“House of Representatives that couldn't bring itself to represent either conscience or constituents"

[omega minimo]

(kpete posted the link to this letter. Here is another edit of the excellent piece by Sean Penn)

"Even in a so-called victory, what we saw yesterday was a House of Representatives that couldn't bring itself to represent either conscience or constituents."
Sean Penn: An Open Letter to the President, Four and a Half Years Later
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sean-penn/an-open-letter-to-the-pre_b_44172.html

<snip>
You want to rattle sabers toward Iran now? Let me tell you something about Iran, because I've been there and you haven't. Iran is a great country. A great country. Does it have its haters? You bet. Just like the United States has its haters. Does it have a corrupt regime? You bet. Just like the United States has a corrupt regime. Does it want a nuclear weapon? Maybe. Do we have one? You bet. But the people of Iran are great people. And if we give that corrupt leadership, (by attacking Iran militarily) the opportunity to unify that great country in hatred against us, we'll have been giving up one of our most promising future allies in decades. If you really know anything about Iran, you know exactly what I'm referring to. Of course your administration belittles diplomatic potential there, as those options rely on a credibility and geopolitical influence that you have aggressively squandered worldwide.

Speaking of squandering, how about the billion and a half dollars a day our Iraq-focused military is spending, where three weeks of that kind of spending, would pay the tab on a visionary levy-building project in New Orleans and relieve the entire continent of Africa from starvation and the spread of disease. Not to mention the continued funds now necessary, to not only rebuild our education and healthcare systems, but also, to give care and aid to the veterans of this war, both American and our Iraqi allies and friends who have lost everything.

You say we've kept the war on terror off our shores by responding to a criminal act of terror through state sponsored unilateral aggression in a country that took no part in that initial crime. That this war would be fought in Iraq or fought here. They are not our toilet. They are a country of human beings whose lives, while once oppressed by Saddam, are now lived in Dante's inferno.
<snip>
So, in conclusion, I address my remaining remarks to the choir: We all played nice recently at the sad passing of former President Ford. Pundits and players on all sides re-visited his pardoning of Richard Nixon with praise, stating that a divided nation found unity. But what of that precedent on deterrence now? Where is justice now? Let's unite, not only in stopping this war, but holding this administration accountable as well. Without impeachment, justice cannot prevail. In our time, or our children's. And let's make it clear to democrats and republicans alike that we are not willing to wait on '08 to hear them say again: "If I'd known then, what I know now."

Even in a so-called victory, what we saw yesterday was a House of Representatives that couldn't bring itself to represent either conscience or constituents. It's a tragedy that the Democratic Party's leadership in Congress refuses to allow the House to vote on Barbara Lee's amendment for a fully funded, orderly withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of this year. Elites circled the war wagons against this proposal, and postponed the day of reckoning that must come as soon as possible - a complete pullout of U.S. military forces from Iraq.

[Kelly Rupert]

1. More Americans are in favor of pulling out by '08 than are of pulling out immediately. n/t

[kenny blankenship]

4. wonderful glad to hear it. If you want out by 08 you need to start leaving in June

at the latest.
That's pretty much immediately.

[ewagner]

2. Not so fast....

This was momentous....it was "sausage-making", true...but under the circumstances...it was well done...

Digby has a great take on it...here"

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/

[omega minimo]

9. The dissociation of some on the Hill was painful to witness

since they really don't seem to grasp the realities or urgency of those who are affected directly by their "sausage-making."

Strongarming Progressive Democrats was necessary? Who represents the people that they represent, if they are not allowed to do so?

Digby: "It's very, very difficult for the congress to stop a war. The system is designed to allow the president to run them once the people have signed off and abruptly pulling the plug on funding is a very dicey move."

The vote came during the week that Plame testified, Rove and Meyers were subpoenaed and the sands are shifting under the White House. It couldn't have been THAT "very, very difficult the congress" to do their jobs representing the people, rather than whoever it is they are working for.

[cassiepriam]

14. I wonder if we will ever find out why the Dems rolled over once again?

Have they been bribed or threatened?

[omega minimo]

22. That is the $64,000,000,000,000,000 000,000,000,000,000 question

[cassiepriam]

29. That is probably the amount used to bribe the dems and everyone else.

[omega minimo]

30. or one day's take for the war profiteers

some overlap there, of course

[cassiepriam]

31. LOL on the overlap. Sad but true,

[youngdem]

3. I love Sean Penn, but he is so idealistic, he forgets to count votes

Would he have preferred nothing to what we got?

