Howard Zinn unloads a broadside against Democrats who "capitulated" to Bush.

[Selatius]

As I write this, Congress is debating timetables for withdrawal from Iraq. In response to the Bush Administration’s “surge” of troops, and the Republicans’ refusal to limit our occupation, the Democrats are behaving with their customary timidity, proposing withdrawal, but only after a year, or eighteen months. And it seems they expect the anti-war movement to support them.

That was suggested in a recent message from MoveOn, which polled its members on the Democrat proposal, saying that progressives in Congress, “like many of us, don’t think the bill goes far enough, but see it as the first concrete step to ending the war.”

Ironically, and shockingly, the same bill appropriates $124 billion in more funds to carry the war. It’s as if, before the Civil War, abolitionists agreed to postpone the emancipation of the slaves for a year, or two years, or five years, and coupled this with an appropriation of funds to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act.

When a social movement adopts the compromises of legislators, it has forgotten its role, which is to push and challenge the politicians, not to fall in meekly behind them.

We who protest the war are not politicians. We are citizens. Whatever politicians may do, let them first feel the full force of citizens who speak for what is right, not for what is winnable, in a shamefully timorous Congress.

http://www.progressive.org/mag_zinn0507

More of his fire can be read at the link.

I generally agree that the point of a movement, of the base, is "to push and challenge" the legislators instead of accepting what is given.

[Phredicles]

1. Way recommended!

[Pierre.Suave]

2. already posted

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=503969&mesg_id=503969

[ClayZ]

3. Kick!

[bonito]

4. Nominated again!

[Tom Joad]

5. If the Dems acted as an opposition party....

If but a handful, literally, of the "anti-war" Democrats voted against the bill, there would be no war funding. A crisis would be precipitated and a real debate over the war would have to begin in the Congress.

Instead.... war, war, war... then Hillary and her promise of continued occupation in Iraq. and god knows what else.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/15/clinton.troops/index.html

If elected president, Sen. Hillary Clinton said, she would likely keep some U.S. forces in Iraq in a supporting role after 2009 because America has "a remaining military as well as a political mission" that requires a presence there.

[warren pease]

32. Agreed, and...

Practically speaking, any proposal to limit the occupation will be gutted or killed in the Senate. If gutted, the Simpleton in Chief will sign the bill because it gives him everything he wants and doesn't impose even the enabling timetable that passed last week. If the Senate kills it, he'll be able to blame the "Democrat-controlled Senate" for not supporting the troops. Either way, BushCo can't lose and with corporate media delivering his message, and only his, we'll take yet another step into the alternative universe that shapes mainstream American narco-consciousness.

So they might as well have given the miserable prick something real to veto. Or given the Senate something real to kill. In doing so, they House Dems would have kept their pledge to the voters and could then blame the wingnuts in the Senate for not supporting .. blah, blah. This would have forced the conniving dolt to explain to the American people exactly why his party killed a bill that would have supported the troops in the best possible way -- by not killing them. Or by keeping them out of the clutches of the VA.

This Congress should be at war with this vile administration, not playing conciliatory kissy face. In fact, isn't it about time to draw up articles of impeachment? Oh yeah, it's off the table.

wp

[PDJane]

6. Bless Zinn............

I'm so glad to see righteous rants here and there.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

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

[Selatius]

8. Don't tell them that, though.

They claim to be principled as well. Personally, I couldn't stand it. One more vote against it and the bill in the House would've died. Then they really would've had to debate the issue at hand.

[cali]

10. And I'm heartily tired

of those of you who I think embody precisely what W.B. Yeats said in my tagline. I trust you understand what he was saying.

I've been writing my delegation urging them to support legislation getting out now since after the election, but I understand why Peter Welch voted for the Supplemental and i understand why Sanders and Leahy will support its counterpart in the Senate, and frankly anyone who characterizes any of those folks as timerous or owned by any corporate interest, is full of it. And Zinn should realize that his advice could equally be taken to heart by far right wingnuts. We're not the only ones who believe that we're speaking for what's right.

