« The Green Table | Main | Blue in a Sea of Red »
Pork: The Other Mission Accomplished
The latest in our series to heal the lumpen masses, and bring light to their dreary lives…this poor sod was disturbed by the massive PR effort that fully occupied the attention of the White House this week. I have reprinted this letter as representative of the 4,328 I received on this subject.
Dear Polly:
I was outraged this week to see the White House spin machine kick into full gear, as the President’s poll numbers plunged to another new low. I think he’s gonna break some kind of record soon, isn’t he? I mean, how bad do things have to get before the Congress or the people or somebody, stand up and say, “you’re fired, you putz?”
And aren’t there one or two other issues that require their attention right now?
But are they talking about a plan for Iraq? No. Are they talking about a deficit that will cripple my grandchildren? No. Their ONLY concern is defending themselves against the increasing public outcry over the failure in Iraq. They offer NO plan to get things on track, but they find the time to attack a decorated war veteran, Jack Murtha, for speaking out against the chicken hawk king, “Deferrment Dick” Cheney. “Deferrment Dick” came out big this week calling people “reprehensible” and accusing them of harming the troops by demanding some kind of plan from the clown club that is this administration.
Who are these people trying to kid? They don’t think the troops have been harmed by not having an actual policy on Iraq? I think the families of the 2000 + American service members who have given their lives for this debacle might disagree.
I’m so disgusted, I just had to blow off some steam. But I don’t think there’s anything I can really do anymore, is there? I mean, we’re stuck with this guy for another 3 years, right? I wish there was something we could do to stop the bleeding and start to fix this mess, but I don’t know what it is…. Please tell me if there’s something to be done.
Worried Man in Detroit
Dear WMD:
Unfortunately, our friends in Congress do not have the ability to issue a "Vote of No Confidence" in this administration. Technically they could make such a motion, but the result would be symbolic at best. This despite recent polls that show a national vote of no confidence has already been held and counted, and it's not pretty for George and the clown club.
And it was certainly a highlight for all of us to watch old “Deferrment Dick” giving democrats a lecture on patriotism (again) and calling them irresponsible (again) for demanding a plan for our troops in Iraq.
You see, it’s not Dick’s responsibility to have a plan to win the war, or the peace for that matter. Dick’s responsibility was to ensure a 5-year revenue stream for Halliburton. Many people don’t know this, but the “Mission Accomplished” banner that appeared so prematurely? Well, that was actually a message from the President and Vice President to their friends in the oil and reconstruction industries. So really, the sign wasn’t as laughably wrong as everyone thinks. It just had nothing to do with the war.
Jack Murtha, a decorated 38-year veteran of the military, and one of the people who served in Vietnam so that Dick Cheney could return to the deferment well 5 times, responded to Mr. Cheney’s remarks this week. So what happens next? Here’s a little gem that I found in the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call. GOP members of Congress are now calling for an ethics investigation of Mr. Murtha.
That’s right. Mr. Murtha stood up and pointed out that our troops deserve more than a national PR effort on this war. They deserve a plan for completing their job and coming home. But, in the new McCarthy years, there will be no questioning of the policies of this administration. No matter how many people die.
And now, the House Ethics Committee, which periodically evaporates when GOP members of Congress are indicted, is about to be reborn to kick the hell out of Mr. Murtha.
They will do it over my bloody, trampled carcass clinging to the White House fence.
So, WMD, you can do whatever you think best, but here’s what I’m going to do. I’m going to make sure that every single day, these chicken hawk, treasonous, ethically hollow, lying scumbags know that if they go after Jack Murtha, they’re going after every American currently in uniform. And that means they’re going after all of us.
I’m going to let them know this every day. I’m going to make their lives a living hell until they back off Mr. Murtha, and put their minds to fixing the mess they’ve created in Iraq.
You see, WMD, this time they’ve made a terrible mistake.
They’ve made me very, very angry.
Polly
Polly:
We need to go after each and every one of the Ethics Committees offices, barrage their staff with letters, calls, complaints, and literally FLOOD them with a single phrase:
HANDS OFF MURTHA!!!!
I'm a little bit concerned about the New McCarthy era. It seems that any dissent with what the government is doing has led to government officials to character assassinate. Labeling people who disagree with the course of things as un-American or unpatriotic is a low thing to do. I'm not sure how long the American public will allow it to go on unchecked. Maybe some people will grow brains by the time the 2006 election rolls around and start voting some of these nasty, and highly confrontational incumbents out of Congress; replacing them with more moderates who represent the main stream and are willing to compromise - something that no one in the current GOP is willing to do.
Yes, there is something we can do about Bush's term in office. We can cut it short by at least a year and a half with a new Congress next November.
If we can just get the House changed over to Democratic control, we can impeach the dictator and toss his hiney right out of office.
For what it's worth- Air America reported today that his new ratings are down to 33% this week. That means he doesn't even have all of his own party anymore. He's a loser, if ever there was one.
