Bush To Meet The Public...Maybe

I dunno, Pres. Too Little Too Late always seems to get better info from the gawd dang liberal leaking press than from his own people, or so he says... (also see Katrina)

Bush surprise at Sudan briefing

(BBC)US President George Bush expressed amazement when he heard that the south Sudan peace deal was not working 18 months after it was signed.

"That is not the information I'm getting," he told the BBC's Khartoum reporter Alfred Taban, who was in Washington to receive an award.

-snip-

Our correspondent says he spent almost 20 minutes talking to Mr Bush, who was very keen to hear about the situation in Sudan.

"He asked me if the peace agreement was working and I said, 'Mr President, it is not working,' and he was very surprised," he told the BBC's Network Africa programme.

When the president said that this was not what he had been informed, our reporter said he told Mr Bush: "Well, whatever information you're getting, that peace agreement is not being implemented by the government in Khartoum."

-snip-

During the discussion Mr Bush called one of his aides and asked to be given more details on southern Sudan.

"He appeared to be taking it very seriously," our reporter said, describing the president's manner as warm and welcoming, despite the intimidating surroundings.

"You could almost feel the power radiating from the Oval Office," our reporter said.

Freedom fighters

Mr Bush said the four African winners of the National Endowment for Democracy award, were being honoured for their "courage and fortitude and strength in promoting freedom".

"We've got a man from the Sudan who talked eloquently about free press," the president said.

"My spirits are enriched by talking to freedom lovers and freedom fighters."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/5128166.stm

Casey... this man will never ever ever ever, like EVER, go in front of a truly public forum and take questions from non-handpicked drooling groupies, it just ain't gonna happen.

The man is a 60 year old serial liar, and that anyone would believe word one from him, this administration, or the entire Republican party at this point, is beyond me, because the results are out there for everyone, even the sheep, to see. It ain't rocket science.

The only thing this country is left with now is to prove to the world that we are not as stupid as we look.

The man is always surprised...

Bush says Lay was 'a good guy'

Associated Press

WASHINGTON - President Bush said Thursday he hopes Enron Corp. founder Kenneth Lay's "heart was right with the Lord" when he died before he could be sentenced on fraud and conspiracy charges.

Bush called Lay, who was a friend of the Bush family and a large donor to the president's campaign, "a good guy." He said he was shocked to hear both about the Enron scandal and Lay's death this week from a heart attack at age 64.

"I was really surprised," Bush said on CNN's "Larry King Live." "You know, my hope is that his heart was right with the Lord and I feel real sorry for his wife. She's had a rough go and she's now here on earth to bear the burdens of losing her husband, a man she loved."

I just love this "right with the Lord" stuff. You conspire to defraud an entire nation - something that the President and Lay have in common - and you imagine that somehow geting "right with the Lord" should impact what comes next.

If only Bush had employed the same logic when he had the opportunity to pardon Karla Faye Tucker, rather than cruelly mocking her plea for mercy.

If Jesus changed his heart, how ugly must it have been previously?

My staunch Republican friend called and with a tremor in his voice said, "I admit it...Bush is the worst President ever, not only in my lifetime, but ever! And I'm so deeply upset and ashamed of this Republican Party!"

Did I glory in being able to say, "I told you so?"

No, of course not. How could I? There's no glory in being destroyed by your government! There's no joy in knowing that your government is daily breaking the Constitution and that we hover closer to fascism than we'd ever imagine possible--so close that you're afraid to make calls, use your computer, eat, breathe, let alone figure out how to achieve your dream and go to school (college) or find a job or put food on the table or pay for health care or pharmaceuticals.

A third of my acquaintances are jobless within the last six months despite these 'glowing economic numbers' the administration is showing us. Friends are being shipped to Iraq. Friends are frightened they'll lose their home and they can't declare bankruptcy either because the Republicans sold out to the bank and credit lobbies. These are hard working people who have lost jobs due to government policies who face being homeless!

I hear the news each day and I cringe at what next will befall us! I know too much. I do my research well! I know about the farcical election in 2004 and I know about the corporate, partisan propaganda networks. I understand the Republican ploys and I understand the Democratic problems too.

Yes, we are all victims of serious abuses of power. How can they sleep at night knowing what they've done to Americans (and the world in fact)!

But all of us here know we can't let up or we lose even more.

I'll be here fighting. (And I'll be in St. Paul planning more fights. I hope you'll be able to join us too.)

Does anybody know how the unemployement numbers are made up? And do you have links to help me put forth some facts on this subject?

I thought there had been a kos diary a few weeks ago on this, but I can't find it.

Posted by: monkey at July 7, 2006 07:40 AM

Bush himself will never be 'right with the Lord' when his end comes. There's no way a evil soul like his can pass through those pearly gates!

Posted by: sparrow at July 7, 2006 08:18 AM

Not true. All you have to do is believe... click your heels three times... do the hokey-pokey, and turn yourself about.

That's what it's all about.

Or is it the chicken dance?

U.S. payrolls grew by tepid 121,000 in June
Report suggests companies are reluctant to bulk up their workforces

Updated: 14 minutes ago

(AP)WASHINGTON - Employers boosted payrolls by a tepid 121,000 in June — an improvement from the previous month but new evidence that companies are reluctant to bulk up their work forces in the face of high energy prices and slowing economic growth.

more...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13748814/

Paul Rogat Loeb | Joe Lieberman's Loyalties
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/070606G.shtml
Paul Rogat Loeb points out: "This isn't the first time Joe Lieberman's placed loyalty to his career above all other allegiances. Afraid that Connecticut's Democratic voters will reject him in the primary, he's now hedging his bets by planning to run as an Independent if he loses. 'I have loyalties that are greater than those to my party,' he says, and tries to make this sound noble."

Robert Dreyfuss | Sabotaging Peace in Iraq
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/070606D.shtml
Robert Dreyfuss writes, "The events in Iraq during the past week make it clear, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that neither the Bush administration nor its puppet Shiite theocrats in Iraq want peace."

Tax Dollars Fund Study to Restrict Public's Right to Know
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/070606B.shtml
The federal government will pay a Texas law school $1 million to do research aimed at rolling back the amount of sensitive data available to the press and public through freedom-of-information requests.

The Destabilization Game
This is the new, American-driven cold war -- a striking feature of our landscape, almost utterly ignored by the mainstream media -
By Tom Engelhardt
In the wake of the collapse of the Soviet empire, the United States was the sole military power of significance left standing. It had, as they saw it, enough excess power to ensure a Pax Americana into the distant future, in part by ensuring that no future or resurgent superpower or bloc of powers would, in any foreseeable future, arise to challenge the United States. As the President put it in an address at West Point in 2002, "America has, and intends to keep, military strengths beyond challenge."
This is a must read
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13877.htm
From the above link, there was a link to an article on ICH from 2003 in the Comments (blog) section:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5010.htm

Huffington Post morning mailer has the story on this, with the dumb-looking photo of W looking out the window of a plane

Nice to wake up to a glorious morning of Presidential bashing.

Morford is at it, for sure:

George W. Bush Is Dead To Me
Nation cringes as the worst president ever continues long, painful slog to the end
By Mark Morford

It is like some sort of virus. It is like some sort of weird and painful rash on your face that makes you embarrassed to walk out the door and so you sit there day after day, waiting for it to go away, slathering on ointment and Bactine and scotch. And yet still it lingers.

Some days the pain is so searing and hot you want to cut off your own head with a nail file. Other days it is numb and pain-free and seemingly OK, to the point where you think it might finally be all gone and you allow yourself a hint of a whisper of a positive feeling, right up until you look in the mirror, and scream.

