Democrats, take a stand: Helen Thomas

[norml]

Democrats, take a stand

August 27, 2005

WASHINGTON — It's time for the Democratic Party to take a courageous stand and call for the withdrawal of troops from the senseless war in Iraq.

Its human cost and the billion-dollar a week tab in Iraq should give all Americans pause.

Would the Republicans have hesitated to challenge the Democrats if the shoe was on the other foot? Did the opposition party give former President Bill Clinton any slack while he was in office?

What is the logic of Sens. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., Joseph Biden, D-Del. and other so-called moderate Democrats still backing the unprovoked war in Iraq when they know they were sold a bill of goods?

Furthermore, they are urging that more troops be sent to Iraq. And they are doing so at a time when the generals in Iraq are giving mixed signals. Some are talking about a draw down of troops in a year, others in four years.

Are the Democratic leaders afraid to admit they were wrong? Does the credibility of the administration — and therefore the country— mean anything to them?


snip


http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050827/NEWS/508270308/1039

[Nikki Stone 1]

1. Great article once again by one of the greats

:kick:

[burrowowl]

2. May GOD/DOG protect Helen's back!

She is a GUTSY TRUTH TELLING LADY!

VIVA HELEN!

And when you e-mail, she replies!

I LOVE HELEN!

[win_in_06]

3. She's seen it all and is not afraid

[Larkspur]

4. This voter will not vote for any pro-war Dem

I'll vote Green or Socialist in 2008 if Hillary, Biden, Bayh ,etc are on the ticket. This group of Dems needs to be sent to the war crimes tribunal along with Bush and Cheney.

[ladjf]

6. You are 100% correct.

[pberq]

14. I second this post - no more votes for pro-war Dems! - nt

[peaches2003]

19. Then elect another Repub

Vote Green or Socialist and you will be assuring another Repub in the White House. The Republicans MUST be turned out and punished. Am I happy with the moderate Dems? NO! But I don't care who we nominate as long as he/she can WIN!

[renaissanceguy]

22. What's the point

if the "moderate" will just push more repug policies?

The end result is the same thing.

As Americans, we have every RIGHT to vote our conscience. We shouldn't be pressured to vote for "rock star" politicians just because they "can win." By doing so, we just perpetuate the cycle of milquetoast politicians with center-right policies.

[Raksha]

29. If ENOUGH of us refuse to compromise, we won't lose anything.

I'm another lifelong Dem who has been talked into selling out by the neocon wing of the Democratic Party for the last time. At least when it comes to the Iraq war, we are now the MAJORITY! None of those DLC whores should get the Democratic nomination, and if we all stick together, none of them will. After all, we progressives can win without them, but they can't win without us and they know it. They just want to keep us from knowing it as long as they can.

P.S. I see you're basically agreeing with me. I was trying to reply to post #19 and hit the wrong button. Sorry about the confusion.

[Gronk Groks]

37. So how did Howard Dean lose the primary last time ???

Damn it I was a Deaniac in Nevada and never got a chance to push for the anti-war candidate. We got John Kerry handed to us!

We have GOT to find and rally around a good anti-war/non-DLC candidate early on!!! Howard, if you are listening you need to find this guy, PRONTO!!!

[peaches2003]

33. 3rd party vote

The end result is NOT the same thing. Because by voting 3rd party you are assuring a Republican victory,one which will also bring along a Congressional majority in all liklihood. That is worst case scenario to have both branches of govt Rep as we have now. Voting for the Dem, though not your choice in all policies, will bring a more progrssive govt than any Rep exec and Congress ecer would be.
Of course you have a RIGHT to vote your conscience, but you are throwing your vote away and assuring a worse result than if you had voted Dem.

[renaissanceguy]

35. So would you say that

we would have a progressive government under, say, Zell Miller?

[TankLV]

23. Uhh - sure!

You're going to be might disappointed then honey!

Just keep posting this crap. It'll REALLY convince us the 1000th time you say it - NOT!

Don't want us to vote otherwise or sit this one out? Then make sure we have someone we can vote FOR for a change.

Besides, if we say we'll vote for any piece of warmed-over wimpy crap they put up, how will that get us anywhere CLOSE to what we truly want?

No sale friend.

[Iowa]

43. I disagree. Here's why...

It all comes down to what kind of a future you want in the long run.