Posted by: Truth Shall Prevail at November 19, 2005 04:49 PM
Posted by: sparrow at November 19, 2005 05:00 PM
Thanks.... I've been accused of "reading too much" at times over the last 55 years, but occasionally things like this send me back to my dictionaries to discover I really do know the meaning of words and I really do know what I am talking about (once I read exact quotes and ignore what the "journalist" wrote, that is! ;-)). One of my side interests is etymology... and while I knew "to deploy" means "to send" someone somewhere, it does NOT mean "troop withdrawal" or "bringing the troops home." Quite the contrary. For a legislator to say or write anything that meaningless... except to do so to mean the opposite of what s/he says... is utterly astonishing. It's either outright manipulation or someone does not have a dictionary handy, or they don't know the difference between 'deploy' and 'withdraw....' One would think politicians would study their dictionaries a bit more closely so they can say what they mean with all the misleading clarity for which they're so noted.... (Some of their constituents own three or four dictionaries and a Thesaurus - plus translating dictionaries and a medical dictionary - and have several dictionaries marked in their favorites files.... Some of their constituents can sometimes figure out the obfuscation in legislative language where to vote yes means they really voted against something....)
On the other hand, it doesn't help when "reporters" didn't note the word "deployment" and didn't figure out that the wording of the Repub/NeoCon sentence that contained the word "deployment" did not mean "withdraw" the troops, and now the story is all bass-ackwards in the media because the "reporters" (?"journalists"?) haven't a clue about the difference between "deployment" and "withdrawal."
I think some "reporters" and "journalists" (and legislators) need to ask Santa to give them dictionaries this year....
Wow, that is one seriously pissed off Polly.
Of course, who can blame her. But the Republicans seemed to have once again stepped over the political line, ignoring the majority of American's views on this damnable war.
Likely they will pay for that tone deafness at the polls. In the meantime, we will see where the trendlines take their behavior over the next couple of weeks.
WSJ has Bush at 34% approval, so I don't think his new strategy is playing too well. We'll have to see what price is exacted from Congressional Republicans.
In the meantime, the Abramoff scandal will widen as the new year begins, and the nightmare scenario for the Republicans in Congress will as well.
CAsey- Scanlon was indicted in the Abramoff scandal yesterday too, and has promised to cooperate with the prosecutors. I wonder how many Republicans in Congress, with the exception of Ney, who is almost definitely involved, will be implicated in this thing?
It could blow the top off the Republican contol of congress if Scanlon tells all.
That's what I've been surprised at so far- at how many Repugs are now telling all since they've been implicated or indicted.
Guess party loyalty kind of falls apart when faced with a prison term, huh :-)
Posted by: NonnyO at November 19, 2005 06:52 PM
NonnyO...
Perhaps you should write an article about that and send it in. From what I can tell, you are the only one who caught on to that.
Send it to every media outlet there is. And post it on every blog.
(I'd be tempted to watch you post it on the freeper's blog to see if it even appeared and if so for how long!)
Go for it!
FROM THE OTHER THREAD:
""For now... NOT.
Sorry, ralpheh.... I'm old and cynical, and if Senators and Reps want my approval (or my vote and/or support) after these last five disastrous years, they are going to first have to PROVE to me that they can actually DO something other than blow smoke and fill the air with empty words.... The time for talking is over... it's time now for some common-sense ACTION...!!!""
Posted by: NonnyO at November 19, 2005 04:46 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THE ONLY "ACTION" THAT WILL BE EFFECTIVE IS CAUSING 30 OR 40 HOUSE REPUBLICANS TO LOSE THEIR SEATS IN THE 2006 ELECTION. THEN YOU WOULD SEE CALLS FOR WITHDRAWAL OF TROOPS FROM BOTH DEMS AND REPUBS.
My Congressional seat is considered "Safe Republican". I don't think we can beat the encumbent Republican. SO.......
PEOPLE HAD BETTER START THINKING NOW WHAT REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL SEATS CAN BE TAKEN BACK IN 2006. IF THE CONGRESS STAYS IN CONTROL OF THE RIGHTWINGNUTT REPUBLICANS AFTER 2006 IT IS A VERY GOOD BET THAT WE WILL BE IN IRAQ FOR ANOTHER 2 YEARS, AT LEAST.
I don't know who your Congresspeople are. My Democrat Congress people from Michigan Levin, Conyers, Stabenow etc... have been at the forefront of criticizing Bush and the war. Both Stabenow and Levin voted against the authorization of force. Levin just came out with a report that says all the WMD intelligence was distorted and exaggerated.
BUSH AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WANTED THIS WAR....
I DO NOT FAULT THE DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS...
I don't know who your Congresspeople are. My Democrat Congress people from Michigan Levin, Conyers, Stabenow etc... have been at the forefront of criticizing Bush and the war. Both Stabenow and Levin voted against the authorization of force. Levin just came out with a report that says all the WMD intelligence was distorted and exaggerated.
BUSH AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WANTED THIS WAR....
I DO NOT FAULT THE DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS...
Posted by: ralpheh at November
****************************************
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
One other thing to mention, the Democrats had TWO STRONG ANTI-WAR CANDIDATES RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT IN 2004 - HOWARD DEAN AND DENNIS KUCINICH
BOTH LOST AND LOST BIG - AMERICA STILL WANTED THE WAR......
ralpheh- The American people only wanted this war on the basis that Saddam had WMD's. They did not want it if it was going to be for the purposes of regime change and spreading democracy.
They were duped as well as our congressmen who voted for the IWR. As far as I'm concerned, it's pretty easy to dupe the American people. They tend to swallow anything that is wrapped up in a flag. But the congress should not have acted so quickly. There was a rush into this thing that did not need to happen.
It was allowing the Bush administration to rush them that caused them to be duped- they did not have the time to examine the evidence closely enough to know it was false. And the rest of the WORLD did nob believe Iraq had WMD's. The UN never said thay had WMD's. They had found none. That's an outright lie.