George W. Bush is just like that.

Everyone I know has had enough. Everyone I know is just about done. There is this threshold of happy deadened disgust, this point where the body simply resigns itself to the pain, a point where the disease, the poison has seeped so deeply into the bones that you just have to laugh and shrug it all off and go for a drink. Or 10. ...

(click here to read the rest)

(Full URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/gate/archive/2006/07/07/notes070706.DTL&nl=fix)

If boy georgie wants to know what two-thirds of the American public thinks of him and his administration and their policies, especially about his illegal wars and illegal detention and torture policies (short list; a longer list can be had), all he really has to do is (1) read the editorial section of any newspaper that dares publish anything remotely critical of his fascist regime; or (2) read my finger....

However, monkey has it completely right above. DumDum will not EVER be allowed to know what anyone honestly thinks of anything in this country, least of all anyone who has an honest opposing opinion about him or his administration or their policies. All he will ever be exposed to are the rightwingnuttia kool-aide-drinking flatterers who insist on wearing rose-colored glasses and can't see the forest for the trees.

"Find out what's on people's minds..."....
Bwahahahahahahaha.... good one... pathetically funny.....

my uncle in St. Paul

what a joke!

NonnyO

Someone sent me the jpeg of the cloud that looks like a middle finger (last night), but that was for W's 60th birthday.

It may be what he's looking out the window of the airplane at, in the photo at Huffington Post = he looks confused

(2) read my finger.... NonnyO

This?

http://priceless420.com/Pr100103fingercloud.jpg

Thank you monkey! I found a bunch too.

General Economics

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

http://ibew.org/legislative/Rev042304-JustFacts.pdf

http://hannah.smith-family.com/archive/001122.html

http://modernamerica.blogspot.com/2005/06/supply-side-economics.html

Feminist economics

http://www.legalmomentum.org/issues/wel/index.shtml

http://feministing.com/archives/003701.html

Veteran's economics

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/12/23/1541248

Found these interesting:
http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/spheresInfluence.html

http://www.politics1.com/issues-right.htm

***

Don't know about you, but I'm ready to cry 'uncle' now!

Here's some good news from the NYT(sarcasm):

Hate Groups infiltrating military (hat tip RawStory)
By JOHN KIFNER
Published: July 7, 2006

A decade after the Pentagon declared a zero-tolerance policy for racist hate groups, recruiting shortfalls caused by the war in Iraq have allowed "large numbers of neo-Nazis and skinhead extremists" to infiltrate the military, according to a watchdog organization.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks racist and right-wing militia groups, estimated that the numbers could run into the thousands, citing interviews with Defense Department investigators and reports and postings on racist Web sites and magazines.

"We've got Aryan Nations graffiti in Baghdad," the group quoted a Defense Department investigator as saying in a report to be posted today on its Web site, www.splcenter.org. "That's a problem."

more here...http://tinyurl.com/rrww3

more on that: Bush creating more terrorist abroad AND at home

-snip-
Military extremists present an elevated threat both to their fellow soldiers and the general public. Today's white supremacists become tomorrow's domestic terrorists.

"Neo-Nazi groups and other extremists are joining the military in large numbers so they can get the best training in the world on weapons, combat tactics and explosives," said Mark Potok, director of the SPLC's Intelligence Project.

"We should consider this a major security threat, because these people are motivated by an ideology that calls for race war and revolution. Any one of them could turn out to be the next Timothy McVeigh."

Full article: http://www.splcenter.org/intel/news/item.jsp?site_area=1&aid=197

White House misreported flight time of North Korean missile

A White House press briefing on North Korea's missile tests misstated the amount of time one missile was in the air, RAW STORY has learned.

In a special press briefing with President George W. Bush's National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley, the announcement was made that "The third was a Taepodong-2 that vanished shortly after launch, less than a minute after launch. That was a failed launch of the Taepodong-2." Press Secretary Tony Snow repeated "The third launch took place from the Taepodong test site, that occurred at 4:01 p.m. eastern time. That was a failed launch; it failed less than a minute into flight."

However, in a report yesterday by the South Korean news agency Yonhap, it has been announced that the missile actually travelled for 7 minutes before falling into the sea.

The Taepodong-2 has been reported as potentially capable of hitting American territory.

more...
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/White_House_misreported_flight_time_of_0707.html

Do these people know ANYTHING?

Johnny Rhetorical

Bush: I'd rather be right than popular

"When history looks back, I'd rather be judged as solving problems and being correct, rather than being popular," Bush said.

"The president that chases the opinion poll is the president that will have failed policy," Bush said in an exclusive joint interview along with his wife, Laura, at the White House.

http://www.kltv.com/Global/story.asp?S=5122999&nav=1TjD

Rather be right than popular... oh for two.

... and if he'd rather be right than popular, then what is the point of going out on the road, at taxpayer expense, under the guise of finding what is "on people's minds", since it has no bearing on the Kings rightness?

So what if two-thirds of the country thinks he's dead wrong... he's the Decider, Baby!

He's right... and his heart is right with the Lord.

He's right. Period. End of discussion.

Pop U. Lure

I disagree with the below article in this sense: the anti-war groups are not "left-wing Democrats" as the article claims. Rep. John Murtha, who opposes the war, is not a left-wing democrat and he opposes the war. Reps. Dale Kildee and John Dingell, both from Michigan, who voted for the withdrawal timetable in the House are not left-wing Democrats. Many military leaders (the 7 generals) either opposed the war from the beginning as being unnecessary or oppose it now as fruitless and counter-productive. Many independents oppose the war as do many in the religious community who could hardly be described as left-wing oppose the war as well.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Being Joe Lieberman
By Joan Vennochi, Globe Columnist | July 6, 2006

IT'S ALL ABOUT Joe -- and not just about war.

US Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, announced that he will run as an independent if he loses his party's primary nomination in August.
The three-term senator is billing his decision as a commitment to principle. Mostly, it feels like a commitment to Lieberman.

Lieberman is entitled to his opinion about war in Iraq, which he supports.
Lieberman is also entitled to run as an independent if Democratic primary voters reject his opinion on war. But, if he does run as a prowar independent, his party is entitled to support the actual primary winner -- not Lieberman.

Lieberman's primary fight against millionaire businessman Ned Lamont illustrates the schism in the Democratic Party over Iraq. Lamont's campaign is fueled and financed by the antiwar left. His website salutes US Representative John Murtha of Pennsylvania and the proposition that ``stay the course is not a winning strategy." Lieberman supports Bush administration policy regarding Iraq and insists the war is still necessary and justified. But war is not the only issue on the primary ballot, even though Lieberman prefers to paint it that way. This isn't simply ``Profiles in Courage," starring Joe Lieberman. It is ``Profiles in Lieberman," starring a politician who irritated his party via sanctimony and loyalty to self, and must live with the political consequences. Al Gore, his running mate in 2000, is declining to endorse him in the primary and Senator Hillary Clinton of New York said she will not back Lieberman if he loses their party primary.

Lieberman was the first prominent Democrat to chastise Bill Clinton for his Oval Office escapades with Monica Lewinsky. In 1998, he called Clinton's actions ``immoral" and ``inappropriate" and railed against the president for ``willfully deceiving the nation about his conduct." At the time, he took the public praise for taking on a president of his own party; now Lieberman has to accept the latent party ill-will. It would also be nice to hear him express some similar moral outrage over the Bush administration's deceptions involving the case for war.

