008.

“The Iraq plan presented by Nancy Pelosi today condemns at least 1,500 more U.S. troops and countless Iraqi children, women, and men to die in a war based on lies, a war that has already taken far too many lives,” said Nancy Lessin, co-founder of MFSO.

Charley Richardson, co-founder of MFSO added, “The American public elected a new Congress in November 2006 to end the war in Iraq, not to continue using the war as an election strategy. Congress has an opportunity to support our troops by cutting funding for the war. We expect no less from those who claim to be leaders.”

more:

http://www.commondreams.org/news2007/0308-06.htm

[Fridays Child]

1. Anything short of an immediate withdrawal condemns at least one soldier to death...

...which is why anything short of an immediate withdrawal is a moral outrage.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

Yes, an immediate withdrawal as soon as logistically possible

is the only moral option at this time.

I am frustrated beyond words with the lame resolutions that the Dems are offering. Once again, most of them need major spine transplants.

[The Magistrate]

37. What They Need, Ma'am, Is Another Dozen Or So Votes In The Senate

The hackneyed invocation of 'spine' addresses nothing, however much fun it may be for spectators to say....

[Lydia Leftcoast]

48. Sir, lack of votes is no reason for presenting a namby-pamby

"pretty please with sugar on it, Mr. President," type of resolution that leaves U.S. troops in Iraq until the end of 2008, or, in other words, for another 21 months.

I wonder how many American troops will die needlessly during that period, not to mention many more times Iraqi civilians.

[The Magistrate]

51. Simple Arithmetic, Ma'am, Is The Key To Politics In A Democracy

What cannot actually be passed, at least out of the House, is of no use at all. The proposal of items 'strong enough' to be to your taste would actually achieve no more than an apparent vindication of the administration's position, and a demonstration of the real weakness of its opponents.

"If you strike a King, you must kill him."

[Lydia Leftcoast]

53. Sir, I was thinking more of the Democrats

1) demonstrating to the American people that they have as much courage of their convictions as the Republicans do

2) appealing directly to the American people in the same way that Reagan did so effectively during his terms, i.e. by going to the local media in their states and asking their constituents to put pressure on the holdouts.

3) laying down a demand that they know the Republicans won't like and perhaps settling for something less, but not starting from something less.

The Democrats were able to pull off an upset because the voters wanted something different.

It appears, Sir, that you would have the Democrats offer such weak positions that they do the Republicans' work (demanding concessions) for them.

[The Magistrate]

56. In My View, Ma'am, You Mis-Read Key Elements Of the Situation

First, the things you are pleased to refer to as 'weak' are in fact things that meet your criteria of 'things the Republicans won't like'.

Second, there is no question of starting with one thing and settling for another. That begins from the view that something is going to pass, and nothing is going to pass the Senate. McConnell will hold together his fillibuster bloc.

Third, popular opposition to the occupation of Iraq is not widely rooted in any feeling that the thing is bad and wrong, but rather in disappointment at its failure, and distress at the spectacle of it. This sentiment is fickle and undependable, and must be carefully handled with an eye to the long haul. Conditions in Iraq will get worse, not better, when U.S. forces withdraw: there will be more chaos, more people killed, more distressing spectacles of theocratic denunciations and anti-American crowds. People here in this country are not going to like it, and a proportion of those now opposing the war will complain bitterly of it, and may well come to dislike and blame for it those who pulled U.S. forces out. Saying, 'but that's what you wanted done last year' will be fruitless. Very careful and extremely professional political manouvering is required in this situation, and there is no room at all for error.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

66. That doesn't preclude taking a firm stand, Sir

Not even tactically.

If they propose an immediate withdrawal, and the Republicanites have still managed to keep the war going until the 2008 election comes around, the Democrats can say proudly, "We tried repeatedly to stop the war beginning early in 2007, but the Republicans insisted on dragging it out."

Instead, the current approach would have them saying, "We'll get them out after you vote in a Democratic president. Promise! This time we actually mean it! They'll be out of Iraq within two months after the 2008 election! No, we're serious this time."

As for the chaos that will ensue, the forces whose presence set off the chaos are not the ones to stop it. No one knows what will happen when the U.S. troops pull out, but at present, it's not safe for Iraqi civilians to attend school or go grocery shopping, so my guess is more of the same until the artificial nation of Iraq splits up. Anyway, I would not be surprised if the "chaos" began after Bush cabal ran a couple of false flag operations on Shiite and Sunni targets and let the revenge culture of the Middle East do the rest, so that they can claim that only they are preventing complete anarchy. They may have also believed that getting the Sunnis and Shiites to fight each other would distract them from killing Americans. If so, that was one of the many miscalculations that compounded the effects of their original evil plan.

I'm old enough to remember the Vietnam War and its inglorious end. The predicted bloodbath was not as bad as feared, and what political repression occurred aroused little interest in the American public, except for the sudden presence of Vietnamese refugees. A few die-hards insist to this day that "we" could have won the Vietnam War with this tactic or that, but most people were simply relieved that it was over.

[The Magistrate]

77. It Is Still Early Days, Ma'am

By the autumn you probably will be seeing widely pressed calls for immediate withdrawl. It takes time to work up a crowd, and it is necessary to heighten the contradictions, so to speak, in order to shrink and eliminate middle grounds. These things are not done in a day, or more precisely, in a little under six weeks, which is about how long we have had sworn-in majorities.

Whether or not the precise means by which it is achieved will be to your taste, the election of '08 will be fought largely on the line that the venture in Iraq will come to an end only when Democrats control completely the national government, with the Republicans firmly identified as the body thwarting the people's will on the matter. This will have the virtue of being true, and it is something the people at large already know and understand. They will respond to it well, and everyone professionally concerned knows it already.

My observation that Iraq will certainly become more chaotic and lethal is not made by way of suggestion U.S. forces ought to remain on that account. It is in the best interests of the U.S. that they be removed from the place, and the consequences of this for Iraq and Iraqis do not much concern me. The idea the present chaos was produced by covert attacks of U.S. agency is, put bluntly, laughable to the point of being contemptible. Civil war in Iraq is the last thing any project to occupy the place would benefit from, and it has demonstrably hamstrung the project of establishing a long-term occupation of the place. Civil war in Iraq was not directly contrived by any U.S. agency, though it was a predictable consequence of knocking out the keystone of totalitarian rule in Baghdad from the arch of Iraqi society, as the U.S. did. It is a tremendous mistake, to put it mildly, to imagine the United States is the only actor in the world, and the only entity willing to pursue desires by ruthless violence. Civil war in Iraq is eminently to the competing interests of its Shia and Sunni radicals, as well as to the interests of the Salafist jihadis, and of the Iranians, and all these have worked, and worked damned hard, to see it come about and shape it to their purposes. It always distresses me to see people try and filch from them the credit they deserve for their hard work and purposeful energy, only to award it instead to pale-faced slackers at Langley and the White House.

While it is quite true most people were relived to see Viet Nam over, this did not move them to any great affection for left agitators against the war, and for the political party identified with them in the popular mind. The Democratic Party has been hamstrung for a generation where issues of defense and national security are prominent in consequence of Viet Nam. It is of utmost importance that this matter be handled in such a way that rightist invocation of the 'stabbed in the back' imagery it customarily employs will find littel footing among the people a few years down the road.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

83. However, Sir, Jimmy Carter was elected the year after the fall of Saigon,

and the alleged public "mistrust" of the Democrats on national security was entirely fomented by the Repubilcans. After all, it was Carter who proposed the M-X missile and began sending advisors to El Salvador, so in that respect, he differed from Reagan only in degree.