Currently we have a government and a media owned by corporate interests. We have a noose around our necks, and the noose is tightening - ever so slowly. And our destiny is grim:

-- massive concentration of wealth and power into the hands of a few
-- grinding poverty for the masses
-- people desperate to work in low wage jobs
-- industrial deaths and injuries that are common-place and accepted as a risk one takes for a paycheck
-- outlawed labor unions
-- courts that exist almost exclusively for the use of the ruling class against the masses- no consumer protections, no product/medical liability
-- a social safety net in shreds - no SS, no unemployment insurance, health care only for those who can pay, no disability protection, beggars in the streets
-- no civil rights
-- torture as a standard interrogation procedure
-- a greatly expanded death penalty
-- perpetual war with mandatory enlistment (children of the wealthy will have the option of buying their way out)
-- education priced out of the reach of most
-- every man, woman, and child for himself/herself
-- military and police turned on the people they exist to protect

You're correct in the sense that any Dem is better than most any Republican because they tend to slow down our gradual slide into totalitarianism. But therein lies the problem - they only slow the rate of our descent. The neocons set the agenda, and the Dems react to it, and more of the same will assure our ultimate demise as a people with a decent standard of living and a decent way of life. While slowing the descent helps us in the short run, it virtually assures a miserable fate in the long run.

The ONLY way that we will come out of this with anything resembling the country we used to have is to build a genuine opposition party composed of powerful, well-spoken, people with strong personalities (people like George Galloway and John Conyers) who are truly committed to turning this mess around. We need an anti-corporate party comprised of people who understand that the interests of the people are diametrically opposed to the interests of corporations. It's us against them. And the only way we will EVER have that is to remove the Vichy Dems from office so that genuine, heartfelt, patriotic, representatives will emerge to drive the corporatists back under the slimy rock from which they came. That will take guts, passion, intensity, and a determination the likes of which we haven't seen in a long time. And yes, it will require suffering and time, because (initially) Republicans will beat Vichy Dems. But the longer we delay facing reality, the longer it will take and the harder it will be to win. If we wait until very few are alive who remember what civil rights were like, what a middle class life was like, well, it will be too late then.

What you're proposing may have been a good approach during the Reagan years - but it's too late for that now. We have slid too far. The noose is tightening. Slowing the rate of our demise isn't an answer, and that is all many of these weak Dems have to offer us. They must go so that a genuine opposition can emerge.

[TankLV]

21. I don't know who I will vote for, but is sure as hell isn't one of the pro

war crowd.

I will stay away from the polls that time around if it comes to that.

Give me something to vote FOR for a change.

I did ALL the compromising tha LAST time around - in spite of my better judgement. Not any more

[mopinko]

28. PRIMARY CHALLENGES!! PRIMARY CHALLENGES!!

every member of the dlc ought to find themselves facing a real grassroots dem in their primary. every one that weathers it should get our most wholehearted possible support in the general. to take back our country, we must first take back our party from the corporate whores.

[norml]

34. I will vote for any Democrat, when they're up against any Republican

I will always let them know how I feel.

I might even oppose them in the Primary.

But I will never vote against the Democratic Party Candidate, unless they are a real right wing loon, and their opponent is not.

I will do whatever it takes to defeat the movement that calls itself conservative.

I'm pragmatic that way.

Fortunately not everyone has to think alike, at least not in our party.

Yeah I think we should just get out of Iraq.

I've been saying that for a long time.

I'll continue to work on changing public opinion, and hope that our leaders will follow.

[Skittles]

38. It's why I voted for Kucinich in the Dem primary

I'm sickened by anyone who voted for IWR

[joanski0]

5. Last sentence of article:

"But they might find that if they don't get some backbone and take a stand soon, the voters might not be that forgiving."

And I will be one of those voters who will not be that forgiving. Go, Helen.

[rateyes]

8. I'm with you...

I never liked "lite" anything. They know the facts--take a stand!

[mod mom]

12. I agree. I beginning to think it's time for a PROGRESSIVE party. I for

one consider myself a progressive first and Dem second. I will notr vote for DLC types .

[Domitan]

7. Exactly

it's quickly getting to the point that it's no longer politically prudent to "have your feet on both sides" regarding the Iraqi War. That's why people like Feingold, Conyers, and Hagel are receiving more respect and admiration for their stances, regardless of their politics.

[npincus]

9. I love her.. she is my nominee for first human clone

[Cha]

45. So she can live

forever!