Lieberman further irritated fellow Democrats in 2000 when he was the vice presidential nominee, but refused to end his US Senate campaign. If the Gore-Lieberman ticket had prevailed, Connecticut's Republican governor could have appointed a Republican to replace Lieberman in the US Senate. After the 2000 defeat, Lieberman criticized Gore's populist presidential campaign and Gore returned the favor by backing Howard Dean's presidential bid without informing Lieberman, who was making his own unsuccessful presidential primary run in 2004.

In short, Lieberman has been thinking about Lieberman. So, he can't be shocked if other Democrats are thinking of themselves first, just as he does.

Antiwar Democrats may be as out of touch as Wall Street Journal editorial page writers hope they are. But as Republicans have proven, a political party has to stand for something in order to win elections. Lieberman versus Lamont makes the war the critical election issue, giving primary voters a clear choice between two candidates who stand for two different positions.

Lieberman might yet win the Senate primary contest. If he does, that should sober up Democrats like Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, whose freshly fervent antiwar commitment is part of a left-tilting presidential primary strategy. It could also fortify Hillary Clinton supporters, who worry she is alienating primary voters with her continuing refusal to back a specific timetable for the withdrawal of US troops.

But if Lieberman loses, it demonstrates the power of an antiwar message with the primary-voting slice of the Democratic Party. One segment of the people will have spoken and they happen to be a segment Lieberman represents as a Democrat. He is free to go forward and run as an independent, but why should any Democratic officeholder back him instead of the party nominee? That is what party loyalty is all about, take it or leave it. Lieberman abandoned the notion of loyalty when it suited his purposes. Why should he expect any loyalty from Democrats?

If Lieberman runs and wins as a prowar independent, it might mean the antiwar platform is as narrow as conservatives pray it is.

But, if Lieberman runs and wins as an independent, it also says something about the power of incumbency -- and the reluctance of incumbents to give up on that power.

Say it ain't so, Joe.

Joan Vennochi's e-mail address is vennochi@globe.com.
Globe Newspaper Company.

Posted by: monkey at July 7, 2006 10:30 AM

So, in neo-con Orwellian language, does his saying he's right really mean that he's saying that he's.....dare I say it....

WRONG??????

Maybe this is for the strange news thread:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-5936288,00.htmlj

North Korea Announces New Skin Cream

(It's under AP breaking news)

On Larry King last night, Bush was asked this:

KING: We’re back with the Bushes. And the Mexico elections have been decided, apparently, and the conservative, Mr. Calderon, narrowly wins. Any thoughts?

BUSH: I look forward to working with whomever the Mexican people have elected and…

KING: Do you know him?

BUSH: I don’t know him. Looking forward to getting to know him.

KING: Apparently he won. I’m glad to bring you the news.

BUSH: You sure did.

Now let’s go to this news report :

Calderon wants to rely on Mexico’s many free-trade accords to create jobs and crack down on rising crime, and says he’ll try to smooth U.S. relations without letting Washington dominate. I want to establish a very constructive relationship without bowing my head and lowering my eyes to the Americans," Calderon said in heavily accented English during an interview with The Associated Press. I have met with President Bush several times. I have interviewed with President Bush and several members of the American Congress, and I know it’s possible to establish a more constructive relationship, and that would be very good for both countries."

Bush said it with such certainty that it makes one wonder.

(h/t Dino) I’ll post the video later.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/posts/2006/07/07/bush-pulls-a-cheney-on-the-new-mexican-president/

Ralph,

Lots to check out on the Michigan front.

http://miboecfr.nictusa.com/election/candlist/06PRI/06PRI_CL.HTM

Oil hits another record above $75
Geopolitical worry continues to buffet a jittery market

SINGAPORE - Oil prices rose above $75 a barrel to record levels Friday, as geopolitical tensions and rising gasoline demand overshadowed U.S. supply data showing an unexpected increase in domestic gasoline stocks.

Gasoline futures gained nearly half a cent to $2.2631 a gallon while heating oil prices gained a cent to $2.0722 a gallon.

In its weekly inventory report, the U.S. Department of Energy said the country’s supply of gasoline unexpectedly rose by 700,000 barrels to 213.1 million barrels, or 1.4 percent lower than a year ago. But the department also said U.S. gasoline consumption over the past four weeks averaged 9.5 million barrels a day, or 1.4 percent more than a year ago.

America’s growing appetite for motor fuel comes despite an average nationwide pump price that is just below $3 a gallon — a level many analysts once believed would sap consumption.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12400801/

Well, so much for weaning the country off it's addiction to oil, eh Mr. Presidunce?

The WAR PRETZEL, the root cause of most of the aforementioned global geopolitical tensions, can't even get Americans to curb consumption during wartime.

Ya know why?

Don't remember where I saw the story (it could have been the Times), but there was a feature on China going car-crazy the other day.

The only way to not have the cost of energy wreck our economy is through an aggressive effort by government dedicated to reducing energy consumption, both through goosing the adoption of energy-saving technologies and penalizing the continued use of energy-wasting older technologies.

This is one of those areas where the government needs to aggressively steer the private sector in the right direction - since private interests are not coinciding with the obvious national interest.

Comments on Yahoo regarding Lieberman vs. Lamont:

Thu, 6 Jul 2006 23:41:58 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Bush_Be_Gone] Reminder to make those calls please -- JAM THEIR PHONE/FAX LINES

From Sharin --

Hi Friends
Barbara Boxer's office told me that she is supporting Lieberman because he supported some of her issues (women's rights). So I told Senator Boxer's Aide that Lieberman would support women's rights anyway without her...and that the republicans (and Lieberman) use this as a wedge issue to get Christian voters who are so stupid they don't get that they are using God and issues for votes.

I am not in favor of trading votes when the trade-off is something that defies democracy and my own moral values. If they abandon our issues (anti war and so on) to support someone opposite of everything we believe -- someone democrats in Connecticut decides to vote against but they support on an independent ticket (hard to believe they can even look at this guy without throwing up let alone support him at any time) then that tells us that they are also USING US.

It is an insult to our intelligence that they actually think we democrats do not see through wedge issues and for her to use this for support of Lieberman will not be tolerated. I told her aide I'd call back Monday - I made him write down a short little paragraph and I want an answer.

I also told her aide to tell her that Californians pay attention. We liberals will find another candidate that supports our beliefs and moral issues and we will not vote for her. She can't say she supports Lieberman and also supports us. It just won't work that way. I told her that every liberal and progressive group on line feels the same -- we will not support someone who sells us out -- or someone that supports someone so sickening as Lieberman. So by supporting him, she is hurting herself with her base.

So, reminder -- please friends -- make these calls over and over. Get the name of the person you talk to and tell them you want answers.

Oh, I also called Schumer's office and told him I wanted all my money returned that I gave for the last two years (not much but what if everyone did that?) -- and that I was going to make sure others did the same. I want none of my money going to weasels like Lieberman.
I hope enough people call and put on the pressure that they think twice about this. We have been able to jam lines before and this is important so let's get on this tomorrow.

Add Dodd and Schumer to your list. If you have a fax, do not send just one. Send 3 or 4 copies because just one gets lost.

Dodd - (CT) 202-224-2823 FAX 202-224-1083
Schumer - (NY) 202-224-6542 FAX - 202-228-3027

I already sent others but here they are again.