Besides, the whole "strong defense" meme is a crock of intestinal product manufactured and promoted by the industries that profit from it. The U.S. already spends more on its military than all the other industrialized countries combined, but the Republicans always act as if the military is reduced to fighting missiles with rocks and bottles, and the Democrats, afraid to call bull droppings on their whole campaign of fear mongering, fall right into line.

It's beyond disgusting. The Democrats are STILL letting the Republicans set the agenda.

[The Magistrate]

87. Of Course It Was Fomented By Republicans, Ma'am

But propaganda campaigns never succeed unless they tap into feelings already wide-spread among the people: propaganda does not create feelings, it only mobilizes them, liberates them to fuller expression, and shapes that expression and focuses it to the propagandist's purpose exclusively.

And they will try it again in the aftermath of the U.S. withdrawl from Iraq. The matter must be handled in a way that innoculates the people against this line of attack.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

91. Sir, the reason any Republican campaign in the past few decades

has succeeded is that the Democrats have acted as if they believed it.

All the Republicans have to say of a Democrat is, "He's too liberal," and instead of saying, "Yes, and proud of it, because..." the typical candidate's response is, "Liberal? Where? No liberals here, that's for sure. I'm a good old conservative Democrat."

No wonder "liberal" became a dirty word if members of the supposedly more liberal party wouldn't stand up for it.

The same is true of "strong on defense." Instead of challenging the whole paradigm, the Democrats have fallen over their own shoelaces in their rush to play "stronger on defense than thou," and the military-industrial complex continues to rake in the taxpayers' money, money that other countries spend on single-payer health care, low-cost university educations, affordable housing, public transit, and non-military scientific and technological research.

Fear of what the Republicans will say has hobbled the Democratic Party since the mid 1960s. Fear of what the Republicans would say prevented the Democrats from halting or even raising much of a protest against the depredations of the Reagan administration, and it even led to the creation of the DLC, whose motto during the 1980s appears to have been, "I never met a weapons system I didn't like, and the only thing I don't like about the Republicans is that they're not wearing my team colors."

The abject willingness of so many Democrats to roll over and whimper when the Republicans say they've been naughty has long made me suspect that they're being threatened or blackmail. Nothing else could explain such continual unwillingness to do the right thing over the past 25 years.

[The Magistrate]

95. Again, Ma'am

The problem is somewhat different than you seem to think. The problem is not that 'Democrats act as if they believe' a Republican line; the problem is that certain lines have worked very well in actual elections, to the benefit of Republicans and the detriment of Democrats, over the period commencing roughly from the end of the sixties. Problems must be faced squarely before they can be overcome.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

101. Sir, we've obviously been living in different universes for the

past 25 years.

It's late, and I need to get up an hour earlier than usual for my Sunday morning choir routine, so you'll hear no more from me tonight.

[The Magistrate]

103. That Might Be One Explaination, Ma'am

Though others do come to mind....

[Rhiannon12866]

127. Magistrate, I will always remember what you said about the Iraq war

And it still resonates with me, since it reflects my views exactly. You said, in 2003, I think, that more people would die in keeping the peace than in fighting the war. Do I have that right? Anyway, I have always kept that in mind, since this absolutely did turn out to be true.

Rhiannon

[The Magistrate]

136. Thank You, Mem'Sahib

It is kind of you to remember.

This war is going to be recalled in history as perhaps the greatest blunder ever engaged in by a colonial power, in the same breath with Adowa in the late nineteenth century and Annual in the early twentieth. It may have the unintended but fortunate consequence, down the years, of serving as marking the full stop at attempts at open colonization by Western powers, havinmg proved once and for all that the endeavor is no longer feasible by any means their citizens are willing to see employed.

"You can't have what the Romans had unless you act like the Romans did."

[bettyellen]

99. you actually think the Dems are hiding their weakness this way? LOL....

Thye look stronger for doing nothing. That's a fucking laugh.

[The Magistrate]

104. It is Always Best, Ma'am

To leave without clear definition the actual boundaries of one's capabilities in the building stages of a confrontaion. One must leave room for the opponent's imagination, which is frequently a useful ally. Battle creates clarity; that is both its virtue and its pitfall.

"Uttering a threat is always more effective than executing one."

[bettyellen]

105. everyone already knows the boundaries! what is that "the Art of War" for fucks sake?

i wouldn;t be suprised.
the players already know where the votes are, who do you think you're fooling? LOL....

:rofl:

[The Magistrate]

115. At This Point, Ma'am

You seem to have worked yourself into a an uncomfortable posture, placing your mug on one side and your wump on the other.

You began this engagement with a stirring declaration you thought the Congressional Democrats really did have the power to end the war almost immediately, but simply were not using it out of calculation or cowardice, and now you have worked around to claiming my position, that the votes to do this really are not present in the Congress as a whole, for your own. People are likely to draw from this the not unreasonable conclusion that you have not really thought the matter, or even your own position on it, through with any thoroughness or mental discipline.

You are of course free to disparage the Sage General and his remarks conveyed down nearly three millenia, though it would surprise me very much if you had actually read them, or read them with any great awareness either of the context in which they were written, or of the arts of strategy, military or otherwise. Classical Chinese thought is one of my deeper interests, and in my view the supreme expression of human wisdom come down to us out of antiquity, unmatched by any other human product. It holds up far better down the ages than the Greeks, and no one else is even in the race. But that is not the origin of the citation, the validity of which became quite apparent to me in the days it is my custom to refer to lightly as "my adventurous youth"....

[bettyellen]

143. No sir, I never did say what you claim I did. Sorry if you assumed I was a stupid liberal. Kneejerk

much? Never said they had the votes, so you are arguing against your own foolish assumption. Was that a fun exercise for you?
Obey himself said what ended the Nam war was public perception turned against it, it was a process..... one that has stalled. Maybe because some within the party think the war has it's good side? You have certainly argued it's advantages for Dems here.
So do you think you're the only person around here with access to a library? You're certainly not the only one here who's not writing his own stuff, as they say. LOL, there are adventurous youths, and there are are people who do not or cannot listen, so intent are they at lecturing others. Thanks for the moldy quote a thon.
It's been illuminating. *cough cough*

[The Magistrate]

146. Your Actual Statement, Ma'am, From No. 46 Below

Since you do seem resolved on digging yourself an ever deeper hole....

'i do not believe they are entirely without power, i think they are largely adverse to using it. .
i think some cold calculations are going on, thinking it'll be great for the Dems if we're still in Iraq in 08. Totally morally bankrupt wusses.'

People who read it will draw their pwn conclusions, of most, but most will likely agree with my take on its meaning.

[bettyellen]

148. i said power, not votes Sir...unlike you and your vague aphorisms, i tend to to be fairly specific

and in my posts again and again, i say they can try and need not succeed. It's all over our conversation sir.
You just weren't reading. Sunny would be so dissapointed.

[The Magistrate]

151. Not Bad As An Effort To Recoup, Ma'am

But not nearly sufficient to your purpose. You commenced by stating they had the power to achieve the thing, and managed to emerge at the end stating they did not have that power, and that everyone knew it. This volte face your comment does not succeed in explaining away.

"Can't nobody here play this game?"

[bettyellen]

153. Darling you can keep misquoting me all you want.... don't make it so. Sorry, kid.

Never said that at all. I said the effort should start full force regardless, said it quite clearly. You are the one obsessed with the # of votes, not I. You're projecting and it's sad. Guess what? Not everyone here shares your concerns or your admittedly Machiavellian values. Shocking, eh?
In the future read more carefully and try to respond to the posts and not to your own prejudiced assumptions of their stupidity.
This is why none of your replies actually addressed what I was saying- you were not listening. I guess I'd have to be a centuries old asian sage to merit your attention. me, i'm living in the here and now, and perhaps you could try it next conversation. I am sure you doubt it, but you might actually learn something instead of sticking with the same tired assumptions you are displaying here.