Our congressmen had the obligation to listen to the world community as much as they did to listen to the POTUS. No matter how many french fries the American people wanted to relabel "freedom fries." Sometimes the ignorant need someone to protect them from their own impulses.
Congress should have done so, and they didn't. Yes, they were lied to, but that's because it was easier to become flag tortillas than it was to use their brains and question the intelligence.
That's why I fault them, but they are not responsible for the lies. You cannot say "I lied and you believed it, so it's your fault."
But their naivete is their fault. So they are partly to blame.
And they are also to blame for the 400-3 vote yesterday not to leave Iraq. Gutless, weak. I thought we were beginning to get beyond that, but I was depressed by yesterday's vote. Next year, the Repugs will use that vote against their democratic opponents, and the democrats will deserve it.
No cajones, no victory.
It sickens me.
Posted by: ralpheh at November 19, 2005 07:40 PM
Did America still want the war?
I don't know Ralph. I think it's not that they wanted it but that they really hadn't heard all the facts about it.
I, myself, am one of those people. I didn't know anything until I joined the Kerry blog and there, I discovered a goldmine of facts to go through.
Sure...Farenheit 9-11 was out there, but I never go to movies. I was waiting for the video tape. But even by time that came out, I had discovered the blog and decided for myself.
PLUS, it's only AFTER the election that all this DSM (proof of lies) and election fraud and now Fitz came up. Seriously, I had no idea who Judith Miller was! I believed the propaganda press that it was a First ammendment issue.
That means it's been 3 things to boil before people have come to realize how deceitful this majority party and this administration are. AND that's what we need to continue to pound out there: White House TREASON and abuse of power (coverups) supported by the Republican party (and all their corrupt indictments) which support the Treason in the White House (coverup!) and so it boils down to a whole lot of abuse of power and and their unwillingness to hold their own accountable to the same standards of truth that we are.
Posted by: Linda Enterkin at November 19, 2005 07:47 PM
Actually Linda, I disagree. (Sorry!)
But their stand makes sense if you read my posts on the prior thread as well as nonnyo's.
They were not calling for a "pullout" but were instead calling to not pull people in.
It's easier on you if you read nonny's posts (and my blathering one in the last thread too.)
If it was indeed a sincere vote Linda, then why did they spend 8 hours smearing Murtha instead of giving specific details, rules, and regulations? After all, details, rules, and regulations are what LAW and governing and Congress is about.
The time for talking is over... it's time now for some common-sense ACTION...!!!""
Posted by: NonnyO at November 19, 2005 04:46 PM
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Do you really want action??? Maybe you should do something NOW, instead of waiting until November 2006. Republicans (Delay, Frist etc...) are already raising money for the re-election campaigns of Republicans. The Republicans are out-raising Democrats by 3 to 1 they say You might start a candidate committee for the House seat or the Senate seat and help raise money for challengers (who usually lose and are under-funded). If you don't start NOW. Pretty it will be November 2006 and the REPUBLICANS WILL STILL CONTROL CONGRESS. and you will be saying "What the heck happened????"
You could write a letter to the editor - I do once a month (which is the quota you are allowed).
You could give money and time to local peace groups. There is a peace group in every city in Michigan - Detroit, ANN arbor, Jackson, Battle Creek, Kalamazoo, Holland, Grand Rapids, Flint, Lansing etc....
THERE IS PLENTY TO DO - DON'T JUST YELL AT CONGRESS VIA THE INTERNET...
BTW if you want to do something right now - you could sign this petition (only 10,100 have)
IS IT TIME TO BRING THE NATIONAL GUARD HOME FROM IRAQ?
After 5 years of laughing off or suppressing sound policy advice,
the criminal neglect of our REAL homeland security by the Bush
administration has now resulted in the total loss of a major
American city.? And where is our National Guard and all their
equipment that are supposed to be here to protect and save us??
They are being ground up in the sand half a planet away for
absolutely nothing but the arrogant, uncaring and obstinate pride
of our chief executive, who is mentally incapable of admitting or
correcting any mistake ever.? We must DEMAND that our National
Guard come home now.
http://www.usalone.net/nationalguard.htm
But their naivete is their fault. So they are partly to blame.
And they are also to blame for the 400-3 vote yesterday not to leave Iraq. Gutless, weak. I thought we were beginning to get beyond that, but I was depressed by yesterday's vote. Next year, the Repugs will use that vote against their democratic opponents, and the democrats will deserve it.
No cajones, no victory.
It sickens me.
Posted by: Linda Enterkin at November 19, 2005 07:47 PM
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Cajones IS WHAT MURTHA DID ON THURSDAY:
HE CAME OUT AGAINST THE WAR. THE DETAILS OF THE WITHDRAWAL HAVE TO BE WORKED OUT. I DO NOT KNOW OF A SINGLE WAR THAT WAS ENDED BY A SINGLE VOTE IN CONGRESS AFTER 2 HOURS OF DEBATE ON A FRIDAY NIGHT.
(BTW HILLARY, BIDEN, LIEBERMAN, SCHUMER ARE IN COMPLETE AGREEMENT WITH BUSH ON THE WAR - THAT SICKENS ME - I WILL NOT VOTE FOR ANY OF THEM IF THEY ARE NOMINATED IN 2008. BIDEN WANTS TO SEND MORE TROOPS....)
It took Nixon FOUR YEARS to get out of Vietnam - I don't want that but six months is reasonable timetable and relatively safe.