I do sympathize though. I want us out of Iraq and Bush in the Hague yesterday.

But sticking to idealism is not gonna get our kids home, sadly. We gotta make sausage.

[omega minimo]

5. Well since Iraq is a meatgrinder, there's plenty of sausage-making going on

Sean Penn is old enough, dear youngdem, to recall a time when principle and the rule of law counted and a bloodless "count the votes" mentality was not the be-all and end-all of politics or discourse.

The "idealistic" are on the right side of history.

[youngdem]

6. please, DU, sometimes young is just a name

I don't need to be condescended to. I am probably older than you. Perhaps, Young might be part of a name?

I know Penn is 'right'. I agree with his sentiment, if you read my post. I am just saying that idealistic bills have no chance at becoming law, and Dems have to do something, which is what they did.

Until Joe LIEberman shares Mr. Penn's views, we will have to work with the reality we've got, not the idealistic one we are certain in our hearts is right. That would cost MORE lives.

[omega minimo]

10. That

was not condescension. Dear.

[cali]

17. Just as often the "idealist" is on precisely the wrong side of

history. In fact, many of the more villainous sorts, were idealists. That's why I so dislike sweeping statements like that.

And much as I like Penn, and admire his speaking out, he gets as much wrong as he gets right.

[omega minimo]

24. Maybe you would be less disturbed

"The "idealistic" are on the right side of history."

if you didn't decide to see that as a "sweeping statement."

[enough already]

7. If counting votes is the measurement of success...

...then this latest vote will be an utter failure. It has zero chance of getting through the Senate with any deadlines attached and I think all serious people recognize this.

What I find humorous (in a sick, perverse, disgusting way) is that many of the same people celebrating this vote and ignoring it's ultimate Senate failure are the same people telling us we can't consider impeachment because we won't get the votes in the Senate.

[youngdem]

8. Well, what they mean is that sadly, this failure is the best we can hope for at present

and we have to do it. We have to try. We are hamstrung by LIEberman, and Bush, and the Repukes, and the Blue Dogs, but we owe it to the soldiers dead and alive to try. We can't just say we are gonna propose a full withdrawal bill every day, because it won't even make it out of committee.

This bill is gonna pass looking nothing like it currently does, and the current bill sucks. But we don't have a chance of getting an impeachment bill out of committee before LIEberman switches parties and sinks the whole fucking ship.

Sometimes, you gotta take what you can take, and bide your time until you can go for the kill. That's unfortunately where we are now. And I don't think it is any sort of contradiction by those who think this is the case. Both the current bill (in the House form) and impeachment are ideas with no chance of passing.

[BeFree]

11. No chance?

That's what they said about the impeachment of Clinton: "No chance". But it happened. Why? Because the republicons were relentless. But not us, nope. We say "this is wrong, but its the best we can get".

We're doomed. Bushco is winning. NGU!

[youngdem]

15. The repukes had several things we don't have

several complicit opposition members, complete party unity, and a larger majority not dependent on an AIPAC whore independent. We have NONE of these things. And they matter. A LOT.

Oh, and Bill Clinton couldn't (or didn't) issue a signing statement pardoning himself. Bush will clearly place a Signing Statement on any real bill that hits his desk.

So, yes, effectively NO chance of meaningful legislation passing that will actually pull troops out of Iraq.

[BeFree]

19. There you go again....

Describing your brilliant reasons that we, the majority, are inconsequential. That we are doomed to fail, so give up.

Gawd, is it any wonder we are so bad off when all we get is excuses for why we can't end this damned nightmare?

I want to see an up or down vote on impeachment and Out Now. I want to see who is with us so we can get on their case to end this crap once and for all.

Damn the torpedoes... full speed ahead!

[warren pease]

16. Just curious..

You write:

> "...the current bill sucks."

and

> Both the current bill (in the House form) and impeachment are ideas with no chance of passing.


So what exactly do you think was accomplished by passing this supplemental bill? What good did it do? Who benefited? How did it help end the Iraq occupation? How did it serve constituents who voted for Democrats specifically because they promised during the campaign to end the war? How did it impede the BushCo steamroller? How did it help advance the idea that, as the majority party, Democrats are a force to be reckoned with?