[bettyellen]

145. and you still ignore that fact that everyone knows the damned boundries, the subterfuge

continues.....
Sun Tsu taught you to know the opponent, but you read them wrong constantly. you keep arguing with your projections, instead of the people on this thread.

[Zhade]

71. You are right. Not even trying is cowardice; supporting same is likewise cowardice.

And it puts blood on the hands of those who do not fully support trying to end this war with every effort possible, even without "the votes".

[The Magistrate]

81. Stirring, Sir, But Unfortunately Lacking The Slightest Trace Of Sensible Content

[bettyellen]

92. see now, there's another post consisting of nothing at all but your own opinion.

since you brought up "the lacking in content".... you're not exactly bringing it to this thread yourself, sir.
just an observation.

[The Magistrate]

96. Do You Generally Post Other People's Opinions, Ma'am?

How does that work for you?

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

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

[Beelzebud]

2. I wonder what the strategy will be. Call them all Idiot Liberals? Dope Smokers?

[dogday]

5. That sounds about right nt

[HappyWeasel]

3. I now see where they are coming from.

Yes. Immediate Withdrawl. What has happened has happened.

[rodeodance]

16. This group and other groups are targeting DEMS--like Obey this week.--

and other sit-ins at Reps offices (and Senators)

[ClassWarrior]

4. Anyone who thought our work was done on Nov. 7...

...is incredibly naive. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. People need to quit wailing and gnashing their teeth over "the timid approach our DEM leaders," and get on with winning "our DEM leaders" over to our way of thinking.

NGU.

[RiverStone]

13. 'Our way of thinking' is what DEMS advertised on Nov 7th!

Millions of people around the world have been protesting with eternal vigilance since before the IWR on 2002, that includes many DUers!

I don't understand why ClassWarrior, you would diss folks (myself included) who are critical of our DEM leaders inexplicably being way too compromising on this tragic war - when the result of that compromise means more death? I don't think I'm being any more critical now then the DEMS were of the criminal BushCo regime leading up to the election.

I should NOT have to win our DEM leaders over to our way of thinking as you said. I thought they already DID see our way (of thinking). That's why we elected them!!! I'm left confused with your comments.


peace:)

[ClassWarrior]

17. Then hold them to it.

It's either that or whining about the futility of the situation.

I know which one I've found to be more productive.

NGU.

[RiverStone]

22. That's exactly what we are trying to do!

We do agree ClassWarrior, we should hold them to it. Though I don't see where your method has been productive at all? Given that we find so many DEMS waffling and compromising to such a degree that no real withdrawal may occur till sometime in 08? Maybe after Shrub leaves office?

I don't see articulating concerns about DEMS not walking the talk as whining. Rather, as long as one proposes viable alternatives (see Russ Feingold) - I see it as patriotic! We are both talking about being part of the solution rather then the problem. I just see the problem as the attitude of Harry and Nancy being overly passive on ending this damn war.

I'm not saying the situation is futile (that's your word) - WE HAVE ALTERNATIVE PROPOSALS which will d/c additional war funding much quicker then Pelosi is saying - it's just the DEMS are not going for it! Whining is complaining without offering a solution. There are many solutions that have been proposed which get us out sooner and hold Shrub more accountable (see Murtha), and pointing out the alternatives to Nancy's plan is not whining, rather, I see that as productive.

[reprobate]

131. RiverStone, I see the problem as one of attitude.

IE, the attitude of the Dem leadership.

Look at how the repugs stood up and DEMANDED what they wanted. Then contrast that with the way the Dem leadership operates.

The American people have always followed leaders that APPEAR strong, and that's exactly how the repugs have appeared with their attitude. Dems, on the other hand, speak with logic and reason, which is fine if you're in a debating club, but in the world of politics it just guarantees that you lose.

Dems won the past election only by default. If our leaders had stood up and demanded what the people wanted we would have taken BOTH houses by large margins.

In my opinion, with the damage the administration has done, and finally the recognition by the masses of the evil doers in our government, if our leadership will change from reason to language that supports the masses we can be the governing party for the forseeable future.

[Zhade]

74. And here's their response: "Who ya gonna vote for, a REPUBLICAN?"

The same party that applauded the backstabbing lieberman doesn't give a FUCK what we think.

Well, most of them anyway. Those who do are routinely shut out or delayed by the leadership.

[rodeodance]

6. Recently Russ said that Pretty soon WE are going to Own the War!!

I know we can say we inherited this mess, but when does the rising death count start to fall more on our shoulders then the rethug minority? Can someone answer that?.....

[rodeodance]

7. There is the Progessive Plan and the Pelosi Plan (a major diff is that the

progressive (anti-war caucus)----wants OUT about 9 months earlier:



........“The Iraq plan presented by Nancy Pelosi today condemns at least 1,500 more U.S. troops and countless Iraqi children, women, and men to die in a war based on lies, a war that has already taken far too many lives,” said Nancy Lessin, co-founder of MFSO.

[rodeodance]

8. not really---as Snow keeps reminding the WH press core--Iraq was 3rd

on the list.

......Was not our theoretical anti-war positions the most compelling issue voted upon last November?

[proud2BlibKansan]

9. Ah these families are probably just idiot liberals who smoke dope

According to Congressman Obey that is.

[Beelzebud]

12. Aren't most anti-war protesters? I mean, thats just common knowledge!

We all know the anti-war protesters are just unwashed hippy freaks that are really just dope smoking idiots when you take a good close look at them.

:sarcasm:

[proud2BlibKansan]

19. Hell yeah!

Now where did I leave my bong? LOL

[DancingBear]

59. At my house

Along with a bottle of Boones Farm Strawberry Hill and an 8-track player.

Christ, you ARE old...

[proud2BlibKansan]

60. There's bound to be some good resin in there by now

LOL

Hey DB!! :hi:

How ya doin?? :hug:

[ShortnFiery]

161. Congressman Obey is a horse's patootie who needs to be voted out of office. n/t

[Labors of Hercules]

10. It starts...

We knew the second we got voted a SLIM majority in both houses of Congress some fools would begin shaking their fists saying "we voted you in, why aren't you turning everything around? What the hell's the hang up???" :mad:

This is the titanic AFTER the iceberg... With a little over half the lifeboats, There isn't any turning it around, there's only to save as many as we can. (for those of you who are analogy challenged: Titanic = Iraq War, Lifeboat = Democrat in Congress):smoke:

[frogcycle]

11. we do not inherit culpability

what is required in order to tear the CiC's hands from the controls of this runaway train is draconian measures of historical significance. It requires going into uncharted waters. Done wrong, it could make matters worse. Culpability lies squarely with those who lied to turn their wet dream into this nightmare, and with those who were responsible for oversight and willfully shirked that responsibility.

Extricating ourselves from this mess is unbelievably complex. There are myriad ways to get people out of harms way short of precipitous disengagement and abandonment. However, the CiC refuses even to consider those. We still are sending these kids out on "bomb squad" missions to defuse IEDs. They are successful with a lot, and sometimes they are not. That is inexcusable. That is not their job. That could be stopped THIS MINUTE by executive order, but it won't happen without actually getting the madmans hands off the controls. By taking his hard line, he ha, in my opinion, left no alternative but immediate impeachment - or removal for mental incompetance. Defunding is the only other thing with teeth, and it would be terrible. THAT would take on responsibility. THAT would give him carte blanche to wash his hands of it, say "you broke it; you own it", but he would STILL be CiC, and could petulantly put them at even greater risk.