SORRY....
that we can't end the war by this Monday - some things take a little time...
Did America still want the war?
I don't know Ralph. I think it's not that they wanted it but that they really hadn't heard all the facts about it.
I, myself, am one of those people. I didn't know anything until I joined the Kerry blog and there, I discovered a goldmine of facts to go through.
Sure...Farenheit 9-11 was out there, but I never go to movies. I was waiting for the video tape. But even
accountable to the same standards of truth that we are.
Posted by: sparrow at November 19, 2005 07:52 PM
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
One other thing to mention, the Democrats had TWO STRONG ANTI-WAR CANDIDATES RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT IN 2004 - HOWARD DEAN AND DENNIS KUCINICH
BOTH LOST AND LOST BIG - AMERICA STILL WANTED THE WAR......
Kerry who did not have cajones in 2004 - did not come out against the war.
Posted by: ralpheh at November 19, 2005 07:40 PM
Please do not say "Bush and the American people wanted this war."
No, not all of the American people wanted this war.
I never wanted the war. Ever.
Some of us used to (sort of) trust our legislators to have some kind of common sense and would vote against the war... but, of course, by then Congress had given war powers to The Cretin, and his monumental psychopathic ego took the inch he was given, and he's run a few miles since then with the additional power he's taken, topped off by secrecy, thanks to his secret Executive Orders....
I was watching the 2000 presidential debates after I had a triple lumbar fusion, so I was mostly in bed a lot of the time in 2000. I did, however, journal extensively when The Cretin said he wouldn't do any nation building. In my journals I noted that if he were elected he'd (1) invade Iraq to finish his daddy's war; and (2) this nation would go into a recession. Lucky I was in bed when I heard the announcement of the Supreme Court stopping the FL recount, which gave the office to The Cretin. To say I was shocked into disbelief is an understatement. Then Gore mildly gave up.... and I knew this nation was doomed.
I knew by The Cretin's body language he was lying during the 2000 debates, he lied during that first term in office every time I saw him on TV, including during the hours, days, weeks after 9/11 when he was ratcheting up the warmongering rhetoric (a few TV news things questioned the intelligence lies The Cretin rattled off, but they barely bleated any opposition, and they were ignored anyway, in favor of the flag-waving bandwagon "patriots" who advocated war), The Cretin lied during the 2004 debates, and he's been lying every time I've seen him speaking on TV, except for that one statement where he said that as long as he is pResident, our troops will be in Iraq. For that one sentence, his body language did not lie.
I consider war a waste of lives and money. IF ever a war is "justified" it's only when a nation is attacked, and then they can defend themselves, but under no circumstances do I ever condone invading or attacking another country for what I knew at the time was a lie, as The Cretin did with Iraq. I knew all along he was lying, and I never approved of his actions regarding Iraq. I could never understand how so many people could be stupid enough to believe what I knew were lies, lies, and more lies. Then came the news about Abu Ghraib and Gitmo and how Gonzales (et al.) wrote the "opinions" about sanctioning torture, and I've been hanging my head in shame ever since for being born an American citizen.
I said this yesterday, and I think someone said it earlier here, or on the last thread:
The important thing is not who's fault it is that we're in Iraq. We're in there. The important thing is this - the conversation is now about when we're getting out.
It's not if we're getting out. It's when we're getting out. And that is thanks to folks like Sen. John Kerry, Rep. John Murtha, and those like them. They have framed this debate, and the Republicans have fallen in. We are leading this conversation. General Casey has now come out with a plan for withdrawl which CNN says he has given to Rumsfeld (see Monkey's post yesterday 8:40 am).
America is waking up. Moderate republicans are waking up. And The wack job neocons are looking more and more out of touch. The momentum is ours, and the truth is ours.
John Murtha said is his speech the other day that the American public is way ahead of Congress on this issue. He is right - many of us has been. And we can deal with that at election time.
But we need to be a united voice on setting a timeline - we need to sound the drums constantly -keep the momentum going. And we need to squash idiots like Jean Schmidt.
Remember - truth and justice are on our side.
...many of us . Sorry.
Posted by: Carol at November 19, 2005 08:45 PM
AAAAA men!
Posted by: Carol at November 19, 2005 08:46 PM
We're sorry we were trusting.
We're sorry we were scared for our families and wanted to believe in the integrity of our gov't and the facts they had that we didn't have.
We're sorry we wanted to be UNITED after 9-11 and we gave this ruthless egocentric evil warmonger too much control.
YES...we're sorry! But the fact is...we're there, we've destroyed them and we've self-destructed.
It's time to quit hitting each other over the head over 4 years ago, 2 years ago, 1 year ago.
We're on a new page of a new book and we're writing the plot this time.
So let's all get on board, stop going over the old plot, and create a NEW AMERICA in 2005-2006-2007-2008-2009!
THAT's what we need to do now.
I don't mean to sound rude to anyone, though I'm afraid it might sound rude (sorry in advance!)but I'm done talking about anything that happened prior to last month.
As a friend of mine once told me, "FIMO".
(So there?!)
Actually, I'll discuss the pattern of corruption or incompetence but only as it relates to grassroots, media reform, and taking back America and our democracy.
Sorry to sound harsh all...
