Where are our DEM SENATORS on the DSM??? Kerry? Clinton? Biden?

[AngryWhiteLiberal]

For the past three weeks, I've heard nothing but brief, relatively quiet, lip service about how they are "concerned" about the memo...BUT NO FUCKING ACTION! Why don't they SPEAK DIRECTLY AND OFTEN TO THE PRESS about the DSM? Are they embarrassed about being duped into voting for the IWR? Or, are they just looking out for their own political hides?

WHAT THE FUCK?

JB

[stray cat]

1. It looks less like a partisan issue this way and more of an American issue

[AngryWhiteLiberal]

4. Two words...SOURCE DOCUMENTS. What else do they need???

Repukes used partisan politics to relentlessly hound Clinton and almost impeach him over lying about a blowjob, why is it improper for Dem politicians to do the same using MORE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE and lying about getting us into a war?

I just don't understand this careful, pussyfooting approach. Do you honestly believe that the Repukes would be so cautious? HELL, FUCKING NO. And, this is EXACTLY why they are kicking our ass.

JB

[Media_Lies_Daily]

17. Did you happen to notice that Clinton was impeached when...

...the GOP had control of both houses of Congress? That's a key point to understanding why the GOP was able to push impeachment as far as they did.

I'm curious what else you think the Dems should be doing, particularly in light of the fact that the GOP is currently in control of both houses of Congress. That's why the Dems are building bipartisan support for investigating the DSM. Building that support is going to take time because Republican reps and senators want to know that they are not destroying their own political careers.

[DemBones DemBones]

20. That's a really good answer. nt

[AngryWhiteLiberal]

23. Here's a suggestion...BRING IT UP AT EVERY OPPORTUNITY.

EACH AND EVERY DEM should be on message about the DSM and SHOULD BRING IT UP at every opportunity. We need to meet a critical mass of indignation before the DSM and the implications behind it get into the heads of non-political Americans. Popular support needs to be drummed up, but if Dem politicians are not talking about the issue how are we going to get that support?

Dem Senators had time today to talk on the Sunday shows about Durbin and answer questions being phrased by the mainstream media. Why would it be out of the question for these same Senators to ask the mainstream media interviewers about why we are talking about Durbin and not possible high crimes and misdemeanors by the President or the discussion of starting articles of inquiry about the DSM???????

JB

[uppityperson]

7. That's a good answer.

true

[acmavm]

2. Answer: Clinton, Kerry, and Biden. Question:

Name three so-called democrats who are into politics for their own self-serving interests, not the party or the people they were chosen to represent.

[AngryWhiteLiberal]

6. Given. But, what about the other 42 or so other Dem Senators???

Are all Dem Senators cowed, spineless, or politically clueless on the DSM??

JB

[acmavm]

10. Pretty frigging much. They're trying to figure out a way to appease

the average democrat on the street without pissing off their corporate owners. If they can figure out a way not to disturb the status quo (i.e. tax breaks for the rich) but get rid of bush**, they'll maybe take a stab at it. But first and foremost they're gonna look at what it costs them in regard to pac money, donations from the wealthy, and if it may hurt their chances of landing a very well paying and cushy job if they ever decide to get out of politics.

[AngryWhiteLiberal]

25. Sad. So, sad that it's come to this...

But, again, why was it different for the Repukes during the Clinton years?

JB

[formercia]

3. maybe it's a protocol issue

or perhaps they have to maintain their distance in case there is an impeachment and Fearless Leader has to be tried by the Senate.

[NMDemDist2]

5. here's kerry,

In a statement e-mailed to the Phoenix on Tuesday, Kerry spokesman Setti Warren said, "Senator Kerry believes every American deserves a thorough explanation of the Downing Street memo. The Administration and the Washington Republicans who control Congress insult Americans by refusing to answer even the most basic questions raised in this memo about pre-war intelligence and planning for the aftermath of war. That’s unacceptable, especially with the lives of America’s sons and daughters on the line. John Kerry will demand answers in the Senate. Stay tuned."

http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/this_just_in/documents/04747410.asp

[AngryWhiteLiberal]

8. Yeah, yeah...we've BEEN "stay(ing) tuned" for close to TWO F'N WEEKS!

The DSM will NOT remain hot in the news forever. Frankly, I think Kerry was paying lip service to throw a bone to the grassroots, but now he's slow walking any statement hoping to run out the clock. What's the use of making a statement on the DSM when it's a good three weeks out of the news cycle.

JB

[saracat]

11. This has been covered before. Kerry is gathering support in the Senate.

This has been in the media. You have posted this previously! This is a non issue. Action is being taken,

[NMDemDist2]

12. Kerry is passing around a letter to other Senators according to DKos

I think the DSM is a topic where we want the wheels to grind slowly. The largest landslide starts with a few small pebbles. I'd hate to see the DSM peak too soon. The closer to the '06 elections the better IMO

[mvd]

16. Good to hear

I admit I'll always resent Kerry for not making it an unstealable win, but he's always stood up for things while being a Senator.