Congress needs to come to grips with the fact that there is NO conventional solution. This is an unprecedented failure of our form of government, and unprecedented emergency measures are needed.

[ComerPerro]

14. People weren't voting for Dems. It was against Bush. And now,

people like McCain (who will literally say anything to get elected) is speaking out against the war. Although he is doing so using similar talking points that most Dems had four years ago, he is not being attacked or called a traitor by the media or by conservatives.

This is why I think they are really gonna take over in 2008. We can't get anything done with the Repubs locking up congress and Bush threatening vetoes (which, by the way, what on earth did we gain from deciding not to fillabuster Bush's judicial appointments), so now the public is gonna vote for Republicans again, because they will tell them the same kind of lies they always do to get elected.

[The Magistrate]

15. Put Bluntly, Sir

These people are political naifs, and 'useful idiots' for the right.

The only effect these actions can have is to blur to some degree the clear public perception the war is the responsibility of the Republicans, and that it is Republican fillibuster in the Senate, and administration intransigence, that keeps it going. This popular perception has the advantage of being true as well as useful: people who attempt to alter it the favor of Republicans need to sit down and shut up until they understand politics and government, and can aim their efforts better.

[bettyellen]

18. better a naif than a triangulating excuse filled "representative " who ignores

the voices of the electorate because it's just not easy to do what they want.
this BS is what's killing the party. very few people have the balls to stand up for what's right, and the voters see this.
since when does a politician have to be guaranteed success in order to do what is needed and just?
i understand plenty, thank you. and while you can excuse, or deign to explain it to this naif, LOL, as if it were only moves in a game, not all of us can excuse the current situation. these are not pawns we are talking about, and it's more than a game that used to favor your party.

[The Magistrate]

25. Quite The Contrary, Ma'am: Naifs Are Dangerous To Themselves And Others

People who can calculate the odds and angles of an achievable course competently are most valuable. There can be no question which is better to have in positions of leadership, and no question which will select the best line to press.

Anyone involved in a conflict in which resources, concrete or otherwise, must be expended to gain some object, necessarily calculates whether an object can be achieved with the available resources, and whether an object, if gained, is worth the resources expended in gaining it. What is more properly called a 'game' is the pretense that plans should be made and actions undertaken without such calculation, for that is a profoundly frivolous attitude, proper only to matters in which nothing real is at stake.

To call the Democrats 'your party' opens up an odd can of worms indeed, Ma'am, as does decrying attempts to bring advantage to that Party. It remains a fact that no progress on left and progressive lines, in any matter, can be made unless the Democrats hold the primary power in the national government. It is a necessary precondition for even a small degree of success.

[RiverStone]

31. how many more will die while you calculate?

...necessarily calculates whether an object can be achieved with the available resources, and whether an object, if gained, is worth the resources expended in gaining it.

Sometimes ya just need to be bold, decisive and walk your talk! I expect that from the DEMS on the Hill. I'm sure your statement (above) would offer cold comfort to a parent desperate from their son or daughter to come home from this tragic and insane war.

[The Magistrate]

33. People Are Going To Be Dying In Iraq For A Long Time To Come, Sir

That is an unhappy fact, that is not going to be altered by tantrum and impatience that actually works to strengthen the hand of those elements of the national government which actively desire to persist in the ocupation of the place by U.S. forces.

[RiverStone]

41. After 4 years in Iraq - how can you suggest we are 'impatient'?!

And label those of us that dare to question both the actions and overly compromising ways of our DEM leaders as throwing a tantrum?

I thought mods at DU were representative of the progressive wing of the DEM party; you Mr. Magistrate, seem to be intent on maintaining the status quo. And if your view prevails, sadly we may indeed be in Iraq (or Iran) for a generation. We have been patient enough thank you!

* * * * *




Ah, the sun just came out in rural Washington - time to go for a hike!


peace:)

[The Magistrate]

42. To Insist, Sir, On Immediate Accomplishment Of Something Beyond Another's Power

Is certainly impatience, if not worse. To attack Congressional Democrats at present is to play into the hands of those who actively desire to maintain the occupation of Iraq indefinitely. If my view prevails today, the U.S. will doubtless be out of Iraq by the autumn of 2009; had it prevailed some years ago, we would never have invaded the place at all.

[bettyellen]

46. no one is insisting on certain immediate accomplishment, but yeah we expect them to bust it out

trying, public sentiment has turned strongly against the war, and i don;t accept excuses as to why our reps aren't working hard to stop it.
i do not believe they are entirely without power, i think they are largely adverse to using it. .
i think some cold calculations are going on, thinking it'll be great for the Dems if we're still in Iraq in 08. Totally morally bankrupt wusses. Maybe that's the camp you fall into, I wouldn't say it's anything to be proud of.

[The Magistrate]

50. It Will Certainly, Ma'am, Be Much To Our Advantage

That U.S. forces are still present and involved in Iraq through the next national campaign. But it is not necessary to do or not do anything for that to obtain; that is what the actual balance of political forces in the capital dictate will be the case. The votes to alter this are not present, and public sentiment, however overwhelming, will not translate into the defection of a dozen Republican Senators, or half the Republican caucus, both of which would be required for passage of any decisive bill, and over-riding its inevitable veto. Persons who choose to persue the line of attacking Congressional Democrats, rather than concentrating all fire on Republicans, will only manage to reduce the pressure Republicans might come to feel as the months drag on to co-operate against the present regime's determination to maintain the occupation.

[bettyellen]

52. and i believe that's why hillary and some other dems are not too interested in ending the war

and i think it's getting pretty transparent and will backfire on them. because i don;t belive these kind of triangulators you so favor remember what doing the right thing means. they are forgetting how.
so, if they act like republicans i can sit it out in 08. focus on local issues, save myself loads of time and money. my support is not automatic, nor does it go to the lesser of two evils.

[The Magistrate]

54. You Are, Ma'am, Mistaking Effect For Cause

It is not that prominent Democrats do not want to end the occupation of Iraq; rather, they see that at present they do not have the muscle in the national government to effect its end prior to the next national election. This interval must be spent in manouvering and building to prepare the ground in the way most dis-advantageous to the enemy in the '08 campaign. That is what is being done by the Congressional leadership. They are doing their jobs and doing them competently. That, Ma'am, is doing the right thing.

[bettyellen]

55. that's your opinion, sir. i don't see much evidence to that hil's antiwar or anything

but a lame ass band wagon jumper. but it's nice of you to support the party, no matter what they don;t bother trying to do, or don;t speak up about. at least they can count on the likes of you. i have a different take on things and as such, there are many Dems I have no use for. Sorry if that fucks up their strategy for 08. But it is what it is.

[The Magistrate]

57. And There Is No Evidence At All For Your View, Ma'am

Nor any reason to regard it as reflecting any serious knowledge of or engagement with the political life of the country.

[bettyellen]

58. you can dismiss the anti war movement so easily and caculate the war will help dems in 08

and while it's obvious from your condescending posts you have a really high opinion of youself, those are two very big reasons i can't agree with that inflated opinion. There's a point when you bypass the pragmatism and make excuses for the immoral, and some of us, I know you'll never understand this, are unwilling to do that.
i understand just as well as you do how things work, thanks. unlike you, i don;t believe things are set in stone for two years. That's so lame, so easy.
History has proven me right in the past. So I prefer to be more hopeful and less cynical then you. In the meantime, you have fun with the body count, since it's all good to you.

[The Magistrate]

61. By And Large, Ma'am

Moralists are the most destructive sort of human beings, and do far more harm than any honest rogue ever dreams of. The positions and views you conceive to be moral and good are roundly denounced by those who oppose us on the right as the height of immorality and evil conduct. Show me, please, a way to settle that dispute that does not require weaponry in abundance....