A sign of the times??/
from NYT wedding coverage
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/20/fashion/weddings/20vows.html
snip
The affably preppy Mr. Finley, who is also the founder and the director of the Epiphany School, a private, tuition-free middle school in Boston for children of poor families, has a classic New England pedigree, which includes a degree from Harvard, where his grandfather was a master of Eliot House. His family, he said, was staunchly Republican "until the second Bush administration."
snip
Isn't that just so lovely?
sparrow- I'm glad that you've changed your mind on the war, and that you were among those who united behind Mr Bush after 911. But we're really not talking about what happened last month- this has to do with Congressman Murtha and the things he said just this week. What he did was point out, by his courage, the lack of courage of so many others in the Democratic party. And that's not a years ago thing, that's a today thing.
I've never supported any action, other than going into Afganistan, that this president has ever taken.
I would not fly a flag on my car after 911 because I didn't want anyone to think that I supported this administration in any way. I've been, honestly, pretty ashamed to be an American since the year 2000, when we allowed a coup to happen right here in America without any real protest at all.
We should have gathered together and gone to Washington DC and torn the Supreme Court building down after their vote to end the Democratic process of counting votes right here in my own state. If others in America think they were angry over the election, they should know how it felt to be a Floridian at that time and to KNOW our votes weren't counted properly.
This is not my president, and this hasn't been any semblance of my country for the last 5 years.
And what really, really bothers me, is that what Congressman Murtha pointed out this week is how few people in our Congress have any courage to go against the flow at all.
And after his couragous and inspiring speech, all of 3 democrats got up the courage to vote against a Republican plot to convince America of what they believed so much the last election- that there really wasn't so much difference in the two parties after all.
Sorry, but 400-3 is pretty damned good evidence of that.
I am not proud to be an American. I look forward to the time when I can be proud of my country again, but it isn't today.
And the pattern of corruption is the only thing that has brought some Americans to their senses, so it is important to discuss it. And as far as it being not If we're getting out but when, that will be the day that Haliburton has drained every once of the oil from the ground under the nation of Iraq. We will not be leaving, not totally, until that day.
Or, until we get an administration that's not in Haliburton's pocket, and that's at least 3 years away.
It's our fault, and we have to change. Completely. You can't repent of something that you can't remember that you did.
Director of the Epiphany School staunchly Republican "until the second Bush administration."
Irony 101
Posted by: Linda Enterkin at November 19, 2005 09:44 PM
Linda,
Murtha voted against it himself!
Monkey- I was staunchly Republican until the first Bush administration.
But I was wrong about a lot of things back then.
sparrow- then he was wrong too.
Please do not say "Bush and the American people wanted this war."
No, not all of the American people wanted this war.
I never wanted the war. Ever.
Some of us used to (sort of) trust our legislators to have some kind of common sense and would vote against the war... but, of course, by then Congress had given war powers to The Cretin, and his monumental psychopathic ego took the inch he was given, and he's run a few miles since then with the additional power he's taken, topped off by secrecy, thanks to his secret Executive Orders....
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
YOU'RE TELLING ME THAT BUSH AND THE WAR WEREN'T POPULAR?????????????? IN 2003 AND 2004???
I WORKED MY ASS OFF FOR HOWARD DEAN IN 2004 - WE WERE LAUGHED AT BY THE DEMS BECAUSE WE WERE ANTI-WAR.
WE HELD VIGILS IN THE WINTER OF 2003 WHEN WE ABOUT TO GO TO WAR:
DID ANYONE COME??? 20 PEOPLE MAYBE 25
AMERICA WANTED THIS WAR.... AND IT GOT IT.
You may not have wanted war but almost all of your neighbors and your co-workers did.....
KERRY DIDN'T EVEN COME OUT AGAINST THE WAR in 2004.
I mean- if it takes an American 8 to 12 weeks for basic training, exactly how long does it take an Iraqi for basic training??????
We should pull out tomorrow.
ralpheh- I don't think anyone is saying that the majority of the American people didn't want the war. What we are saying is WE did not want the war.
No one listened to us though.
We WERE THERE.
I was there supporting the only candidate that I thought had been opposed to the war but who the American people might actually vote for in 2004- because he was an American war hero with no background of anti Vietnam-war activities. Someone that no one could criticize because of his moral choices, and no one could dare call a coward. Someone Southerners might have actually considered voting for, because of his military background.
Wes Clark.
And I supported him because he thought this war was a bad idea.
So, I don't object to you saying most American supported the president at that time- they did. But don't include all of us in that group. About 35% of us did NOT support it, not at any time.
I would never have supported any candidate in the primaries who had voted for that war, but I did throw my support behind some who had made that decision after all my other choices were gone. Because there was no other viable option.
So, just don't include all of us in your statement, and we won't fuss back.
Wes Clark didn't have a chance either (he started his campaign way too late -very bad planning on his part). So Dean didn't have a chance and Kucinich didn't have a chance AND THIS IS IN THE "LIBERAL" DEMOCRATIC PARTY!!!! As I say, we Dean people were laughed for being anti-war.
Kerry was not anti-war (Kerry even said he would not have changed his vote if he knew there were no WMD)
Edwards was pro-war
I mean- if it takes an American 8 to 12 weeks for basic training, exactly how long does it take an Iraqi for basic training??????
We should pull out tomorrow.
Posted by: Linda Enterkin at November 19, 2005 09:54 PM
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
REPUBLICANS CONTROL THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE AND THE PRESIDENCY - THEY WILL NOT PROPOSE AND VOTE FOR A WITHDRAWAL OF TROOPS............
THIS WILL NOT HAPPEN UNTIL THE DYNAMICS IN CONGRESS (THE DEMOCRATS GAIN SEATS) IN 2006.