[Amonester]

13. Or JK may be waiting 'til DSMs "fade out" to bring them back up... n/t

:hide:

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[sleipnir]

9. TWO WORDS: Status Quo

That's what the people you listed stand for and this memo challenges the Status Quo.

Also, Kerry, Clinton and Biden and the rest of the DLC Dems seem like they'd rather stay a minority party than actually get out there, impeach the bastard president and get our troops home immediately.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

18. Hmmm. When was the last time a party was able to impeach....

...a sitting president without controlling both houses of Congress?

Answer: Never.

Perhaps if you and a couple of others in this thread understood how the US Government actually works, you might be capable of understanding why things appear to be going slowly. Without convincing GOPers in both the House and the Senate that impeachment is the right way to go, nothing will get done at all.

[AngryWhiteLiberal]

26. Error in your argument. Pressure comes from the PEOPLE, not Senators.

GOPers will ONLY BE CONVINCED if their constituency gets pissed off about the issue, not some backroom deal between Senators. Getting the constituencies fired up about the DSM is EXACTLY MY POINT. We cannot get the vast American public worked-up to allow GOP members coverage for any impeachment vote if those same Americans have NO FUCKING CLUE ABOUT WHAT THE DSM MEANS.

We need Dem Senators, Dean, and any other prominent Dem to get the message out consistently and often in the mainstream media. Not some bullshit "letter of concern" moving around the halls of Congress.

JB

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. Where else? Watching the polls and fundraising.

Or, in Biden's case trying to dream up something to say that will get on the talkinghead shows.

They're ambitious politicians whose first duty is promoting themselves.

[AngryWhiteLiberal]

28. And, unfortunately, all have aspirations for Presidency. n/t

JB

[Pithy Cherub]

19. The political considerations are horrid from every direction.

Too many have died and have had the quality of their lives inextricably made poorer because of this ill considered and waged war.

To champion the DSM first without a public admission that the consideration to sign onto the IWR were ill founded would cause a sensation. To date, Dem Senators that voted for this are still in "let's fix it mode" rather than let's do an assessment on our decision making. Policy ownership and mea culpas of voting for this travesty is required. Instead there is much tacking to try and fix or tinker with the Iraq policy rather than utterly condemn it.

My intuition says the internal polling had shown Dems that most of the country supported the War and they wanted to be on the 'right side of history'. To come out against it would require spines of the finest steele. Hence, the DSM becomes difficult to embrace if you are still majorly on the record as supporting the policy. The elected Dems have to decide when to fully bail on the worst.pResident.ever and it is VERY angering that it is has taken this amount of time and that many lives. Political courage has not exactly been a regular staple for Dems.

We have rays of hope in Boxer, Conyers, the CBC, Durbin, and a few other brave souls.

[politicasista]

22. Another flamebait thread

:boring:

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

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

[blm]

27. If you REALLY CARED ABOUT DSM you'd KNOW already that a Senate letter of

Inquiry is being sent around By Kerry ALL LAST WEEK and he is urging other Senators to sign on to it.

This is easily found by checking any of the DSM activist sites and here on DU in action threads.

[AngryWhiteLiberal]

29. Article of Inquiry? Or, just a "letter of concern"?

Articles of Inquiry HAVE NOT BEEN DRAWN UP to my knowledge. Kerry's letter is nothing more than a "letter of concern" or issue with NO LEGAL GROUNDING TO IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS.

JB

[blm]

31. WHY ARE YOU PRETENDING you haven't heard anything about Kerry's letter?

You only post ATTACKS on Kerry and bitch he hasn't done anything.

Very constructive.

[AngryWhiteLiberal]

33. I've heard about the "letter" and support it, but is it substantive??

Again, DOES IT HAVE ANY LEGAL STANDING? Letters of concern are fine, but not sufficient for legal action or the starting of Senate hearings. I'm hopeful, but not deluded.

JB

[blm]

35. Senate letters of inquiry aren't released publicly till given to Bush...

All we know is that Kerry's urging other senators to sign on to it and Reid is connecting DSM to Bolton which will be the focus this week. Don't forget that Kerry is one of the lead voices against Bolton. He clashed with him in IranContra.

[AngryWhiteLiberal]

36. Bolton is going to get a recess appointment no matter what.

I don't disagree with you about the Bolton/DSM confluence, but Shrub is just going to recess appoint Bolton anyway which will remove any possible synergy in information between the DSM and Bolton's "fixing of the intelligence."

JB

[NMDemDist2]

39. IIRC any impeachment inquiries must go through Sensenbrenner's

Judicial Cmte in the House. The Senators don't do a thing to start Impeachment proceedings.

While you demand the impossible from our Democratic Senators you haven't answered what you expect them to do except bring it up at every opportunity. Would you have them let Bolton go straight through with no challenge while they pound the DSM?

Rep Conyers and his colleagues are doing the work needed in the House where any Impeachment must begin. Criticizing the Senate for doing their jobs is counter productive IMO.

constructive criticism of our party leaders is welcome always. Do you have any to offer?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

34. A letter!! Wow!! They're shakin' now! What a revolutionary act!!

Doesn't have quite the same ring as "Articles of Impeachment".