Boxer (CA) -- 202-224-3553 and FAX - 202-228-3954
Biden (DE) - 202-224-5042 and FAX - 202-224-0139
Salazar (CO) 202-224-5852 and FAX - 202-228-5036


PLEASE EVERYONE, MAKE THOSE CALLS. Tell them that if they can't stand up for us then we might vote them out too. Tell them we are paying attention and we are very angry. They are (as David Sirota says below) literally giving democrats the finger.
****

http://www.workingforchange.com/blog/index.cfm?mode=entry&entry=412264D6-E0C3-F08F-9F3CD236615DADB1

Salazar Gives Middle Finger to Dem Voters; What Other Dem Senators
Will, Too?

By David Sirota

In an explosive story, the Rocky Mountain News reports that freshman
Sen. Ken Salazar (D-CO) has become the first Democrat to publicly say
he will ignore the will of Connecticut Democratic primary voters and
support Sen. Joe Lieberman even if Lieberman loses the primary,
leaves the Democratic Party and runs as an independent. Before this,
only Sens. Chuck Schumer and Chris Dodd indicated they might do this
- now we have a Democratic U.S. Senator officially on record saying
he will use his power to thwart both the Democratic Party and the
small "d" democratic process, undermining his party and giving a big
middle finger to voters.

As I told the Rocky Mountain News reporter, This behavior really lays
bare what's going on: Democratic candidates are more than happy to use
the democratic process to obtain elected office, but once they are in,
many of them show an open disdain for that same democratic process.
They are so focused on protecting their own, preserving the Senate
club, and preventing the public from weilding power they are willing
to sell out their party and the democratic principles this country
was founded on. It is, in a word, disgusting.

Matt Stoller at MyDD has a very simple question in light of the
Salazar announcement: what other Democratic U.S. Senators will
support Lieberman if Lieberman loses the primary? The question is not
what Senators will support Lieberman in his primary - incumbents tend
to support incumbents. The question, again, is what other Democrats
will support Lieberman if he loses the primary? Will, for instance,
Barack Obama support Lieberman if he loses the primary? It was Obama,
after all, who specifically timed his primary endorsement of Lieberman
to try to crush Lamont's entire candidacy? What about other Democrats?
Which of them will join Salazar in giving the big middle finger to
voters and to the Democratic Party?

It's time we get an answer to that - so go ahead, contact your
Democratic U.S. Senators and ask them what their position is.

****************

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/government/article/0,2777,DRMN_23906_4823893,00.html
{http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/government/article/0,2777,DRMN_23906_4823893,00.html}

Salazar says he'll back Lieberman

By M.E. Sprengelmeyer, Rocky Mountain News

July 5, 2006

WASHINGTON — Sen. Ken Salazar is risking the ire of some fellow
Democrats by pledging to support incumbent Sen. Joe Lieberman of
Connecticut in November's election whether or not he wins the
Democratic primary.

Lieberman, a centrist and stalwart supporter of the war in Iraq, is
facing a serious challenge from anti-war candidate Ned Lamont in the
Aug. 8 Democratic primary.

~snip~
But Salazar said Wednesday that he is firmly in Lieberman’s camp and
that he will support him in an independent bid if he loses the
Democratic primary.

"I will support Joe Lieberman for the primary and beyond the
primary," Salazar said Wednesday. "I appreciate his strong stance of
independence. We need more senators like Joe Lieberman."

Salazar plans to campaign with Lieberman in Connecticut on July 30.

Salazar and Lieberman both were part of a bipartisan "gang of 14"
senators who played a role in ending the flap over judicial
filibusters, and they've formed another "gang" focused on ways of
promoting energy independence.

State Democratic Party chair Pat Waak said Wednesday that Salazar is
sure to attract criticism for his stand.
~snip~
In a e-mail bulletin Thursday, Sirota called on the DSCC "to respect
its own mission that promises to help elect Democrats — not
opportunists like Lieberman who, when faced with an election loss,
would leave the party and try to invalidate an election as a way to
hold onto power."

Told of Salazar's decision, Sirota said: "Any Democratic senator who
would support Joe Lieberman even if Joe Lieberman lost the Democratic
Party primary is insulting Democratic Party voters and showing open
contempt for the small-d democratic process."

-------------------
No one who works for a living should have to live in poverty. -- Sen. Kennedy
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ImpeachBushNOW

[Edited: Please do not post complete articles in violation of copyright law.]

Gallup: Almost Two-Thirds Want Iraq Withdrawal

By E&P Staff

Published: July 07, 2006 11:25 AM ET

NEW YORK A new Gallup poll finds that roughly 2 in 3 Americans urge a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, with 31% wanting this to start immediately. But it also found that while 64% feel they "understand" the Bush administraton's argument for staying in Iraq, only 54% understand the Democrats' view--whatever that is.

Gallup's director, Frank Newport, sums up the results today: "Taken together, it is perhaps fair to say that a significant majority of Americans would like the United States to either withdraw troops from Iraq or make specific plans to do so, although there is no majority demand that troops be withdrdrawn immediately."

The poll was unusual in that rather than give respondents a list of options, it allowed them to respond in their own words. Gallup then grouped the varied responses and labelled them with a common theme.

Results showed that almost 1 in 3 want to "pull the troops out and come home," as soon as possible. About the same number seem to wish for a gradual pullout. The remaining one-third back the present course or want to "finish what we started." Only 2% want to send more troops.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002801550

By all means, go find out what's on the peoples minds, W.

I Dubya Dog dare ya.

Larry King...the blind leading the dumb? Or a case of dumb and dumber?

So far this is the third misrepresentation the King has let the other King get away with.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/06/king-bush/

Larry King to Bush: ‘You Took The Lead on Iraq, the U.N. Went Along’

CNN’s Larry King started his interview with President Bush by asking him about North Korea: “You’re into taking the lead on these things. You took the lead on Iraq, the U.N. went along, you got other countries to go along, why not take the lead here?”

Actually, the U.N. did not “go along” with the invasion of Iraq. President Bush promised to take the issue to the U.N. Security Council “no matter what the whip count,” but never did. U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan described the invasion of Iraq as “not in conformity with the UN charter…from the charter point of view, it was illegal.”

Posted by: monkey at July 7, 2006 12:14 PM

"The survey was conducted in late June and polled 1,002 adults."

Wow! An amazingly huge sample, wouldn't you say? Personally, I think had they used a bigger sample they could have built that assessment to 90% (9/10), so one it's quite clear that the methodology of that gallop-Republican-spin pole had to make due with 2/3 (66.66%) rather than risking it get higher.

Frankly, 1002 people is less than the number of registered voters in the tiny town I live in.

CHICAGO - President Bush said Friday he is determined to rally world support in confronting North Korea over its missile tests to send a "loud and clear" message to the communist regime.

He said North Korea was not like dealing with Iraq. There, he asserted, he decided to launch the 2003 invasion after exhausting diplomatic options.

"You know, the problem with diplomacy is it takes a while to get something done" while "acting alone, you can move quickly," Bush said.

In a rare out-of-town news conference, he also vowed to keep hunting for terror leader Osama bin Laden, a search that has been fruitless in the nearly five years since the Sept. 11 attacks.

"No ands, ifs or buts, my judgment is it's a matter of time -- unless we stop looking, and we're not going to stop looking as long as I'm president," Bush said.

-snip-

Bush was asked why he was committed to going before the U.N. Security Council in an effort to restrict North Korea's missile and nuclear programs while he ignored the council's opposition to going to war in Iraq in 2003.

"I have always said it is important for an American president to exhaust all diplomatic avenues before use of force," Bush said.

As to Iraq, "all diplomatic options were exhausted as far as I was concerned."

more...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13752067/

So sayeth The Decider.

Posted by: monkey at July 7, 2006 01:14 PM

"Cooperate with us or I'll hire the Swift Boat veterans(against) Truth out after you!"