Just asking.

wp

[omega minimo]

20. great questions, warren pease

"How did it serve constituents who voted for Democrats specifically because they promised during the campaign to end the war? How did it impede the BushCo steamroller? How did it help advance the idea that, as the majority party, Democrats are a force to be reckoned with?"

[warren pease]

25. Thanks, but...

I don't see anybody jumping in to answer them. There's a hell of a lot of apologizing going on regarding how the poor, powerless Democratic MAJORITY had to take what it could get, which by incredible coincidence dovetails nicely with the DLC view of politics -- which seems to be, briefly, "God I wish I'd had the sense to run as a republican."

You'd think after having their faces shoved in steaming cat shit for the past six years -- longer if you go back to Gingrich's contract on america back in 1994 -- Democrats would be itching to assert their new-found power. Instead, it looks like they've contracted a mass case of Stockholm syndrome in which they identify with, and even grow to love and admire, their tormentors.

Mass psychosis. It's one way to explain their shameful behavior. And they're off the hook because nobody is nasty enough to say bad things about professional lunatics.


wp

[omega minimo]

27. Yes, that seems to be where we are

"Mass psychosis."

There are more questions-- I don't think those answers are forthcoming.


One question is why dominant Democrats would think that progressive voters and votes don't matter-- and why don't they care that this may inspire people to seek real representation or demoralize them into not voting at all.

[warren pease]

28. Progressive voters don't count because...

Democrats understand that they can be completely ignored and still vote Democratic. After all, what choice do they have? They're certainly not going to vote GOP. They might vote for a third-party "protest" candidate, but I think the Nader debacle in 2000 may have convinced most of them not to repeat that blunder.

So the worst thing that could happen is they might stay home. And that's a real problem, which is why I expect that, come around September 2008, we're going to see a few House initiatives that look progressive -- maybe some ineffectual stab at single payer health care, which has a lot of support lately -- but don't stand a chance of passing the Senate, much less the Vampire in Chief.

And if he did sign it, possibly in some last-minute attempt to restore a tiny fraction of the GOP's credibility with non-wingnuts, he'd append a signing statement that declares the law retroactively DOA.

In summary, I think we're stuck with the vichy dems unless and until enough people get angry enough -- and at the right things, for a change -- and launch a viable third party with a marketable candidate and a bunch of money from the show biz limo liberals and Soros and Norman Lear and the rest of the usual crowd.

And even that would probably take a few election cycles to establish its legitimacy in the minds (?) of average voters, such that they would actually get out and vote for the third party's candidate, maybe even work on the campaign.

So I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for progressive issues to get priority. Democratic leadership knows progressives are like an abused spouse; beat the hell out of them time and again and they'll still come back because a long time ago their daddys beat them senseless every other week and, as a result, they've learned to equate abuse with love. Or some such sick shit.

I'd love to go on, but I see American Idol reruns are coming up next.

wp

[omega minimo]

13. Awful to have to agree with * about "political posturing," ain't it?

"It has zero chance of getting through the Senate with any deadlines attached and I think all serious people recognize this."



"What I find humorous (in a sick, perverse, disgusting way) is that many of the same people celebrating this vote and ignoring it's ultimate Senate failure are the same people telling us we can't consider impeachment because we won't get the votes in the Senate."

Yeah, it's beyond ironic-- "humorous (in a sick, perverse, disgusting way)" that so many are supporting the weak justifications for representation based on "strategERy" and don't realize that THEY are being suckered. And impeachment is considered another one of those "idealistic" things instead of what it really is.

[porphyrian]

12. I'll kick that. - n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. Sean just doesn't understand that giving Bush another $100bn is "smart politics".

Just as voting for the war was in '03.

Then they were "deceived", followed by "keeping our powder dry" when refusing to filibuster, now it's "we don't have the votes" and "sending a message".

[omega minimo]

23. it must not be "smart politics"

to point out that Bush abused the power they gave him regarding Iraq or that his entire administration was under investigation the week that they voted for his $urge.

[Ghost in the Machine]

21. Bush responds to Sean Penn

Hey Spicoli.... got any green bud, dude??

[Solly Mack]

26. I love Sean Penn

don't rightly give a damn what anyone else thinks about him

and I'm betting Penn cares even less