What's the difference?
This Iraq War spending bill is an atrocious failure. It fails the troops, the American voter, and the Democratic Party. There are so many things wrong with this bill, it's hard to start.First, the Dems should have listened to the American people, rather than the president. They should have insisted on timetables to get our troops out. Soon we won't be talking about benchmarks and timetables, but an evacuation plan. Better to make a little progress and bring our troops home. This will only continue the record violence against our young men and women in arms.
Dems once again allowed the Republicans and the media to define the terms. We allowed them to say "cut funding for the troops" when that isn't what this bill is about. "I say it's time to call anyone who uses the phrase "cut off funding for the troops" to describe that vote what they are: a liar" says Columbia Professor Joe Cutbirth. We cannot continue to cower in fear of '08 just because the American people are uninformed. We must educate them to the truth of our government. To do otherwise is to insult their intelligence - as if they are incapable of understanding the truth.
Voters chose Democrats in '06 because they saw no progress being made by Republicans on holding the president accountable for the war. Failure! Instead, they have shown that nothing will change. The leaders who wrote this bill lumped in money for Katrina victims, increased the minimum wage, and other stuff. These are important issues that should have been allowed to stand on their own. Democratic leaders forced good Democratic Senators and Representatives to choose between increasing the minimum wage and ending the war. Those are so unrelated that they shouldn't be considered in the same bill. It was wrong for Republicans to lump unrelated items in bills, and it's wrong when the Democrats do it too. It also blackmails the President, which I object to because, while our president is an utter failure in every possible way, our Democracy should not function under blackmail... 'if you want to keep your war going, you're going to have to approve a federal minimum wage.' That's crap!
People like me, who have not joined a third party because third parties don't have any power or influence in government may have to change their priorities. The Dems have showed us that they're no different from the Republicans. I often compare Bush's presidency to the actions of the British on Bloody Sunday - the British drove more people to join the IRA that night than ever before. The actions of Bush made more people vote Democrat than expected (consider some of our readers who have confessed voting D because of the war). Now, the actions/failure of the Democrats on this bill will cause more people to join the Green party and others. I don't know what I will do. I don't think I can conscionably remain a Democrat. I cannot support making this war political, blackmailing democracy, and acts of cowardice.
By terra - 5/27/2007
22 Comments:
"No influence".....?
Perot got over 8 million votes in 1996 with Clinton getting less than 50% of the popular vote and do I need to bring up Ralph Nader ? Third parties have no chance of winning but they can sure change the political landscape.
No difference between Dems and Reps?
Congratulations, Fred has drug you into his hole.
Our only hope is that Dems see this backlash and realize that it's more hazardous to their careers than the 'he voted against our troops' stigma.
...and you can't forget that Clinton and Obama voted against it. Obama in 08 is still the best thing going.
If some Nader-esc candidate syphons lefty votes and Obama loses to say...Giuliani, I will take a nap in my garage with the car running.
How does that animal defecate anyhow?
Is this why all politicians are so full of shit? [zing]
Most of the time it comes out of the elephant's mouth, but it can use either end if it gets backed up.
Political acid reflux disease.
wow agreeing a lot with Terra and chuck lately.
Mencken,
If the results are the same with either R or D skippering the ship , I think Terra is right in saying there is no difference. The war in Iraq is the preeminent issue to many of us, and while we quibble on various other issues and policies the one uniting thread in the fabric was our disgust of this war.
Both Clinton and Obama were astute enough to know that the only part of this bill anyone will remember is that it either extended or intended to shorten our occupation of Iraq. They would be outmaneuvered to the left and with anti-war moderates by Edwards, and they can't veer any more right because neither is going to appeal to republican or pro war voters.
I sent a donation this morning (a small amount) to both campaigns, if only for the symbolic gesture that I supported their Nay votes
I am in a similar position.
I just cannot understand the Kyle side of the party that is okay with this. Not trying to argue with Kyle, I am just saying I don't get it. All i can think is that Kyle, being the level-headed diplomat that he is, is just hoping to calm tempers and keep the Democrats united.
If there is no difference, then why no contribution to a Republican?
a couple other thoughts. I love Obama, but i am disappointed with his lax attitude prior to the vote. i get what he was doing, but don't like it. however, he did speak out strongly the following day.
another thing, i do disagree with one common thing that everyone is saying: Democrats were elected to end this war.
Democrats were elected for a lot of reasons, not just the war.
They are right on a lot of issues and the people realize that.
Now we just need these politicians to follow through. but this gives me pause.