As to Iraq, "all diplomatic options were exhausted as far as I was concerned."

So sayeth The Decider.

Posted by: monkey at July 7, 2006 01:14 PM

**************************************************

I really wish this would end. My President is an imbecile, and there is practically nothing I can do about it.

I have another quote for you, and this from the guy who wants to know what the people are thinking:

"I glance at the headlines just to get a flavor for what's moving. I rarely read the stories, and get briefed by people who probably read the news themselves."

Washington, D.C.; September 21, 2003

sparrow: the Dept of Labor and The Bureau of Labor Statistics and the OECD does surveys of 160,000 employers primarily large companies and does statistical analysis from their surveys as to how many new jobs were created that month.http://www.bls.gov/ces/home.htm There is also something called household surveys that folks like Larry Kudlow pushes which also surveys self employed workers which we all know many unemployed people say they are in interviews to show they are working when they are not. Also once unemployment benefits are exhausted those workers are not counted in the unemployment numbers.

I just love this "right with the Lord" stuff. You conspire to defraud an entire nation - something that the President and Lay have in common - . . . .
Posted by: Cyrano at July 7, 2006 08:08 AM

George W. Bush Is Dead To Me
Nation cringes as the worst president ever continues long, painful slog to the end
By Mark Morford

Posted by: not my president at July 7, 2006 09:17 AM

Cyrano and not my president--thanks for your postings!

Posted by: Ira at July 7, 2006 03:31 PM

Thanks Ira. I will post your imput as well!

Posted by: not my president at July 7, 2006 09:17 AM

Even the Republicans agree on that long painful slog to the end. He's an embarrassment to them and they can't stand the way their party is behaving.

The only reason Bush brings in any money is so that someone can say, "I met the President." BUT I bet ya they don't say WHICH pResident they met! (In fact they'll probably pretend it was Bush Sr.!)

Not the first time I am flummoxed by how much energy and resource we devote to protest candidacies, and who is the more perfect Democrat. However good Joe's comeuppance makes us feel.

And NY's anti-war Tasini, not a great candidate, more of a pander bear, but using time better spent on long-term party-building. Which I don't think will happen with group anger over his rival, Hillary. We just look marginalized.

Noting that poll above on how people don't understand our Iraq position, meaning that the media will not allow us to look able to lead or make us secure. Seems we're simplistically pro-war, anti-war again.

I am petitioning in our neighborhood of Brooklyn of too many GOP, still grateful for the leadership of Bush to keep us secure. Not what I used to think of as good, moderate GOP, and definitely not understanding the terrorism issue, cause and effect, as we do.

Forget all our resources siphoned to the 1%.

Joan V., above, seems to be embracing Hillary, probably so she can dig JK, as always, for everything, as 'freshly fervent' over the war. We just know he was chomping at the bit to rage forth and create better foreign policy on the campaign. Thanks to the campaign and media for that missed opportunity.

I know we need to concentrate on elevating the disccussion, getting precise on our differences, because the media isn't helping. Some of the great net think pieces are preaching just to the converted.

Where is our anti-war message going? Do people understand this is not an huber-lefty fixation?

I hope Karen is well, and feeling in solidarity. I could use a little less brick wall about now.

Forgot to add that neo-con Liberal in defense of the middle east, and Israel, is a major pet peeve, and alive and well in not just Lieberman. Also Gov. Mark Warner, etc, on how to assert like Bush, with an available and captive audience, only to reflexively vote Democratic.

All this activity and resource for another state, where we don't actually vote.

what's with Ed Schultz these days. Lieberman makes an occasional appearance on his show, and all of Lieberman's slams against Dems and support of Bush should be forgiven. I don't buy into Lieberman' supposed 90% voting record in support of Democratic policies. First of all that 10% could represent significant votes like the so called vote to let a lifetime appointee like Alito skate through and destroy the Dems right to filibuster with his totally worthless comprmise; the rotten Bankruptcy Bill that effects millions; trade policies; family planning and vouchers and prayer in school in addition to his Johnny come lately opposition to Privatizing SS. Those votes he cast could also represent quite a few procedural votes and then opposing the underlying Democratic legislation (being for it before voting against it).

I have no problem with ideological party diversity and I am sending money to Harold Ford and Bob Casey who are fine people, who I quite often don't agree with. I have never heard either of them go out of their way to slam progressives or Democrats.
But when we are asked to close our eyes and our thoughts to oppose the Liebermans and the Nelsons who constantly bash progressives, and have basically become an impediment to progressive legislation, that is more than we should accept. I rather doubt the Republican Party will be supporting Chaffee if he bolts their party and runs as an independent if he loses his primary. Why is our sincerity questioned when we as progressives do the same? Whether Lamont succeeds in August is almost irrelevant. The only callers supporting Lieberman on Schultz today are Republicans calling in and praising him.Wonder why? If he is looking to be beloved by Republicans why in the world does he expect us to support him with our time and money?

Posted by: DiAnne at July 7, 2006 09:44 AM

Yup, it would be just like that. Hahahaha!!! :-)

I also lit a candle on a cupcake and made a wish just especially for the Chickenhawk-in-Chief as I blew out the candle. Would love to share the wish with you, but you know what they say about telling your wishes... if you do, the wishes won't come true.... ;-)

"I glance at the headlines just to get a flavor for what's moving. I rarely read the stories, and get briefed by people who probably read the news themselves."
Washington, D.C.; September 21, 2003
Posted by: oncall at July 7, 2006 03:09 PM

Dare I word the curious wonder I have? Is DumDum just barely functionally literate?

Or am I just looking at the whole thing from the perspective of an avid reader. If I have to be someplace where I know I'll have to wait for something (like in waiting rooms, whatever), I take a book with me to read; when I'm at home, I read while eating my meals and/or read news on the internet while eating my meals at the computer desk.... Doesn't matter; if I'm not reading genie research, I'm reading something else or email newsletters. I just can't possibly imagine not reading when I have free time (I rush housework so I can get back to reading/research!). The only time I"m not reading is the very few hours I actually watch a couple of TV shows, and when I'm on the phone or engaged in conversation with someone....

IMHO, knowledge is power, and I am of the firm belief that one can't have too much knowledge. Oh, and I also read stuff for fun, too, because I love trivia....

I dunno what I'm missing, but I just do not grasp why the "leader" of this country isn't reading something when he's not engaged in conversation with someone... unless he's barely functionally literate....

He said North Korea was not like dealing with Iraq. There, he asserted, he decided to launch the 2003 invasion after exhausting diplomatic options.

Posted by: monkey at July 7, 2006 01:14 PM

Pure baloney.

The two are different because (1) Iraq has oil and (2) North Korea could take out South Korea - and may actually cause the Korean-Americans to blame W for their homeland's destruction.

I hope Karen is well, and feeling in solidarity. I could use a little less brick wall about now.

Posted by: Marjorie G at July 7, 2006 05:06 PM

Very mellow day, day 4. I have some pics, and will get them up soon, but it was a day of talking with folks, cool breezes, visits from Kirit, the Indian man I wrote about the other day and others who have begun to fast with us.

Even the folks who disagree with us often stop to argue and wind up walking away quieter. Dick Gregory says that great hormones kick in when the body is not taking in much. Must be so. I feel relaxed and focused.

Anyway, a few said they heard about the Troops Home Fast on Air America, and that seems to be working. But very little msm thus far.