"I prefer the wicked to the foolish. The wicked sometimes rest."

[bettyellen]

67. LOL, boy you love the sound of your own voice, huh? sound and fury... signifying

not so much. all this nonsense about peace protesters hurting dems, if it happens, the dems it hurts richly deserve it.
thanks for the laughs, though, that's enough cribbed aphorisms for me!.
:hi: see ya around.

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

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

[bettyellen]

86. well if blathering on endlessly is better... than fine, you're the man, obviously

the misguided man who keeps repeating himself, with ever more florid and self congratulatory nonsense.
lotta style, not much meat. LOL. :shrug:

[The Magistrate]

89. And You Said You Were Through, Ma'am....

"What a world, what a world...."

[proud2BlibKansan]

62. Aren't moderators supposed to stay out of discussions?

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

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

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

108. What gave you that idea?

[proud2BlibKansan]

111. Looks like they can participate but there are guidelines:

However, when moderators participate in discussions that are unrelated to their official duties, they are expected to do so in a manner that respects differing points of view, and promotes left-wing solidarity rather than division. Even when they are not performing their official moderator duties, moderators are required to hold themselves to a higher standard than other members of this discussion board. With this in mind, moderators are expected to observe the following guidelines:

1. They are expected to behave themselves at all times in a way that reflects positively on Democratic Underground, and complies with all the Rules and Regulations of this website.
2. They are expected to share and help promote Democratic Underground's mission of left-wing unity and solidarity.
3. They may not engage in personal attacks against other members of this board.
4. They may not engage in attacks against other political, social, or minority groups, such as the Democratic Party, the Green Party, the Democratic Leadership Council, environmentalists, union members, gays and lesbians, Christians, etc. They are expected to avoid attacks against respected public figures in the Democratic Party or the political left.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/moderators....

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

114. There's also a rule against calling out mods

If you disapprove of his polite arguments and implacable calm in the face of personal attacks, you should send a note to the Admins, not hijack a thread with your disapproval.

[proud2BlibKansan]

119. I have done that

[RiverStone]

150. Then if there is middle ground, are you willing to look for it?

This has become a circular argument, and all the pontificating or name calling Mr. Magistrate has not done a damn thing since yesterday to shift my view - that our DEM leaders are lacking the boldness on ending this war as advertised (to change the war's direction) leading up to the 08 election.

Alas, politics is mostly about compromise - and to a degree - this thread mirrors the challenge that Nancy Pelosi faces: that being the growing rift between the DEMS anti-war caucus's who say "hell no, we are not going to vote for anymore war/escalation spending - period!" and the Blue Dog DEMS who come from conservative states and are afraid of not getting the votes of a more right-leaning base. The House Appropriations Committee will begin debating a spending bill upwards of $106 Billion dollars next week. Nancy's job is to achieve harmony (or at least agreement) between the opposing DEM factions.

Magistrate, you say being critical of DEM leaders plays into the wingnut camp. Of course, it is not just us progressive DUers who are expressing that view! There are plenty of members from the Congressional Progressive Caucus and the Out of Iraq Caucus who are expressing the exact same criticisms (story below). You are also directing criticism at DEMS as well. Using your argument, are not you pandering to the right for your critical observations of DEMS as well?

That being said - I can agree to disagree with you and leave you with a question. Where is the middle ground? I say not in 2009! I say don't give Shrub an inch more on executive privilege to determine if a benchmark has been met (he has proven wildly incompetent there) - though I could accept a middle ground withdrawal date as compromise (though I want it yesterday). That's compromise.

Do have a middle ground Magistrate? For we DEMS must reach consensus eventually to govern as the Majority party.


* * * * *

CNN
3/8/07

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Anti-war lawmakers Thursday called on colleagues in the House of Representatives to set a "clear timeline" for an immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, challenging fellow Democrats to assume the political risk of ending the war.

In a press conference, members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and the Out of Iraq Caucus proposed legislation that would require Congress fully to fund the safe and secure withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by December 31, 2007.

"Four and half years ago the president asked to give war a chance, and despite our objections he got that chance and he blew it," said Rep. Janice Schakowsky, D-Illinois.

"No more chances. No more waivers. No phony certifications. No more spending billions of dollars to send our children into the meat grinder that is Iraq. It is time to spend the money to keep them safe and bring them home."

more:

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/08/iraq.congress/

[The Magistrate]

155. Thank You, Sir

My personal view is pretty close to that of the Anti-War Caucus.

It seems to me that the best tactic is to get things passed, at least out of the House, that will be popular with the people, and yet that it is certain the Republicans will block, in the Senate by fillibuster and perhaps, eventually, by veto.

But it is a step by step process, a question of attrition rather than of a decisive blow. It is important to craft as a first measure something that will get the most votes that can possibly be garnered. Atmospherics are important in this sort of thing, and the stronger and more widely supported a thing appears to be, the stronger the impact it will actually have on the feelings of the voting public, and on the Congressional opposition to it. And any first step needs to be followed up by further, ever more stringent and clear-cut measures, which people who have voted for the first one will have a hard time backing away from voting for as they come on in sequence. The wise victor, it has been well said, presents his demands in installments, to establish the habit of acquiesence.

It must also be borne in mind that none of this will succeed, if success is defined as withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq before the next national elections. The enemy does have the votes and institutional tools to persist in the their policy. Barring some unforeseeable crisis, we are not going to get sufficient Republican defections to end fillibuster of truely binding items, or even if we do, to over-ride a veto. It will, however, certainly succeed, if success is defined as fixing irrevocably in the popular mind that Republicans are engaged in a thwarting of the popular will on a scale properly described as quasi-dictatorial, and this will lead to serious casualties in their ranks next year. Outcry against Democrats from the left, in the "blood is on your hands for not stopping this now" style some seem to favor, will operate to weaken this identification of the Republicans as the opponents of the people, and therefore ought to be avoided.

Finally, there is some sense to measures of the sort the Anti-War Caucus has declared against, that require certification of benchmarks. Things like this guarantee the matter will keep coming up again and again. Obviously, the wretch in the Oval Office will swear everything is going wonderfully, and just as obviously, every such statement will be a damnable lie. This will provide routine opportunities to expose lies, even blatant malfeasance, and so arouse to a greater pitch popular anger.

[bettyellen]

163. no one wants to admit to the protesters that their timing is inconvienient for the election cycle

sorr, got delay ending the war, because the wind down is going to be ugly.
gosh, didn;t they say that about Nam, and weren't they wrong?

[countingbluecars]

23. Are you saying

these military families should "sit down and shut up"? Do you really think they should play politics when their loved ones lives are on the line?

[The Magistrate]

27. Politics Is What they Are Involving Themselves In, Ma'am

Therefore they must indeed 'play politics', though why you speak of doing so as if it were a bad thing escapes me. What they are doing in the piece cited above is 'playing politics'; the problem is that they are playing it badly and ignorantly. When people do a thing badly and ignorantly, they are unlikely to achieve what they are setting out to do, and very likely to assist their opponents in balking their stated desires.

[Individualist]

24. "sit down and shut up"

Interesting.

[The Magistrate]

29. Advice, Ma'am

That needs more heeding than it receives.

If these people wish to make a ruckus, they should aim their ire at the Republican administration that conceived, pressed, and executed the invasion of Iraq.

One attacks enemies, not friends.

[Individualist]

30. Said advice disregarded, Sir

[The Magistrate]

34. In My Sojourn Here Below, Ma'am

It has long been apparent to me that those who most badly need to heed advice are incapable of doing so....

"Learn from other's mistakes: you won't have time to make them all yourself."