I think you are just going to have to be patient.
I'll repeat this post because no one seems to have read it:
PEOPLE HAD BETTER START THINKING ****NOW***** WHAT REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL SEATS CAN BE TAKEN BACK IN 2006. IF THE CONGRESS STAYS IN THE CONTROL OF THE RIGHTWINGNUTT REPUBLICANS AFTER 2006 IT IS A VERY GOOD BET THAT WE WILL BE IN IRAQ FOR ANOTHER 2 YEARS, AT LEAST.
I don't know who your Congresspeople are. My Democrat Congress people from Michigan Levin, Conyers, Stabenow etc... have been at the forefront of criticizing Bush and the war. Both Stabenow and Levin voted against the authorization of force. Levin just came out with a report that says all the WMD intelligence was distorted and exaggerated.
Do you really want action??? Maybe you should do something NOW, instead of waiting until November 2006. Republicans (Delay, Frist etc...) are already raising money for the re-election campaigns of Republicans. The Republicans are out-raising Democrats by 3 to 1 they say. You might start a candidate committee for the House seat or the Senate seat and help raise money for Democratic challengers (who usually lose and are under-funded). If you don't start NOW, Pretty soon it will be November 2006 and the REPUBLICANS WILL STILL CONTROL CONGRESS. and you will be saying "What the heck happened????"
ralpheh- I agree with you that Clark started his campaign too late, and that he made a mistake in not going to Iowa.
So he didn't have a chance in the primaries, you're right about that. However, no one had a chance in the primaries except the winner of the Iowa caucuses, because the MSM wasn't going to allow anyone but Kerry any press at all after that.
The primaries were decided by the MSM and the laziness of the Democratic primary voters.
But You say you only had 30-35 people in your rallies in 2003- we had over 250 people packed in a meeting hall here in the most conservative city in America - all waiting for Wes Clark to fly in for a speech. A lot of them were Republicans, by the way, former military people who wanted to hear what the General had to say. Almost all of them were Southern red staters- and the only reason we only had 250 people at the rally was that it was raining and that's all the meeting hall would handle.
No Democrat was going to win that election without at least one Southern state- that was the mistake the party made. They were very arrogant in their attitude about that, and they found out they were wrong. Clark could have taken Arkansas and possibly Florida, and all the states Kerry took. He could have been elected. My very Republican Bush loving sister even said she'd have considered voting for him.
But he made some big mistakes- he was new to campaigning.
He'll be a bigger force in 2008- and I'll guarantee you, he'll run.
I'm going to have to wait and see who else throws their hat into the ring in '08, because I'm not sure if America will be in the proper mode for Clark then- he still hasn't completely repudiated the war. Once we entered it, he threw his support behind the troops (any good general would) and he believes we can win it. I honestly don't think we can. So I may support someone else in '08.
But a democrat could have won in '04. I have no doubt about that.
Just not any democrat who had voted for the war resolution. It was too big a hurdle to cross.
ralpheh- I agree with you completely about '06. A lot of us, myself included, have already donated to the cause financially, even though it's hard to do around this time of the year.
Most states don't really know who their candidates will be yet though- the season for campaigning is just now starting.
We'll get off the blog and go out in the streets in '06. You can bet on that. Most of us worked the booths and fairs and streets for Democrats last election- and we'll do it this time too.
Maybe America will finally be ready for a change.
That's what I'm putting my money on anyway. But we have to convince them that we are different. And that's what I'm annoyed about tonight. That vote yesterday.
And 5 more Americans died in Iraq today, for what it's worth.
Pentagon to Raise Importance of 'Stability' Efforts in War
By THOM SHANKER and DAVID S. CLOUD
The New York Times
Published: November 20, 2005
WASHINGTON, Nov. 19 - The Pentagon's leadership, recognizing that it was caught off guard by difficulties in pacifying Iraq after the invasion, is poised to approve a sweeping directive that will elevate what it calls "stability operations" to a core military mission comparable to full-scale combat.
The new order could significantly influence how the military is structured, as well as the specialties it emphasizes and the equipment it buys.
The directive has been the subject of intense negotiations in the Pentagon policy office and throughout the military; the deliberations included the State Department and other civilian agencies, as the order aims to push the entire government to work in greater unison to plan and carry out postcombat operations.
The directive also envisions sending abroad more civilian officials, including State Department personnel, to help the military establish the peace and rebuild after combat.
The newest draft of the document, delivered in recent days to the acting deputy secretary of defense, Gordon R. England, for final approval, states, "Stability operations are a core U.S. military mission that the Department of Defense shall be prepared to conduct and support."
The stability operations carried out by the Department of Defense "shall be given priority comparable to combat operations and be explicitly addressed and integrated across all D.O.D. activities," the draft says.
Although the American military is now virtually in a class of its own when it comes to conventional combat, the wars in Afghanistan and in particular Iraq prove that winning the peace is just as important - and sometimes more difficult.
Congress has criticized the Bush administration, and the Pentagon, for not devising effective plans to stabilize and rebuild Iraq after the swift capture of Baghdad. Many lawmakers have accused the administration of utterly failing to coordinate its postcombat efforts across the executive branch.
more... http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/20/international/middleeast/20military.html?ex=1290142800&en=74b463afe82a51e1&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Linda E.
You are only getting the spin. To get the true story it would be very helpful to read the last two or three threads. It explains what really happened blow by blow.