Did anyone hear Raed Jabbar on Democracy Now the other morning? Every time he talks, I learn more about Iraq and what is really happening there. He is quite clear that the Iraq Reconciliation process was co-opted by the US and will never work as long as we are still in there. I did not know that there were 28 points that they had agreed upon and the US took off four of them--the four the Bush admin. found inconvenient.

We also had a session with Sue Udry of UFPJ, in which she talked about Tom Harkin's resolution, which, at least at first glance, seems pretty good. Has anyone here looked at it? She said the three points made were: no permanent bases in Iraq, keep our hands off the oil, and troops out soon.

Also planning for Camp Democracy ( http://www.campdemocracy.org ) continues. Check it out.

If you know anyone in the DC area, tell them to stop by Lafayette Park between 10 am-7 pm Saturday or Sunday.

Mexico and FLorida have a lot more than heat in common!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1815601,00.html

This Lieberman fiasco is just making them look, weak and hypocrital. Here is another article regarding the Democratic Party and the war (much of which I don't agree with, of course, but this is the buzz and the way many people view the Democratic party - and why we are losing votes among progressive/liberals and the anti-war independents and the anti-war religious groups.)

Democrats Versus the Peace Movement?
Stephen Zunes | July 6, 2006

Editor: John Feffer

Foreign Policy In Focus www.fpif.org

The U.S. Congress failed in recent weeks to take even symbolic steps to encourage a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, even though the majority of Americans support an end to the war. Many anti-war advocates are hoping that the mid-term U.S. elections in November will push Congress into Democratic hands and thereby increase the chances of ending the war. Don't hold your breath.

The Democratic leadership of both the House and Senate supports continued funding of the Iraq war and has been reluctant to force the Bush administration to set even a tentative deadline for the withdrawal of American troops. Indeed, the Democrats—who controlled the Senate in 2002—share responsibility with the Republicans for creating the tragic conflict in Iraq by voting to authorize the invasion in the first place. The majority of Democratic senators as well as the Democratic leadership of both houses gave President George W. Bush free rein to invade Iraq at the time and circumstances of his choosing in direct violation of the United Nations Charter, which the United States is legally obliged to uphold. These pro-war Democrats teamed up with the Bush administration to mislead the American public by making a series of false claims regarding the ongoing presence of “weapons of mass destruction” (WMDs) in Iraq and the “threat” supposedly posed by that government.

Just as a solid majority of Congress members blindly supported the Bush administration's lies about WMDs, they now blindly support the Bush administration's argument that the United States must continue prosecuting a counter-insurgency war that has taken the lives of more than 2,500 Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis, primarily civilians.

As a result, Congress will not likely stop the war—unless the anti-war movement forces it to do so.

In Search of Democratic Backbone
On June 15, the U.S. Senate overwhelmingly defeated a resolution calling for the withdrawal of American combat forces from Iraq by the end of this year. Only six of the 100 senators voted in favor of the resolution, even though public opinion polls indicate that the majority of Americans and the vast majority of Democrats nationwide support such a deadline. Furthermore, a recent Le Moyne College/Zogby International poll revealed that 72% of U.S. troops serving in Iraq believe that the United States should end its operations in that country by the end of 2006, thereby giving the Democrats a concrete way of demonstrating that they “support the troops.”

During the same week, the House of Representatives, by a 256-153 vote, claimed that the ongoing war in Iraq was part of the “war on terror” and explicitly declared that “it is not in the national security interest of the United States to set an arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq.” Forty-two Democrats joined all but three Republicans in supporting the resolution. Although the former Iraqi regime rid the country of WMDs years earlier, allowed UN inspectors to return to verify dismantlement, and maintained no ties to al-Qaida or other Islamic extremists, the House resolution claimed that the deposed government “constituted a threat against global peace and security and was in violation of mandatory United Nations Security Council Resolutions” and “supported terrorists.”

Faced with a lack of support in the Senate for a withdrawal of American forces by the end of the year, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts put forward a resolution the following week calling for a withdrawal by July 1, 2007. The Democratic leadership reportedly put enormous pressure on Kerry to withdraw even this tepid resolution from consideration, but the bill went to the floor anyway. Kerry's bill was also soundly defeated, with no Republican senators and only 13 of the 44 Democratic senators voting in favor. The 87% of the Senate that believes U.S. forces in Iraq can stay indefinitely is also the percentage of Iraqis who want the United States to have a timetable for departure—but the sentiments of Iraqis have never been of particular concern for American politicians of either party.

A second resolution, sponsored by Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, simply called for the beginning of a withdrawal of some troops by the end of the year with no timetable for a complete withdrawal. This, too, was defeated, by a vote of 60-39. Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman declared that adopting the Levin resolution would result in “the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 being able to claim victory in Iraq and going on, emboldened, to attack us again here at home.” Lieberman failed to mention that al-Qaida found recruitment opportunities inside Iraq only after the U.S. invasion. Lieberman was joined by Democrats Mark Dayton of Minnesota, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Bill Nelson of Florida, and Mark Pryor of Arkansas. All but one Republican senator opposed Levin's resolution.

Both these Senate resolutions were non-binding. Even if the stronger Kerry resolution had passed, the Bush administration would have still been allowed to prosecute the war indefinitely. Resolutions like Kerry's and Levin's enable Democratic senators to have it both ways: to go on record opposing the war while continuing to fund it.

Dealing with the Dems
Because the Senate unanimously votes to fund the war in Iraq, Peace Action PAC, the political action committee of the country's largest peace organization, will for the first time not endorse any senators for re-election this year. Some anti-war activists have gone further, not just withholding support but actively calling for the defeat of every pro-war senator regardless of party affiliation, even if it means supporting Green Party nominees or other anti-war challengers. Such strategists believe that Democrats will not likely change their pro-war positions as long as they can assume the support of their anti-war constituents.

Constituent pressure does indeed make a difference. Two of the half dozen most outspoken anti-war senators—Tom Harkin of Iowa and Kerry—voted in favor of the original resolution in October 2002 authorizing the invasion. Grassroots anti-war efforts in their home states forced these formerly pro-war Democrats to reverse their stance.

However, apologists for the Democratic Party reply that efforts to defeat pro-war Democrats could result in electing enough Republicans to prevent the Democrats from re-taking the U.S. Senate. However, it should be recalled that the last time the Democrats controlled the Senate (2001-2002), they voted to authorize the invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Not only might a Democrat-controlled Senate fail to end the war in Iraq, it may well authorize President Bush to launch yet another tragic war. Already, leading Democratic senators and presidential hopefuls like Hillary Clinton and Evan Bayh have attacked the Bush administration for being too eager to pursue diplomatic means in the Iran crisis. They have been more willing to entertain the exercise of military force to end the current impasse over that country's nuclear program. On other national security issues, these hard-line Democrats have defended the already-existing nuclear weapons arsenals of U.S. allies Pakistan, Israel, and India. And last month, an overwhelming majority of Democrats in the House voted in support of a resolution criticizing President Bush for not sufficiently punishing Palestinians who suffer under Israeli military occupation. In short, a Democratic majority in Congress will not necessarily mean a more enlightened foreign policy.

One might think that partisans of the Democratic Party would be in the forefront of the anti-war movement, given the imperative of completing a withdrawal prior to the end of President Bush's term. Otherwise, the final withdrawal of U.S. forces will likely take place under a Democratic administration, leading Republicans in subsequent years to blame any anti-American terrorism or upsurge of violence and instability in the Middle East on the failure of Democrats to “finish the job in Iraq” started by the Bush administration.