[blm]

38. Considering that impeachment comes from the HOUSE only, why would YOU

expect the Senate to draw up articles of impeachment? Surely you must be aware of procedural protocol, unless of course, you can post where the constitution was amended and the Senate given the task.


BTW.... impeachments are drawn up AFTER a house investigation, if you are truly seeking justice...we are NOT Republican thugs - we care about justice and the constitution.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

40. Oh, sorry. Of course, senators are forbidden to speak. Aren't they?

They can't say, "The House should draw up articles of impeachment." Or, "The house should immediately initiate an investigation for the purpose of impeachment." Or, can they?

Kerry, Biden, Clinton, all voted for the war. All support the occupation. Just like Bush. My trust in them to do anything that risks their political ambitions by exposing their hypocrisy is nil.

[blm]

41. Your statement is false. Kerry specifically said we cannot be occupiers

or even perceived as occupiers in Iraq. Did you LISTEN during the debates? You either didn't hear him or you didn't listen.

Kerry didn't vote FOR war - he voted for a resolution that had guidelines to PREVENT war. Bonifaz' argument for impeachment is that Bush didn't follow the guidelines in the IWR honestly and submitted a false statement to congress when he made the determination to go to war.

Get it? All of you who bitched about the IWR and claimed it gave unconditional support for war or a blank check were repeating BushInc media's talking points to blame the Dems and keep them divided instead of blaming BUSH for not implementing the IWR honestly in order to PREVENT WAR.

You were all punked and Bonifaz' testimony on Thursday PROVED IT. Get behind Bonifaz' talking points and stop clinging to your own conclusions, especially when they benefit Bush.


btw....here's what Kerry said in the debate on Sept 30:

KERRY: And I think a critical component of success in Iraq is being able to convince the Iraqis and the Arab world that the United States doesn't have long-term designs on it.

As I understand it, we're building some 14 military bases there now, and some people say they've got a rather permanent concept to them.

When you guard the oil ministry, but you don't guard the nuclear facilities, the message to a lot of people is maybe, "Wow, maybe they're interested in our oil."

Now, the problem is that they didn't think these things through properly. And these are the things you have to think through.

What I want to do is change the dynamics on the ground. And you have to do that by beginning to not back off of the Fallujahs and other places, and send the wrong message to the terrorists. You have to close the borders.

You've got to show you're serious in that regard. But you've also got to show that you are prepared to bring the rest of the world in and share the stakes.

I will make a flat statement: The United States of America has no long-term designs on staying in Iraq.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

42. Batshit, bullshit, and spin.

"Bush didn't follow the guidelines in the IWR honestly and submitted a false staement to congress when he made the determination to go to war."

The whole bloody world knew that Bush was going to war no matter what. Didn't you notice the millions of people protesting the upcoming invasion who saw through the obvious BS of the IWR? Apparantly, Kerry didn't. Not to mention the 23 senators who voted against it. Either he was willfully ignorant, incredibly naive, or playing politics with people's lives. The same goes for Biden, Lieberman, Edwards, Gephardt, Clinton, and the rest of the opportunists who voted for the war.

"KERRY: And I think a critical component of success in Iraq is being able to convince the Iraqis and the Arab world that the United States doesn't have long-term designs on it."

"Success"? What in the hell do you think he was talking about? Success at what? Illegally invading and occupying another country and then "convincing them" that we don't have "long term designs"? Kind of like a burgler saying, "Smile. We're going steal everything you have but we're not moving in."

And, I'm sure he cleverly planned for Bush's impeachment when he voted for the war.

So, now that the American people (voters) are turning against the slaughter that he helped facilitate, he's "circulating a letter". I've seen piles of dogshit that didn't reek as much as that blatant attempt to cover his sorry ass.

[blm]

44. Why don't YOU post a thread charging Bonifaz' testimony Thurs. was batshit

bullshit and spin, because like it or not, he's claiming Bush should be impeached under the false statement act when he sent the letter to congress explaining that he made the determination war was necessary, AS PER IWR.

Will you attack Bonifaz incessantly just to cling to YOUR belief that YOU comprehended the IWR correctly, the IWR was a blank check, and Bonifaz is full of batshit?

The rest of your post was just ridiculous spin because you need to believe that Bush and Kerry are no different.

[Q]

30. Pay no attention...

...to the Apologists behind the curtain.

The truth is difficult to accept for those Democrats searching for excuses for the inaction of the 'leadership'.

This is not about impeachment. It's about investigations, hearings and making the Bushies accountable for LYING THIS NATION INTO AN ILLEGAL WAR. Whether it leads to impeachment is besides the point.

The American people deserve to know the truth. But the Democratic leadership is too cowardly to buck the status quo or piss off their corporate, war profiteering sponsors.

We've been hearing these same excuses for years. Meanwhile...George II has gotten away with some of the most serious and outrageous crimes ever committed against the Constitution and Democracy.

These Dem leaders have taken an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. They're falling down on the job.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

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

[mopaul]

37. A W O L

[burythehatchet]

43. The House prosecutes, the Senate adjudicates.

The judge should appear to be more calm, delibertaive, and reasonable.