[Q]

10. Excerpt:

"...Both Clinton and Biden are presumed presidential contenders in 2008. That leaves Democratic voters —many of whom are anti-war— with no choice if either wins the party nomination.

Can Biden and Clinton give young men and women any valid reason why they should lay down their lives in a war that we didn't have to fight in the first place? The fallback position apparently runs like this: "We're there and we have to stay there now. We can't cut and run."

I heard the same refrain during the dying days of the Vietnam War. And so did the moderate Democrats. Whether viewed as a "mistake" or a "noble cause," the fact is that Vietnam survived and thrived after we departed. It is a participant in the global economy and fairly friendly to us.

I always thought the debacle in Vietnam and its aftermath had taught us a lesson. But apparently not.

Not all Democrats are so clueless. In an opinion article on Wednesday in The Washington Post, former Sen. Gary Hart, D-Col., wrote that "history will deal with George W. Bush and the neoconservatives who misled a mighty nation into a flawed war that is draining the finest military in the world ... diverting Guard and reserve forces that should be on the front line of homeland defense, shredding international alliances that prevailed in two world wars and the Cold War ... and weakening America's national security."

But he is also tough on his own party and asks: "What will history say about an opposition party that stands silent while all this goes on?"

[pberq]

15. "I heard the same refrain during the dying days of the Vietnam War."

And the dying days of the Vietnam War lasted about four years, depending on how you count it.

So imagine it's 2009, and we're still having discussions about getting troops out of Iraq!

[Festivito]

11. Past time, BUT CONs still control the media Helen!

So, what WILL be heard no matter the stance we take?

And, the question is not whether we should exit Iraq, it is HOW. With world support while our heads hang in shame, or with our heads held high while our buttocks burn with napalm -- like a cornered-at-last bully saying: "It don't hurt."

[Dr Fate]

18. They could say it in the well of the Senate, or on TV interview shows.

They could say whatever they wanted to. They could give interviews to local news papers, send out mass e-mails, or go on those interview & yelling head shows. They could go on Air America, The Daily Show, etc. They could state their position at every single appearance, interview, etc.

[Festivito]

20. And then try to be re-elected as a conspiritoria nut case.

Tee-hee-hee-hee. Did you hear what Rep. Demorunnin said, and he wants to run again? Oh my, snicker snicker.

Already, Conyers is WHACKO to Flush Rimbowl. Jerried Flawedhell managed to hide Flush's latest crack of see-through lying: "I never said there was no diference between ..."

IOW, people will continue to flush their brains.

If Dems speak out at every instance, great. We need a think-tank coordinator, CURT response team, and disemination conduits that are AT LEAST as organized as theirs -- if not as big as theirs.

Otherwise we just spit into the wind and look like we're wet.

[Dr Fate]

42. Fear of being compared to Mike Moore & being censored are 2 diff. things.

Your response more closely identifies the real problem- our responses are not coordinated- and when they are the GOP somehow "makes" us apologize for it.

But we have more media outlets & access than many DUers want to admit.

[BamaBecky]

13. Why is it.....that we have to TELL the Dems in Washington

what they should be doing...........why can't they get a fucking clue , have an original thought on their own??????????

I'm just about sick of them!

Bama

:argh:

[Cha]

46. I think so, too..it's like

they've been kidnapped and Stepforded. Or, drank some of al from and bruce reed's Koolaid.

[calimary]

16. God YES! God Bless Helen Thomas!!!

And all Democrats who did vote for the IWR and all the rest of it have a VERY easy out:

"Because I TRUSTED my president, and he LIED to me."

That's ALL they have to say. Literally.

[TankLV]

24. That's too easy and makes too much sense.

The only reason for NOT doing it is these yahoos and sellouts actually believe what they spew!

That is even more frightening.

At least if we thought they were all "stratergizing" and sticking their fingers in the air to see which way the wind is blowing, it would be so bad.

But if they actually believe in their heart of hearts the crap they spew - we are a lot more in trouble that we thought.

[Raksha]

32. Either they believe it or (more likely) they stood to profit from it.

Re >>The only reason for NOT doing it is these yahoos and sellouts actually believe what they spew!<<

Like my own profiteering DINO senator, Dianne Swinestein. You don't have to look very far to see her reason for voting for the IWR and continuing to support the war.

[Cha]

47. Yip, I know what you mean

about "swinestein"(nice fitting moniker). The others aren't as obvious as dianne's spouse but if we investigated we could find out how the rest profit from sending more troops to their deaths, lost limbs, and craziness.