[TahitiNut]

12. It's interesting that, in effect, you'd proclaim a philosophical kinship with Alan Keyes.

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/hutchison/060921

An interesting treatment of "The Second Coming" can be found at ...
http://www.yeatsvision.com/SecondNotes.html

[cali]

16. LOL!

No, I didn't bother clicking on your links. But it's funny, because Keyes is just the sort of person that that line describes. And E.M. Forester, a great liberal said much the same thing as Yeats in "Two Cheers for Democracy"- as have many others throughout the centuries. Passionate purists with blinders, whether from the right or the left, are the ones who bear the resemblance to one another. So essentially you view me as philosophically linked to Keyes, something I'm sure he'd be astonished at considering both my philosophy and my politics, and I view you as having a tempermentally close relationship. Quite amusing.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

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

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. Zinn is obviously a Republican plant getting paid by Rove.

How dare he infer that the politicians we elected are not equal to the Gods in their enlightenment and knowledge of what's good for us. Why, you'd think they worked for us, rather than the other way around.

We should be grateful and send them roses for the fine, upstanding, job they're doing rather than challenging them to do more that pass bills that continue to fund Bush's war and pander to the right.

Besides, they are sticking to their "principles" - to get elected so they can get reelected without taking risks.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

14. what you said. nt

[ProudDad]

25. You've got to be KIDDING

You forgot the little sarcasm thingie --

It looks like this...

:sarcasm:

If you are serious, you're a wonderful parody of yourself...

[TahitiNut]

29. Yes, he's being facetious.

It's a sad state of affairs when the insanity has gotten so extreme we can't tell the difference between a parody and just another lunatic.

[ProudDad]

36. Yea, maybe I need another break myself

:hi: Nut!!!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

28. I thought the sarcasm thingy unnecessary.

:sarcasm:

[ProudDad]

37. Ooops

:blush: :blush: :blush: :blush:

[damntexdem]

11. It's not aimed at partisan politicians, it's aimed at the peace movement.

And he's right: no social movement should tie itself so close to a political party that it perverts its aims in order to play party politics. I was glad that the bill passed the House, by a minimal majority; and I would like to see it likewise barely pass the Senate; but I am counting on Dubya's veto to ensure that it doesn't become law. This is a partisan view: I want Democrats to be able to say that Dubya is 'cutting off funds to the troops.' But the peace movement, of which I am a part, is right to lambast the bill for funding another year-and-a-half of war; and Kucinich and others were right to oppose it and vote against it. That is a movement point of view, and that is especially why I don't want to see the bill actually become law. Money for the war should be cut off now. Congress isn't going to do that now, so from a political point of view, I am glad to see that the politcal process is putting Dubya and the Rethuglicans into as poor a position as possible at the moment; but the pressure still has to be built to "bring them home now" until the point that the war is stopped.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

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

[cali]

18. Bullshit.

And btw, advocating that people vote third party, is not encouraged around these parts. And I LIKE my Congressional delegation, and want to keep 'em.

Oh, and with the repukes deciding not to block the funding in the Senate, this legislation stands a good chance of being vetoed, at which time Pelosi and Reid can say that they've provided full funding and the President has decided not to support the troops.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[Forkboy]

19. What a traitor!

[Critters2]

20. I love Howard Zinn. nt

[moodforaday]

21. K&R, and

a yay for Howard Zinn!

[Disturbed]

22. I don't understand why Busholini would veto this Compromise.

This Bill gives him what he wants. Dems have handed him his Iraq solution. It will fall on the Dems if the region blows out into all regional war.

[ProudDad]

27. I happen to think he won't veto

There's nothing in the bill that does anything other than give him the money. The odds are that the Senate will strip all or nearly all of his "objections" out of the supplementary appropriation.

I think they're all playing a game of "political theater".


And, what the fuck, it's an IOU to be paid by our grandchildren. Screw 'em, right???

[w4rma]

40. It wouldn't matter if the Senate did. The conference committee could put them all back in. (nt)

[Pastiche423]

23. #35 to recommend Howard Zinn's article

[Jcrowley]

24. A reminder

Except for the rare few, like Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters, Lynn Woolsey, and John Lewis, our representatives are politicians, and will surrender their integrity, claiming to be “realistic.”

We are not politicians, but citizens. We have no office to hold on to, only our consciences, which insist on telling the truth. That, history suggests, is the most realistic thing a citizen can do.