[Individualist]

36. Your effort is failing, Sir

This hillbilly wasn't born yesterday. However, if you choose to continue replying to my comments, knock yourself out.

[The Magistrate]

38. What Effort, Ma'am?

Do you imagine it is my purpose to change your mind?

[proud2BlibKansan]

64. Well sir, I guess you must not know that they HAVE BEEN aiming their ire

at republicans. Since 2002. Now that the Dems are in charge, they get the ire.

Another thing you must not realize, sir, is that many of the peace activists in DC now worked very hard on Dem campaigns in 2006. The mom who is in the video with Obey ran a congressional campaign in MO.

[bettyellen]

68. well, see the war is a golden goose, going to be a brilliant way to defeat republicans in 08

so we won't need grass roots activists- especially icky peace loving moms of soldiers- they're such a bummer anyway!

scary, ain't it?

[proud2BlibKansan]

69. More sad than scary

And so disappointing here on DU.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

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

[countingbluecars]

73. It really is disappointing

to hear a DUer/moderator say that these anti-war protesters should "sit down and shut up". I guess I need to look for a more liberal site.

[Zhade]

78. It's indicative of the cowardice in this country.

So afraid of doing what's right that they block every move to do so.

[proud2BlibKansan]

106. It concerns me

that a moderator is a participant in a hot discussion.

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

113. You are the one who said this, not The Magistrate

Go back and read your own posts. You asked him two questions; his response referenced one. Now you are conflating your questions to put words in his mouth, and others here, who are happy to personally attack a poster with whom they disagree, have jumped on your bandwagon. It's a very sad tactic.

[countingbluecars]

116. I was questioning his words,

"sit down and shut up". I did not put words in his mouth, but you seem to be putting them in mine-a sad tactic indeed.

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

120. You took them out of context and added your own interpretation

in order to paint him as pro-war, when in fact he opposes action by anyone, even those with loved ones in military service (which includes me, BTW) who would paint this as anything other than a Republican war.

[countingbluecars]

125. I asked a question. I didn't paint anything.

He said several very negative things about the military families. I have a right to question him on his words. Plain and simple. I may not use fancy verbiage, but I understand it.

[proud2BlibKansan]

129. It's kind of hard to twist "sit down and shut up"

LOL

[countingbluecars]

130. Go figure!

LOL

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

132. He has the right to criticize those who blur the line between Dems & pubs

I agree with him that attacking Democrats will neither bring troops home nor build public support for Democrats who are working to do just that. Those are the politics with which those families are playing. Their methods put me in mind of the "percussive maintenance" approach to making a machine work by banging on it. It's not that hitting it doesn't work; it's that you have to hit the right place.

[countingbluecars]

135. And I have the right to disagree.

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

137. And the right to find another site if this one's not "liberal" enough for you

World's just fulla rights.

[countingbluecars]

138. Good grief,

Is it against the rules to disagree with a moderator even when they are in discussion mode! I didn't know he was a god to you. Excuse me!

[Name removed]

139. Deleted message

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

[countingbluecars]

140. I lost them at

"useful idiots" and "sit down and shut up"!

[Name removed]

144. Deleted message

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

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

156. #73: "I guess I need to look for a more liberal site."

Poster's own words. Direct quote.

I love how you work that "______ Underground" thing. It's a real bon mot.

[countingbluecars]

157. Said somewhat tongue in cheek,

but your snarky remark was real cute.

Your own words. Direct quote. "World's just fulla rights."

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

158. And so it is.

[Name removed]

162. Deleted message

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

[proud2BlibKansan]

128. A direct quote:

"people who attempt to alter it the favor of Republicans need to sit down and shut up"



Now please explain how these words have been taken out of context.

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

134. I already did.

:eyes:

[bettyellen]

142. i thought saying the war will be good for Dems in 08 and ridiculing protesters makes him prowar

just a little bit too cool with it.
you think that's progressive or liberal? i'd say machiavellian covers it better.

[The Magistrate]

147. You Say Machiavellian, Ma'am, Like It Were A Bad Thing

The fact is that, search as you might over the past several years, you will be unable to find any comment of mine supporting the invasion and occupation of Iraq, though you will find occassional criticism of incompetent and futile and counter-productive acts by persons who proclaim their opposition to it, particularly when these take leading Democrats as the enemy, or press lines likely to enrage the great bulk of the voting public. Not everyone, Ma'am, is good at the work....

[Name removed]

149. Deleted message

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

[bettyellen]

164. the magistrate said the protesters shoud sit down and shut up

how'd you miss that one? :eyesroll:

[nam78_two]

90. So not really a "political naif" or a "useful idiot" eh?

But rather someone who lent material support to the Dems, but who should now "heed advice" and "sit down and shut up"...
:eyes:
Of course I see that you did not get a response from "The magistrate"...

[proud2BlibKansan]

141. Of course not

And not surprising either.

[Zhade]

76. Not the first time from that poster, either.

Fuck that - not going to shut up.

[The Magistrate]

84. Nor Will It Be The Last, Sir

What this bunch did was counter-productive, and brings benefit only to the right.

[RiverStone]

28. These people are loving parents, brothers, sisters,friends...

Geez, I have not a clue how you get from point A (political naifs) to point B (blurring public perception).

You speak of understanding politics; yet the primary political operatives on the Hill today is one of obstructionism and delay.

Passion, downright rage and heartbreak - these things are what these families know. They want their sons and daughters home! I would also act the same way. Do you not see any of the 'intransigence' from DEM leaders as well Magistrate? I am passionate about my party and a life-long DEM voter, but I will not sit quietly by when I see the blurring coming from our own DEM leaders. Rather, I expect to see whatever it is from them which makes them different from rethugs!

These families too, expect that as well. They expect our DEMS to follow the pledge they gave to voters last November - to end the war ASAP. That message is as plain and as real as it gets. They need to do what they said - or at least try!

[The Magistrate]

32. Just About Everyone Is That, Sir: So What?

It does not wrap them in a mantle of wisdom, nor constitute a guarantee their actions are even sensible.

What you are calling intransigence and delay and the like is simply awareness and understanding of the actual balance of political forces in the government as presently constituted, and reasonably sound calculation of what might be actually achieved under conditions presently obtaining. When one says 'as soon as possible', the proper emphasis is on the final word, not the second one....

[RiverStone]

39. Wrong, not everyone has a loved one in Iraq...

Rather, this war is being fought primarily by a minority representation of the socio-economic make up of our country - but that is for another discussion.

You speak of the balance of the political forces in the government as constituted - and you assume we are locked inexorably into some box. I'm saying think outside the box Magistrate.

Believe it or not, sometimes people can be both moved and surprised if an argument has passion and lots of common sense. Frankly, your view sounds pretty damn pessimistic. Again, after 4 years of this tragic war - it is NOW time for very assertive and challenging language from our party's leaders. We have used up too much precious time already being calculating, and I think the paradigm you see which defines our government is way to rooted in lame procedures and not in passion for change.

[The Magistrate]

43. Just About Everyone, Sir

Is a loving parent, friend, sister, brother, etc,; you did not qualify it otherwise. Nor does the personal connection endow anyone with wisdom and sound judgement of political matters.

'Think outside the box' is, as you are doubtless aware, a mere noise, and not a serious statement. Bills are passed by minimum numbers of votes; they must pass through the fillibuster check in the Senate, which again requires a certain number of votes to quash, and then are subject to vbeto, which cannot be over-ridden without an overwhelming number of votes. It is simply a fact that postitive action is effectively balked on this matter now. You may have all the passion in the world for change, and you will not change this, any more than a person's passionate belief he can fly will prevent him crashing to the rocks if he leaps off a cliff. If the form you choose to use in attempting to change this is to attack Congressional Democrats with claims they are not really desirous of endingt he war, or not ending it fast enough, you will actively work to reinforce the present constraints on action. You will be bringing not a whit of pressure onto Republican Senators who are the real and immediate obstacle to action, and you will be demonstrating vividly that the left is up once more to its old game of eating its own, which ahs been a chief prop of rightist powetr down the decades.