[Dr Fate]

17. Some of them care more about what Sean Hannity says about them.

If they follow Helen's advice, Sean Hannity would compare them to Micheal Moore.

[OzarkDem]

25. Thank you, Helen!

Thank you for helping us remind them of the difference between right and wrong. We have to remind them that if they stand up for what they know is inherently right, they won't ever have to worry about admitting they're wrong.

You are my hero, Helen!

[Usrename]

26. Fire Rummy, hire Wesley

We need to have a reality check here. Is Iraq really unwinnable or is it just that Rummy has't tried yet?

1. Car bombing of the UN headquarters in Baghdad. Left totally undefended. Bush speaks two days later and pretty much declares a victory because now the world will see what an evil enemy we face.

I'm just guessing here, but I think Wesley would have recognized UN headquarters as a high priority target for the enemy.

2. About two weeks later, same thing with the International Red Cross also left completely undefended. Bush response, I don't remember being able to discern any difference. The guy lacks range in his speeches.

I'm pretty sure ol Wes would have caught this one, even if he missed the first one. This is not, can't be, I refuse to be persuaded that this is incompetance. Does anyone really think that this is the best military strategy that our Armed Forces can come up with? Of course not. We have Generals that do this stuff really well, they are the best in the world, far better trained than me (never in the military) and I can see how stupid this entire fiasco has been handled.

It must be intentional.

They got nothing without this war.

Its tearing the country and (more importantly when it comes to winning elections) our party apart. We must not let them do this.

I am trying to build a concensus. Ignore everthing else in this post and please, please answer just this:

Does anyone believe Rummy is doing a wonderful job and we should "stay the course"?

Or, should our immediate party position on the war be to replace him?

[Gronk Groks]

39. Have to impeach Bush to fire Rummy...

...you are right, however Bush is not smart enough to fire Rummy OR Rummy has the goods on Bush (National Guard Records perhaps???).

Gotta get Bush first, there is just no other way...

[Usrename]

41. Doesn't matter if it "works" or not. Not in the sense you mean.

I'm reading a lot of stuff that says we dems need a cohesive strategy. Esp on the war. Were all over the place. I am just saying why not have a disciplined effort to fire the bastard. Congress must approve his replacement. Let's see em try to nuke the Senate if we hold things up for a Wes Clark nomination.

I know it might not possible to get him fired, but by God he deserves it. The folks here at DU might enjoy discussing his failures, after failures..

But if we could at least be together (pro-war, no-war, bring em home now) on this one tiny single aspect of the war, at least we would be doing something more than nothing. Kids are dying over there. I wan't to do somthing besides cheer Cindy on. Let me do this. Help me do this.

[faithnotgreed]

27. love for helen

[Imagevision]

30. Helen we miss seeing you at the press meetings darlin!!

http://downingstreetmemo.com/

[NVMojo]

31. Go, Helen!

KICK!

[CityDem]

36. Go Helen!

When mainstream media columnists starting demanding a withdrawl from Iraq, we are making significant progress. I am beginning to have a little hope for this country thanks to the likes of Cindy Sheehan and Helen Thomas.

[Independent_Liberal]

40. Kick!

[Cha]

44. Helen agrees with

a lot of us on DU! Thank you for putting it in Black and White so they can see how I feel, Helen Thomas!

"Can Biden and Clinton give young men and women any valid reason why they should lay down their lives in a war that we didn't have to fight in the first place? The fallback position apparently runs like this: "We're there and we have to stay there now. We can't cut and run."

I heard the same refrain during the dying days of the Vietnam War. And so did the moderate Democrats. Whether viewed as a "mistake" or a "noble cause," the fact is that Vietnam survived and thrived after we departed. It is a participant in the global economy and fairly friendly to us.

I always thought the debacle in Vietnam and its aftermath had taught us a lesson. But apparently not.

Not all Democrats are so clueless. In an opinion article on Wednesday in The Washington Post, former Sen. Gary Hart, D-Col., wrote that "history will deal with George W. Bush and the neoconservatives who misled a mighty nation into a flawed war that is draining the finest military in the world ... diverting Guard and reserve forces that should be on the front line of homeland defense, shredding international alliances that prevailed in two world wars and the Cold War ... and weakening America's national security."

But he is also tough on his own party and asks: "What will history say about an opposition party that stands silent while all this goes on?"

I think history will say that they were cowards to the max degree.