Basically, Murtha's resolution wasn't put out there, but rather a one line resolution was substituted by Hastert thusly:
"Murtha has proposed his own resolution that would force the president to withdraw the nearly 160,000 troops in Iraq "at the earliest practicable date." It would establish a quick-reaction force and a nearby presence of Marines in the region. It also said the U.S. must pursue stability in Iraq through diplomacy.
The Republican alternative simply said: "It is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately."
Murtha's proposal used the word "redeployment", which is the correct term for pulling troops out to redistribute them somewhere else. The proposal as given by Hastert doesn't even make sense, actually, because it used the term deployment.
So stupid this.
You have heard of "bait and switch"?
This was "switch and bait".
Truth- I'd have been in favor of the Republican resolution too. If the deployment in Iraq were terminated, or ended, immediately, that would mean that no further forces could be sent into Iraq.
Yes, I understand that it would not be binding, that it would only be a statement of the "sense" of the House (or the opinion), but I still see no reason that Democrats should not have supported it. Not if they were truly in favor of ending this war.
What they did was to give Republicans ammo to use next year against them. Just like with the IWR, Republicans can now say that the Democrats refused to vote to end the deployment, so there is really no difference in Democrats and Republicans on the war issue. Democrats voted in favor of it too.
I'm sorry, but in my opinion, our party was cowardly and stupid to fall into this obvious trap. Unless there really IS no difference in the opinion of the Republican and Democratic party on the issue. Maybe that's true. And if it is true, maybe a third party does need to be created in '08. Because a lot of us are REALLY tired of being Republican lite.
Linda,
Yes, I see your point. The way it was worded and purposed last night just felt "dangerous".
It was too loose-ended. No strategy, no plan for effective, safe, orderly withdrawal.
What good would "no more new troops being sent into Iraq" do? The old ones would then have to stay and continue to shoulder the burden alone for
an unknown length of time.
In my mind, it was a dirty and deplorable cheap trick pulled by the GOP to create exactly the spin we are seeing today. But all is not lost. Americans are waking up, and Dems have a chance to explain why they didn't support Hasterts proposal, and to propose another one themselves.
I expect them to propose another one. They are not laying down and rolling over, unless, they are and I can't see that. If they are, we are all in a world of hurt.
LInda,
I am going to keep the faith and hope the Dems get their talking points in the media as to what really happened here. I also don't expect them to roll over and play dead.
It's not over till it's over.
I think the Dems who have come forward to speak truth to power this past week were sincere, and not doing it for political reasons. I think they mean business, and I don't expect them to back down, or go away with their tails between their legs.
I think they are going to do this.
I'm sorry, but in my opinion, our party was cowardly and stupid to fall into this obvious trap. Unless there really IS no difference in the opinion of the Republican and Democratic party on the issue. Maybe that's true. And if it is true, maybe a third party does need to be created in '08. Because a lot of us are REALLY tired of being Republican lite.
Posted by: Linda Enterkin at November 19, 2005 10:55 PM
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
I am getting a little tired of the cowardly label although I agree that THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY must take a stand against the war. Kerry is for having all troops out by December 2006. (See his petition in my post in the FORUM SECTION - ACTION). Now Edwards says the war was a mistake. Al Gore came out against the war long ago and endorsed Dean.
Kucinich was always against the war and when he ran for president no one voted for him. Dean was against the war and the Kerry machine rolled right over him. Dem. Rep. Conyers has always opposed the war. Dem. Representative Lynn Woolsey introduced an amendment calling for withdrawal troops about 6 months ago. The amendment got 130 votes I believe.
WHAT MURTHA DID ON THURSDAY WAS POLITICALLY AND PERSONALLY BRAVE.
WHAT REPUBLICANS DID ON FRIDAY WAS DISGRACEFUL AND DISPICABLE - AND IT DOES REMIND ME OF MCCARTHEYISM. IF YOU DISAGREE WITH THEIR POSITION YOU ARE A TRAITOR AND EVIL.
Hi - still in the youth hostel.
Chickened out from going to Tijuana because it gets dark early this time of year.
Went to some good professional talks & went to 12 hospitality rooms so had alot of free good catered food.
Did catch some news & so I know about casualties, battling in Congress & it just never ends.
Keep up the good discussions - I'm paying to read it & lovin' it.
Internet is $4/hour in the hostel & $20/hour in the Marriott.
This climate is awesome - makes me think most of Nice, France - palm trees & girls in tube tops in November, drummers in the streets, people with rickshaws, cops on horseback - it's cool!
The Republicans were being A holes with their trick. They weren't serious in any way. They think war is funny, like a frat joke. Remember when some compared Abu Graib to fraternity pranks?
WHAT REPUBLICANS DID ON FRIDAY WAS DISGRACEFUL AND DISPICABLE - AND IT DOES REMIND ME OF MCCARTHEYISM. IF YOU DISAGREE WITH THEIR POSITION YOU ARE A TRAITOR AND EVIL.
Posted by: ralpheh at November 20, 2005 12:04 AM
Or even worse, a TERRORIST, as Ron Paige, the former secretary of education, called teachers' groups who disagreed with him. Linda and Ralph are on to something.
I am at the airport, waiting for my flight back to Los Angeles to board. I've had to put up with massive amounts of homophobia and racism here in Korea - and much of that is the work of American Christian missionaries who have corrupted this place for the past century or so.
I've made it CLEAR to everyone in this country that I am no fan of Bush. And for those people who still have romantic notions of America, I've told them about the stark reality of Bush's America. Many Koreans are shocked to learn that I want to eventually move on to a third country over the healthcare mess.