[bettyellen]

47. what pointless and deliberate misunderstanding, fond of word games that go no where?

and accomplish nothing....it shows.

[demrabble]

49. Wrong Issue! The Issue is ENDING THE WAR

Good Grief!

You make it seem as though the most important thing is making sure the public has the proper "perception" of who is responsible for the war.

With repect, sir, that is exactly the wrong issue.

The issue is ENDING THE WAR NOW!!!

Playing politics while soldiers and innocent Iraqi people die is just wrong.

Let's get this fucking war ENDED!!

[Zhade]

79. Remember the Dubai ports deal?

The poster argued FOR using people's racism against Arabs as a political weapon.

DU is no longer very liberal.

[Jax]

159. I remember that and it was and is still repulsive

Du is no longer very liberal. I agree.

This one calls those of us busting our ass to get more Dems elected "amateurs" and gets away with it.

[Zhade]

75. And those not trying everything possible to stop the war are cowards.

NT!

[proud2BlibKansan]

107. "sit down and shut up" sure sounds like an attack to me

However, when moderators participate in discussions that are unrelated to their official duties, they are expected to do so in a manner that respects differing points of view, and promotes left-wing solidarity rather than division. Even when they are not performing their official moderator duties, moderators are required to hold themselves to a higher standard than other members of this discussion board. With this in mind, moderators are expected to observe the following guidelines:

1. They are expected to behave themselves at all times in a way that reflects positively on Democratic Underground, and complies with all the Rules and Regulations of this website.
2. They are expected to share and help promote Democratic Underground's mission of left-wing unity and solidarity.
3. They may not engage in personal attacks against other members of this board.
4. They may not engage in attacks against other political, social, or minority groups, such as the Democratic Party, the Green Party, the Democratic Leadership Council, environmentalists, union members, gays and lesbians, Christians, etc. They are expected to avoid attacks against respected public figures in the Democratic Party or the political left.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/moderators.html

[The Magistrate]

123. As A Matter Of Curiousity, Ma'am

Do you suppose people who stage a video ambush of a prominent liberal Democrat, Rep. Obey, are promoting left-wing solidarity? It is quite clear to me they are not, but are instead engaged in the splinterisr fratricide that has been the curse of the left for decades, and which we must learn to avoid if we are to get anywhere.

Moreover, the persons engaged in that protest demonstrated abundantly, from their own mouths, that they had not the least knowledge of what they were protesting, and lacked even the most basic knowledge of the processes of government they were claiming ought to be carried out to their specification. Ingnorance at such a fundamental level has no place in political action, and people who quite literally do not know what they are doing cannot be taken seriously.

[proud2BlibKansan]

126. It was not a video ambush

Tina Richards, the mom in that video, is a good friend of mine. I talked to her today. Obey saw the camera, knew it was there, and said nothing. He knew he was being filmed when he called her a liberal idiot and when he accused her of smoking something illegal. He knew there was a camera and he still treated her with disrespect and made snide remarks. He could have asked that the camera be turned off; he did not. He could have had Tina make an appointment to see him in his office without a camera rolling; he did not. He could have been polite to her; he chose to be rude and condescending. And he knew the camera was filming the entire conversation.

I expect that EVERY citizen who goes to DC to talk to Congress should be taken seriously. There is no test required for them to prove mastery of civics before they can talk to a congressman. That is positively absurd.

[madfloridian]

112. Magistrate...your statement...who are you lumping into that category?

Your quote:

"These people are political naifs, and 'useful idiots' for the right.

The only effect these actions can have is to blur to some degree the clear public perception the war is the responsibility of the Republicans, and that it is Republican fillibuster in the Senate, and administration intransigence, that keeps it going. This popular perception has the advantage of being true as well as useful: people who attempt to alter it the favor of Republicans need to sit down and shut up until they understand politics and government, and can aim their efforts better."

Since many of us here have been subjected to terrible name calling lately because we think we have to fight as hard as we can to get out of Iraq.....could you be clear who are the Naifs and useful idiots?

We are being asked not to be upset that Obey called antiwar activists idiot liberals, yet here at DU the same thing is happening.

Could you clarify? I was called a traitor yesterday with no consequences to that person at all...of course I am no traitor.

So I would like to you to clarify.

[The Magistrate]

133. My Comment, Ma'am

Was directed at the people involved in the incident with Rep. Obey.

It is certainly my view, as you will be aware from previous exchanges, that attacks from the left against Democrats on this issue in particular serve no good purpose.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

20. Politicians don't lead, they follow. They are not bosses. We tell them what to do.

They need to be shoved, pushed, threatened, kicked, shouted at, pleaded with, put in the spotlight, embarrassed, to get them to do what they're supposed to do.

It's our responsibility, as citizens, to hold their feet to the fire..no matter what party they belong to.

[noamnety]

21. Many of us expected to see this

And we were told to shut up.

We were told to shut up until after the elections.
And then we were told to shut up until the newly-elected dems at least had a chance to take office.
And then we were told to shut up until that 100 hours was over.
Now we're expected to shut up because we're in another campaign cycle and we can't afford to jeopardize the dems' chance at winning next year.

[bettyellen]

100. they want you to shut up till you start campaigning for them, basically.....

and when you don;t have time or money to spare for them, they'll say YOU"RE hurting the party, don'tcha know?

[Tom Joad]

26. It seems Dems want to "redefine the mission" more than end the illegal mission

bad move, both politically and morally.

[The Magistrate]

35. Redefinition, Mr. Joad

Is a promising tool for ending the present operations of U.S. forces.

It would be pleasant to hear what you considered a practical course for achieveing an exit of U.S. forces from Iraq....

[Tom Joad]

44. Do you believe that US troops have a mission or purpose in Iraq?

I do not.
I do not believe we should be there to train Iraqi forces.
I do not believe we should be there to "combat terrorism" (which in reality comes from US forces as much as any other source).

[The Magistrate]

45. That, Too, Mr. Joad, Is A Question Of Definitions

But the question you were asked is what practical steps you would suggest for bringing the occupation of Iraq by the U.S. to a close.

What you believe the U.S. should or should not be doing in Iraq does not interest me in the slightest. You have expressed disatisfaction with the course being pursued towards closing down the war by Congressional Democrats, and so what you think they should be doing instead does interest me somewhat.

[Jcrowley]

72. Maybe not practical but essential

The violence will go down immediately and immensely the very day US troops begin to evacuate. That doesn't mean no violence in fact you may see in the immediate an uptick though even that is doubtful. But you will see a dramatic downturn in the mortality rate when considered even in the near-term (2-3 months) and of course much more so in the longer term. The notion that this is not the case is completely a construct of imperial ideology and used as political cover for continued occupation. One can easily search the historical record for similar arguments being made through countless colonial endeavors to rationalize and prolong these genocidal actions.

There is no serious scholar who would suggest that the removal of the primary element of destabilization would result in further violence.

Now we know that all polls show the Iraqi people want the US troops out of their country. You'd be hard pressed to show a survey where only 60% wanted the occupiers gone. We're talking about polls by the Pentagon and the US puppet government here. If we get to the real numbers we are in the 70-90 percent bracket. Last time I checked Iraq was in the middle east and the US was well in the US and so there is zero right for any American military presence to be there. Now or ever. So they must go immediately.