Mobilizing for the Alternative
Having already authorized the invasion of Iraq back in October 2002, Congress can only stop the war at this point through its constitutionally mandated power of the purse. There is precedent for such congressional action. Following President Richard Nixon's decision to launch an invasion of Cambodia at the end of April 1970, Senators John Cooper of Kentucky and Frank Church of Idaho introduced a resolution that banned funding of ground troops in Cambodia. Over strong objections of the Nixon administration, the resolution passed and troops were withdrawn.

The Cooper-Church amendment succeeded in 1970 because of massive protests throughout the country against the invasion of Cambodia. Such protests included large-scale civil disobedience and other forms of nonviolent action, which, among other things, shut down over 200 college campuses nationwide. It will probably take a similar outpouring of protests before Congress reflects the will of the American public and forces the Bush administration to withdraw from Iraq.

Fortunately, plans are in the works for just such a national mobilization. A broad coalition of peace groups calling itself the Declaration of Peace has planned, should Congress not implement a withdrawal plan, a massive nonviolent action campaign for September 21-28. The anti-war movement hopes that shutting down congressional offices and governmental and commercial centers throughout the country will undermine the current bipartisan support for Bush's war. Endorsers include Clergy and Laity Concerned, Code Pink, United for Justice and Peace, the Network of Spiritual Progressives, Pax Christi USA, Peace Action, War Resisters League, and Women's International League for Peace and Freedom.

Americans who oppose the war are already the majority. Whether we can actually stop the war will depend not so much on the composition of Congress but on how many Americans will be willing this September to put their bodies on the line in the cause of peace.

Stephen Zunes is a professor of Politics at the University of San Francisco and Middle East editor for Foreign Policy in Focus. He is the author of Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism (Common Courage Press, 2003).

Ira,

Ed is very attacking against Dems these days.. the left, the middle, and the right dems. He's still pissed at the Republicans too.

Equal opportunity ranter I guess! They say he's moderate, but in my opinion, he's way liberal on things I'm more moderate on and visa versa. That's why I don't get into these labels.

Ralph, that author mistates many things about the IWR vote. Her original basis is extreme; however, the point that Democrats need to shape up for these 06 elections is accurate.

I am really tired of the IWR still used as a vote for war, and excuse to bash Dems. The leverage basically worked, got in the inspectors, but Bush went to war.

The zunes article reflects why Schultz is making his show become irrelevant. We are constantly being told that Dems need to show more backbone and stand on principles. When they do they are then slapped down by Lieberman and now Schultz telling us that we are mindless and one issue bloggers. I don't consider myself a one issue activist and doubt many at this site are either. I doubt few would say Lieberman does not have the political right to align himself with the Bush agenda, but when he does so he should also understand that there are consequences to his taking such positions which Democratic voters and a large majority of this country does not agree with. One of the consequences of those positions may be his rejection by Connecticut voters in August. That is neither left or right sparrow, its a political reality that we should not apologize for but in fact be proud that we have grown to understand. Personally I am getting sick and tired of the put downs of bloggers I have heard recently from some quarters including Ed Schultz. Its part of the same stereotyping we here from the Fox news crowd. We have kept engaged in the political process since the debacle of November 2004 which is more than I can say for the majority of this country who reluctantly show up to vote every 2 years.

Wow, citicize the "one issue" voters all you want... I can name two groups for "one issue" voters that have been extremely successful - the pro-gun NRA lobby and the anti-abortion lobby.

But if you were going to pick a "defining issue" ( as Clinton did to defeat Bush 1 in 1992 using the economy) Iraq surely has to be at the top of most people's agenda for 2006. Iraq is in the news everyday and the news is usually bad if not revolting and horrifying. It would help greatly if the Congressional Democrats could agree (at least in general) on an Iraq policy. The Congressional Republicans have - STAY THE COURSE.

Here is more comment on the Lieberman Fiasco:

What the Hell Is Barbara Boxer Thinking? (201 comments )
READ MORE: Iraq, Rep. John Murtha, 2006, Bill Frist, Tony Snow
What the hell is Barbara Boxer thinking?

From the run up to Shock and Awe to last month's flurry of thrust-and-parry resolutions on Iraq, the junior senator from California has been one of the most consistent and vocal critics of the war. She voted no on the war in 2002 and co-sponsored the latest Kerry bill calling for our troops to be withdrawn by July 2007.

And she was one of only six Democrats to stand against the ambush vote orchestrated by Mitch McConnell and Bill Frist.

So what is she doing heading up to Connecticut to stump for pro-war Joe Lieberman and against his anti-war challenger Ned Lamont?

After all, Tailgunner Joe isn't just one of the staunchest supporters of the war, he's repeatedly and steadfastly spoken out against those who oppose it.

"Retreat and defeat," he said in speaking against the Kerry and Levin withdrawal plans on the floor of the Senate, "would be terrible for the safety and security of the American people." Indeed he was one of only six Democrats to vote against the withdrawal-lite Levin amendment.

Back in December, he responded to Jack Murtha's original call for troop withdrawal by warning that "in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril" (to which Murtha replied, "Undermining his credibility? What has he said that would give him credibility?").

Lieberman has also said that if voters choose Lamont over him in the August 8th Democratic primary because of his stance on the war it will show that "my party is headed down the road that will not lead us to victory."

What polls is Lieberman reading? Certainly not the ones showing that 60 percent of the voters in his state are against the war -- and that Iraq is the number-one issue motivating Democratic voters in 2006.

When it comes to the war, Lieberman wants it both ways: he's asked that voters "respect" his hawkish stand on the war but then repeatedly accuses those opposing the war of putting their fellow Americans in jeopardy (hey, isn't that Tony Snow's talking point?).

So, again, I ask: what the hell is Barbara Boxer thinking?

Look, I understand the you-scratch-my-primary-run-and-I'll-scratch-yours ethos of sticking up for your fellow Senator -- what Jane Hamsher called "the incumbency protection racket". And this isn't a progressive purity test, accompanied by the expectation of lockstep liberalism. This isn't about Lieberman's GOP-friendly positions on tax cuts, affirmative action, the bankruptcy bill, the energy bill, the privatization of some parts of Social Security, and the right to question the president.

At its core, the Lieberman-Lamont contest is about the war on Iraq. So how can Boxer strap on her Senate buddy blinders and jettison her deeply held beliefs on the defining issue of our time?

Compare Boxer's head-in-the-sands-of-Iraq stance with that of Jack Murtha. I recently called and asked him about Lieberman and whether he would ever campaign for him.

"How could I possibly support him?" Murtha told me. "I'd never campaign for him unless he changed his position on the war."

Period. End of discussion.

Barbara Boxer has said of Iraq: "It is unacceptable for me to see us continue a policy that is bringing so much pain to so many -- our forces, [2,538] dead, their families, journalists and their families, and thousands of Iraqis and others. It is not acceptable to me to see our government paralyzed over a failed policy and unable to change it." I agree it is not acceptable. Just as it is not acceptable for someone who finds our failed policy in Iraq unacceptable to be so accepting of one of the key supporters of that failed policy.

We need more Murtha Democrats, those unwilling to sacrifice their principles on the altar of Congressional comity, and fewer like Boxer, who has chosen to put the needs of her fellow member in the World's Most Exclusive Club above the interests of the country.

There is still time for Boxer to rethink her misguided decision to shill for Lieberman and reclaim her principles. If she needs a little nudge in the right direction, she can always call Jack Murtha.

I forgot to give credit to the above article about Boxer - Arianna Huffington.