I certainly don't look forward to returning home right now. I'd rather be going somewhere else. But I must go home, and re-start the fight. I will post again when I arrive in the States.
DiAnne,
Don't know if you got to read it, but check out Karen's article top of previous thread.
They were making a game out of that vote last night. Don't know if you caught it but when asked whether they were voting for Murtha's proposal or Hastert's, the Chairman said something like "same thing", or "I wouldn't be too sure about that" (that they were voting for Hastert's instead of Murtha's.)
It was a farce.
I am leery of some on both sides of the aisle. I don't like politicians who only say things when it becomes politically expedient. Some on the left side of the aisle are just as guilty of this as some on the right. If a politician can't have the cajones to step forward with a position that supports and benefits his constituents even when it is not the "politically correct" position to take at the time, he doesn't deserve his office. Period. I am more than tired of politician's politicians.
DiAnne,
Enjoy your excellent adventure!
Good morning!
dwahzon and I are are sitting in a Starbuck's in Manhattan and reading over these threads. A couple of points:
1. There have been many Resolutions asking the House to think about and debate various issues surrounding the war, INCLUDING exit strategies, the lies leading up to it, etc. John Conyers, Maxine Waters, Barbara Lee, Dennis Kucinich...We have featured many of these in the Five Minutes A Day on the front page; check the archive in the forum.
2. There is an Out Of Iraq Caucus in the House:
http://democracyrising.us/content/view/288/165/
Check it out...
3. John Kerry, Carl Levin and others we can't think of at the moment have given speeches that have proposed clear and direct exit strategies.
People, we are here working with other groups to build message and actions to make sure that Congress and the rest of the administration hear from us. Watch this space for updates. Meanwhile, turn off the TVs and read the newspapers telling the truth.
Start with the Toledo Blade...
Posted by: ralpheh at November 20, 2005 12:04 AM
Ralph, Linda, et al...
It always boils down to what WE are doing out here to make a difference.
Can we change minds locally?
YES...there are people who feel it's all up to the "public servants" to stand out there and create the noice machine. And while yes, that is true to a certain extent, it's not all up to them.
So each day, DCP posts a 5 min. per day to get involved. We can easily do those five minutes. AND I hope we are but I also hope we're telling eveyone out there to at least do this much each day.
And I really recommend finding a way to find those who are uninvolved or basically could be convinced to vote progressives and help them see.
I hope that when progressives take charge in 06 they will show people they're more than a bunch of rich white men and a few white women who are REALLY trying to improve their lives.
I mean...hasn't two times of "Reagan's trickle down economics" PROVED once and for all that it doesn't work!
sparrow- I think we HAVE to take back the country in '06 -otherwise, the progressives out there who have been looking to us for a solution will begin to think seriously about a third party. I know a third party has been discussed a lot over the years, but I can absolutely see one emerging in '08, unless the Democrats take over in '06 and make some changes. We have to prove we can succeed. One Democratic president over the last 25 years is not getting that message of success out.
I honestly think that John McCain will run in '08, will fail to get the Republican nomination, and will start a new party after the primaries. He'll probably look for a progressive Democratic running mate to balance out the ticket, and he may very well win. And we still won't have the government we need.
'O6 is an absolute necessity for us. No one has to debate that on here. I think we all know it.
It's interesting, by the way, to read that the justice dept. is considering an investigation of the Haliburton no-bid contracts in Iraq. Poor Georgy- he just can't control "his own" justice dept. anymore. That's the fruit of low popularity in the polls. Poor baby.
Ralpheh and Linda, to quote the late, great Daniel P Moynihan from NY, "you're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own set of facts." If we are going to still make the IWR a litmus test, or call Dean anti-war, you need to remember that authorization was not for war, but to verify a hyped set of contentions by the administration and stop a runaway train.
In Bush's own very public words before and after the vote, politicized by the election, true, the vote was to speak unified and war as a last resort. From Congress' perspective, this would get them into the UN where Cheney did not want to go. And it worked, the inspectors were allowed, just not to finish the job. Kerry has made speeches, then and recently, listing all the times he did not want war and was prescient about what would happen, likewise the others felt the information they got, never before manipulated, needed verifying.
Now, Kerry tried to finesse, during the campaign, a public in thrall with the neo-cons, out of fear and misinformation. He could have howled at the moon, and never have been backed up. This was before the Downing St memo, still not getting proper attention, and the media still wanting W. The idea was to get elected and say there was another way than war, which he did. He was critical about Bush and the war.
We can disagree and never be sure which tact would have worked, but I think we would have seen a more confident and happier Kerry allowed to run as more his own person.
I have had a beloved home here for a couple of years, and sincerely love many of the posters whom I've met and haven't, but I feel a stranger when these misconceptions are tearing apart the unity we need to have to end this war, conveying the adulthood and maturity we need to grow this community. My voice has never been strident and accusatory.
The facts have been laid out about the IWR, as well as Dean's not so heroic primary stance, however grateful we are for his motivation and as DNC chair. Feingold isn't any more heroic because he said he was the first to mention withdrawal. Dean said he was the first to be anti-war. So what, and not true.
Murtha is a godsend, because of his credibility and his passion. All of them are talking getting out in 2006, Murtha-Kerry and Feingold, and not cutting and running. Because geo-polically, what does it say to wage a messy, murderous war without cleaning up after ourselves. Nasty children do that.