The corruption follows the money and has no respect for "Party"
If I change my affiliation, it will be to make a statement. Why not contribute to Republicans? because they don't represent anything that I believe in. Dems at least say they do, and believe me, I'm not able to contribute much there either. The only Rep I have found to respect is Lincoln Chafee, and he's gone.
I do love Obama, and will support him. I can't see how he would have voted yes, but it was an easy "no" vote because it was going to pass anyway.
Something is wrong with this democracy
Petey,
You have this one nailed.
Would Mr. Cutbirth also agree that determining the immigration issue by defining the term amnesty is the the same travisty as "support the troops"?
I am still a registered Democrat - Dems --many, many more REDEEMING features than the "other" party. The use(abuse) of our military is the the major dividing factor for me.
Lately I am reading much cynicism possibly bordering on despair concerning our Govt/politicians on this blog.
I have also noticed that the polarized bickering that was prominent a while back has all but dissapeared - we all seem to be more focused on issues, answers and debate...solving same in the American way...and we dont seem to be satisfied with the status quo..which means that we are Fighting the Good Fight.
You know you Fight the Good Fight when you reach points of despair, exhaustion, frustration - sometimes you may be the only voice of reason - but you have courage and guts and a Can Do Spirit and go forward.
OORAH
I took my shitbird Yorkie for a walk in the Middlefield Cemetery to see preparations for the Memorial Day Services today.
I emotionally noted on military flag marked grave with the dates 1986-2006 - a recent 20 yr old Iraq/Afganistan casualty.
I wont forget you Cpl Reed
My conscience (whats left of it) does not allow me to give alcohol to alcoholics - neither does it $$$$$$ to politicians
Terra, great post. I am glad to see you Chuck and Bob articulately stating your case because our readers deserve our honest opinions, even if we are occasionally at odds. Let the four of us show that the Democratic Party has a big tent and room for debate on some issues because we agree on so much. Don't leave the party.
There is one inconsistency I wanted to ask about. In paragraph two you praise the wisdom of that American people and say "the Dems should have listened to the American people." Then in paragraph three you say "we cannot continue to cower in fear of '08 just because the American people are uninformed." Well, which is it? Either the American people are wise and we must listen to them or they are uninformed and we must ignore their ignorance on this issue.
Either way, the Democrats who voted for this bill were listening to the American people. CBS conducted a poll which found that 13% of the American people believe we should block all funding while 69% believe we should fund the war with benchmarks.
I completely agree that we need to do a better job on educating the American people on what the Democrats stand for and how we can end this war. However, I think voting against this bill at this time was the wrong move.
Again, I think we all want the same, we just disagree on the best strategy to get there.
The American people were right to want the war to end. We can't assume they are too ignorant to understand bills, and to feed them lies like "cutting funding for the troops." They are smart enough to want to end the war, they're smart enough to understand when these bumper-sticker phrases are lies and propaganda. If we let these lies continue, we leave them in ignorance, which they don't deserve.
We're still in the process of building 14 permanent military bases all over Irag and a huge embassy in Baghdad. Someone needs to ask Bush how we can "withdraw" from Iraq and still support this huge financial commitment. Withdrawing means that these 15 facilities will collapse. Bush knows this and he knows images of half completed military bases and our embassy being turned into al-Qaeda headquarters will be his eternal legacy.
He ain't going anywhere for the time being. Until someone offers him a face-saving exit, we're stuck like a shipwreck.
mencken said" If there is no difference, then why no contribution to a Republican?"
you show me an antiwar republican with a snowballs chance in hell (no ron paul doesn't count) Are you always contrarian for the sake of it or did you really feel you'd exposed some sort of gap in my thinking?
Christ T-Dawg, we all have gaps from time to time. That's what drives the discussion. And yeah I am a contrarian, or as my brother in law called me last Christmas, " a contrarian motherfucker". Ho, ho, ho.
That said I think Hagel has more than a snowball's chance for one and a year from now, Republican presidential anti-war candidates will be lined up like tryouts for American Idol and about as off-key.
Hagel isn't an announced candidate, ad if you'll recall I championed Hagel to you a few weeks back-but he is not currently running.
I have said often that a real fiscallly conscious anti-war social moderate could fill a real niche and have a decent enough chance of winning the general, although I doubt the above fantasy candidate could win either parties primary.
Not to diminish my reputation T-Dawg, but I completely agree.
since when did I become public enemy #1 on this site? I have people wanting to fight me, people embarassed to agree with me....If I didn't have such a good self-image it might hurt my feelings.
Post a Comment
<< Home