So when exactly do you propose the US troops depart?

There is absolutely nothing practical or tidy about any of this. Eliminate that vocabulary and concept as this is nothing but wicked and messy all the way.

[The Magistrate]

93. The Violence, Sir, Will Increase Greatly

The great fact of the Iraqi civil war in this, its 'Bleeding Kansas' stage, is that the Shia leadership conceives the U.S. military as is principal combat arm against the Sunni. In the absence of U.S. forces, their militias will happily shoulder this burden themselves, and the results will spectacular. Within the Sunni, nationalist, tribal, and Salafist elements, that at present regard each other warily and even in cases with open hostility, will be forced under the pressure into close co-operation. Though outnumbered, they possess more trained and skilled men, including many experienced operatives of the previous regime, and veteran jihadis, which will lend their operations a certain flair. The Arab world will be driven to take sides in the matter, for it will break along an old and bitter and frequently murderous sectarian divide, as well as an ethnic one between Arab and Persian. Sunni powers, principally Saudi Arabia, will make it their business to see the Sunni in Iraq are not defeated, and maintain their struggle with monies and recruits from outside Iraq.

My personal preference is that U.S. forces retire yesterday, but it is quite clear to me that under the circumstanvces actually obtaining. there is not going to be a withdrawl before about the middle of 2009, and this no matter what is shouted, or demanded, by anyone.

[Jcrowley]

98. First your analogy/reference

between/to pre-Civil War US ('Bleeding Kansas') and the situation in Iraq is so far off the mark as to not merit comment. Zero similarity.

Secondly the Arab world has taken sides.

Lastly, your analysis omits an entire constellation of day to day realities that shape people's lives in absence of a major occupying element that forces peoples lives.

Sounds all too similar to think tank proposals that are not to be trusted.

Guarantee if the US troops depart the level of violence in Iraq one year from today will drop exponentially. Guarantee if the illegal occupiers remain the violence will continue or worsen. Do you think otherwise?

[The Magistrate]

102. Good Luck With That, Sir

The violence will drop off when enough people have been killed that the boundaries are pretty clearly demarcated, and one side or other has been cowed into submission. That will probably take more than a year, and certainly a few more hundred thousand corpses.

The idea that the everyday needs and desires of ordinary people take precendence over the will of men with guns falls into the 'how wonderful were it true' drawer, unfortunately. It would indeed nbe wonderful if it were true, infortunately, it is not.

"The meek will inherit the earth, in six by three plots."

[annabanana]

40. "when does the rising death count start to fall more on our shoulders then the rethug minority?"

The second we have the votes.

[Jcrowley]

63. Can someone answer this?

The plan would require Bush to certify to Congress on July 1 and again on October 1 that the Iraqi government is making progress in achieving the “benchmarks” that the US president himself laid out in his January speech announcing the escalation of the US intervention. Bush called the situation in Iraq “encouraging” Tuesday, amid news of horrific bombings that left hundreds of Iraqis dead and attacks that claimed the lives of at least 13 more US soldiers this week. So then why would anyone accept the administration’s word on the supposed progress?

[proud2BlibKansan]

65. I have those same thoughts

Why in the world are the Dems willing to trust bush on anything at this point?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

85. Slow learners, I guess

:shrug:

[nam78_two]

88. Good question

:shrug:

[noamnety]

124. The only reason I can think of

to accept the administration's assessment of progress is that they are complicit.

The new dem plan doesn't do anything other than give legitimacy to the idea that there is something to make progress toward.

[ComerPerro]

94. kinda makes you wonder where they were, oh, I dunno, the last four years!

whatever, though. Dems are damned if they end the war, damned if they don't. I don't even know why they ran for office in the first place. Fuck it.

[proud2BlibKansan]

109. Are you wondering where these families were the last 4 years?

Or should we be asking why it took the media all this time to give them air time.

I know several families in MFSO and I can assure you they have been protesting, lobbying, signing petitions and many other things to bring attention to the invasion of Iraq and the impact it has had on them since 2003. It looks like the MSM finally heard them.

[ComerPerro]

110. either way. But if they can't recognize which party is working actively against them

maybe they should take a step back

[proud2BlibKansan]

117. Most of the peace activists I know are not tied to one party or the other

The majority would most likely consider themselves independents. They have gravitated to the Dems because the Republics started the war and while they were the majority party, they did nothing to end it. Many peace activists worked hard on Dem campaigns in 2006. They saw hope in changing Congress. Tina (the mom in the Obey video) managed a congressional campaign in SE MO. Now they are expecting the Dems they worked for to end the war. Many of those candidates campaigned against the war. There is reason for peace activists to expect them to do more than they are doing in Congress.

The first clue that we had a battle on our hands was when Pelosi's first 100 hours plan did not include Iraq. Then Nancy Boyda flipped - the day she was sworn in. Many other newly elected Dems have done the same thing.

So it is no surprise to me to see the peace activists all over DC and putting constant pressure on Congress. As Cindy Sheehan said not long ago, why should we support Democrats who support the war just because they aren't Republicans who support the war?

[ComerPerro]

118. in about eight months the Republicans are gonna become the peace party

so will they switch?

[proud2BlibKansan]

121. They just want the war to end

They want our troops to come home and they want the deaths to stop. That is more important than party loyalty.

I doubt very seriously that the republics will become the peace party. As long as they play the fear fear fear card, their agenda will be focused on catching those evil terrorists. And that involves military aggression.

But if by some miracle, the republics do become the peace party, then yes, peace activists (myself included) would most likely become republics.

[ComerPerro]

122. well, they won't "really" become the peace party. but they will make lots of promises

[RiverStone]

166. You'd rather fight then switch---right?

But if by some miracle, the republics do become the peace party, then yes, peace activists (myself included) would most likely become republics.

Oh gawd proud2Blib, I hope we would never see you establishing residence in freepersville!

I will admit, at times the lines have become blurred between party's on the crazy Iraq war---starting with the IWR. Though on the environment, reproductive freedom, the separation of church and state, unions, immigration (etc) there is such a vast difference between the rhetoric of DEMS and rethugs - I'd hope this one issue would not turn you red. If so, ya might as well vote for Chuck Hagel.

Frankly, I'm really hoping my disappointment with the lack of boldness and courage from DEM leaders on Iraq specifically shifts as they begin to move toward what the public demands. I'm a life long DEM - yet I'm tired of folks who assume a totally defeatist attitude and say - we don't have the votes. Yes, the DEMS should be the Peace Party! Votes can be changed (even rethug votes) and at the very least; I'm looking for a much greater effort to VOTE on legislation that moves to DE-escalate our troops before the end of 07.



peace:)

[Yukari Yakumo]

152. The cold hard facts

Chimpy ultimately decides what to do with Iraq, and there's not enough votes in the Senate to change that.
And, no matter how futile, any Congressional attempts to deal with Iraq mess now will be forgotten by most of the public long before the 2008 campaigns even begin.

[bettyellen]

154. their political records will be dredged up ad infinitum for campaign season, so forgotten?

what makes you say forgotton? that makes no sense at all.

[Rydz777]

160. Victims

I've said in these threads since the beginning of the Surge that it calls for a new death count. Every additional victim of the surge is a death that lies on the doorstep of every politician who is complicit in permitting this atrocity to continue. Having our troops drive back and forth down the streets in the middle of a civil war is simply insane. Bush apparently intends to draw this out - no matter the cost in limbs and lives - until he leaves office and then dump it in the lap of his successor.

[ecstatic]

165. Put yourself in a military family's shoes

Sorry, but you won't see me issuing any passes and neither should anyone else. Everyone who holds power should be booted out until we get some people who are willing to put an end to this madness.