K&R

[ProudDad]

30. This about says it

"Ironically, and shockingly, the same bill appropriates $124 billion in more funds to carry the war. It’s as if, before the Civil War, abolitionists agreed to postpone the emancipation of the slaves for a year, or two years, or five years, and coupled this with an appropriation of funds to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act."

[omega minimo]

31. Why does he hate America?

:patriot: :yourock: KnR

[salib]

33. The Progressive Magazine

Always an intelligent, liberal and flip the bird controversial.

We would be much poorer as a movement without it.

[entanglement]

34. K & R for Howard Zinn

n/t

[KingBob]

35. More Bucks for BU$HCO

One question I do not see is, after four years of supplemental appropriations, why these BUCKS FOR BU$HCO's war are not in a regular DoD appropriation? Hasn't anyone noticed there has been a (civil) war in Iraq for the past four years? Let GDUBYA veto the damn thing and then ask for it in a regular DoD appropriation.

[mmonk]

38. Some here definitely have a problem understanding

"When a social movement adopts the compromises of legislators, it has forgotten its role, which is to push and challenge the politicians, not to fall in meekly behind them."

I've definitely had my fill of being today.

[porkrind]

39. Enough with the triangulation already

Howard Zinn is amazing! When I read his writings on the noble plight of labor and poor people in the U.S. and their many struggles against the establishment, it made me proud to be American! (And I haven't felt that way for a long time).

And I agree 100% with him on this issue. Either congress lines up for the people, or they line up for military and corporate interests. They can't have it both ways.

[OneBlueSky]

41. a very articulate summary of the correct position on Iraq . . .

the analogy to the thug invading and trashing your home is an excellent one . . . would you give him a timetable for withdrawal? . . .

our invasion and occupation of Iraq are ILLEGAL under both U.S. and international law, and what we have done to that country and its people is a crime of immense proportions . . . every day that we do NOT withdraw our troops compounds our criminality and makes it that much harder to regain the trust and esteem of the rest of the world . . .

thank you, Howard Zinn . . . highly recommended! . . .

[pberq]

48. Yes, well put. And a big kick for Howard Zinn!

[lazyriver]

42. K&R I agree. Citizens must continue the fight for peace now.

Although a political victory within the walls of Congress, this spending bill does almost nothing for ending our illegal and immoral occupation of Iraq. It's little more than a non-binding resolution when you take into account Bush still makes the final call and gets his money for more war (and war profiteering)in the process.

[Ninja Jordan]

43. "Democrat proposal"?

[klook]

44. That's a quote from the Progressive's article

for what it's worth.

[Ninja Jordan]

46. I know.

Some progressive...

[proud2BlibKansan]

45. Amen

Howard Zinn is so awesome.

[porphyrian]

47. Ironically, it's the conservative Democrats who are most worried about preserving their careers.

Too bad they're too stupid to realize they've only got until the next election.

[johnlal]

49. The purge of Congress is not yet complete.

We still have many republicans to throw out this time, and we still have a lot of Lieberman-style Democrats to remove. I think we will be able to get rid of them this time around. It burns me to no end that the Democrats used the anti-war sentiment of the public to win seats in Congress, and they're dealing with the war in this very timid way. Sending a "non-binding" resolution showing disagreement with the surge? Passing a 124 billion dollar emergency funding bill? How is any of this ending the war?

Now that we have won the election for the Democrats, we are called "idiot liberals" by our own Democratic Congressmen, who roll their eyes and tell us that we are idealists, with no real clue about how politics really works.

We sent a lot of democrats to Congress, but that only put the old timid opposition leaders into power. We need another "surge" (excuse the expression) of liberal anti-war Democrats to sweep away the dead wood. The first place we need to start is with a roster of the DLC.

[truedelphi]

50. No surge, but yes let's purge! n/t

[Maraya1969]

51. I think most of the 124 billion that is spoken of here is to support troops when

they return back from combat and to support other veterans that are here now. Funds for Walter Reed, and PTSD therapy can hardly be construed as funds to carry on the war.

I think the 124 billion is the most important part of the bill. Even though it is not exactly what we want it does give a lot of money to the Americans who have suffered the most from this war. To say "no" to this bill because it does not demand immediate withdrawal is counterproductive IMO