Ira,

Ed Scultz blasted Kerry the same day as the NYT Dems in Disarray story got many other Dems to hyperventilate at the possibility of another Rovian play. In my neighborhood, the very same ones ranting about the IWR, still, and the 2002 cowardice, went atwitter and railed against the timetable.

Same day as Russert also went on about Dems in Disarray.

Tired of the Rove narrative on the war, dictating all opinion and action. The timeline was sensible, and asked for by Gen Casey, Iraq, many Generals, and I think even the Pentagon.

Kerry will support the resulting Democratic nominee, not before, and probably feeling none too kindly about the Joe's comments on his timetable resolution.

This growing neo-con liberal attitude as a way to win elections has to stop. Although with Joe's, more sincerely misguided.

Posted by: ralpheh at July 7, 2006 09:50 PM

If history is to be a reliable guide then political machinations during the Viet Nam war should be reviewed. The Democrats were divided then, and it took the American people to deliver the message that American involvement in Viet Nam war had to end. The Democrats were the party that responded to the American people. It was the Republicans who supported continued involvement. It was only after Richard Nixon ran with the campaign pledge that he had a "plan" to get America out of the war, that he won. Nixon did not win by a large margin against Humphrey. Many of us understand Humphrey's predicament when he ran for President. As Vice-President, he couldn't actively campaign against the war, even though it is now well known that he opposed the war. Yet, Nixon won with a "plan". The county was hungry for peace and it would do whatever it could to obtain it.

I fervently believe that the Democrats have made some very serious tactical errors in the last several months. The war IS the SINGLE most important issue to most Americans (and it is most likely those Americans who intend to vote). Joe Lieberman has the right to disagree with his party, just as Ira has said, but at the same time, he must suffer the political consequences of his decisions. Yet, I think it is a mistake to suggest that he does not support the majority of the Democratic Party's principles. Earlier today I read an interesting poll that suggested that just over 50% of American had confindence that the Democrats could satisfactorily handle America's Iraqi war involvement. That was surprising considering that over 60% want to end American involvement in Iraq. To me that suggests that the Democrats have not learned the Viet Nam lesson - listen to the people, support what the people are asking for, reject those that would obstruct our path to peace, embrace those who work for peace. If the Democrats can't bring themselves to support the will of the people, we might be stuck with another Richard Nixon and keep a completely Republican government in control. Democrats have to be united with one voice on this issue. It is imperative for a Democratic victory.

As long as there are third party or "independent" candidates with a progressive social agenda, and a different (more immediate or delayed withdrawl ) Iraqi agenda, the Democrats will have their constituency split and have an exrtemely difficult time gaining even one house of the Congress.

I am using Democrats as an example, but do not necessarily endorse them.

oncall et al,

Yes, we are hearing (as people come over to brief us and as our people go and speak with Hill folks) that there is an undercurrent of understanding in Congress that the War is a mess and we need to get out. It is across the board. They know the American people are fed up. And they know 2006 elections are coming up.

All of the posturing, resolutions, amendments, speeches reveal just how divided they are on the MEANS for ending the war.

Mike Hersh just sent out an email in which he is modeling working with a group of conservative libertarians in order to end the war and deal with the f***ed-up economy.

Harry Reid told Father Louis Vitale that we need people pushing hard to help them. The city council resolutions calling for an immediate end to the war, the impeachment resolutions at the local and state level--these really do help. So does a national presence in Washington DC.

I am going to keep reminding everyone that we are involved with an imense effort to get ALL of the progressive organizations: peace and social justice, election and accountability, labor, environment, educational, immigration rights, Katrina surviviors, performers, celebrities, sages, etc. together on the Mall from September 5 (when Camp Casey arrives in DC) through October 5 and beyond.

September 21 is the Declaration of Peace Day.

We decided, at Cindy's suggeston last week, to rename Washington DC itself as Fort Fed-Up. Camp Democracy will be an entity within Fort Fed-Up, at least in our minds!

Lobbying Congress, civil disobedience training, media training and activism, creative activities such as short documentary-making and podcasting, music for justice, meet the candidates for office, and general taking-it-back activities will be taking place on the Mall.

If everyone comes, even for part of the time, there will be a massive presence that will show Congress that the people have spoken quite clearly, and they have the power of the people behind them to act rightly.

No, I am not delirious from hunger; I am seeing the only way I can down the path to real and effective change. It takes more than a village, folks. It's gonna take a city.

Karen,

We have to build our own Fort Fedups right outside our local Congressman's office or right outside the local media too.

I strongly feel that we have to give people a local outlet.

I've been thinking about other ways people can do something locally:

Biking for Peace

Walking for Peace

Candlelight Marches

Picnics at the Park for Peace

Freeway blogging

"Sit-ins for Peace" (stores, street corners, tv, radio, etc

These don't have to be organised, just grab a posterboard and a bike and travel the road most likely taken. Others can be neighborhood gatherings with musicians. I'm firming up plans and going to send it to my two local groups to see if we can arrange any of these as a cordinated event or to encourage people to just take to the roads as a single protestor.

Cheney really wants U.S. dictator :

The United States is caught up in a new campaign for a military
dictatorship -- rule by a military chief with absolute power. The White House,
inspired by Vice President Dick Cheney, has argued that in time of
great danger, the president has unlimited powers as commander in chief.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13901.htm

Who, besides me, is getting a whiff of a foul odor about this 'ter-rist' plot to blow up tunnels???

No names of suspects; no names of anyone arrested, no mention of where they live.... It's not like Lamestream Media to resist sensationalism as regards their 'leader' and extoll how tough he is on his 'war on ter-rism' and no big news confab to brag about the foiled plot....

The only thing I heard on morning snooze is that a "confession" had been obtained from someone in a prison in another country about the alleged "plot." [i.e., someone has been tortured until he came up with a tale his torturers wanted to believe so they would cease inflicting pain.... OR it's an outright LIE (again).]

Something about the whole fiasco is just off, off, off and stinks to high heaven!

Hegemonic Tyrant Courts Doom
By Paul Craig Roberts
Gentle reader, consider what it means when our government believes
other countries have no right to their own interests unless they coincide
with US interests. It means that we are the tyrant country. We cannot be
the tyrant country without being perceived as the tyrant country.
Consequently, the rest of the world unites against us.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13905.htm

I hope Lamont wins in Connecticut - it would signal a tectonic shift in power in the Democratic party: the progressive/antiwar movement will have teeth (to match the barking) and leverage to win elections. I heard that Connecticut Dems and liberals were searching for an opponent to run against Lieberman for sometime and Lamont fit the bill.

A Lamont win in Connecticut would put wind in the sails of the anemic, ailing peace movement and force Dems to take a position on Iraq (which they have been avoiding for far too long).

Sparrow

tabling at local events

handing out fliers at local events

(You need to be at events where it's legal to do so. If they are issue-oriented & nonpartisan it's easier)

We have tried to do this here whenever possible for the last 3 years.

Karen

You are in the perfect place - as an educator.

sparrow and DiAnne,
I am all for local efforts. No one should NOT do something locally. And all your ideas are great.

However, I want to make my point (do not throw things at me, I am a weak faster!!) that UNLESS huge numbers of people show up in Washington and give the democracy some juice, all the atomized efforts that happen locally simply are local. What can Seattle do? What can Ann Arbor do once everyone there gets it? Secede?

Some very interesting articles here.

http://zenhuber.blogspot.com/

Posted by: karen at July 8, 2006 10:11 AM

Let's hope Seattle and Ann Arbor can succeed! (Don't throw things at me either!) We can hope our local activities influence the electorate to get involved and vote for a anti-war progressive. Then when they have the majority they can force Bush to face the music.