THE WAR PARTY

[babylonsister]

(X-post from Eds)

THE WAR PARTY

Democrats Lie to Prolong Iraq; Reporters Go Along
Ted Rall

NEW YORK--Americans don't know how their government works. Democrats, in control of Congress, are taking advantage of our ignorance to continue the Iraq War. Which brings up two questions: Why won't the "antiwar" Democrats act to stop the carnage? And why aren't reporters calling them on it?

"Democrats," writes Charles Babington in an Associated Press item that appeared in hundreds of newspapers, "control both chambers but lack the numbers to override President Bush's vetoes of bids to mandate troop withdrawals from Iraq." It's a half-truth at best: the Democrats' narrow majority is less than the two-thirds majority they'd need to override a presidential veto. Here's the full truth: it doesn't matter.

In June Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting's Extra! Magazine wrote: "If the Democrat-controlled Congress wanted to force the Bush administration to accept a bill with a withdrawal timeline, it didn't have to pass the bill over Bush's veto--it just had to make clear that no Iraq War spending bill without a timeline would be forthcoming."

Democratic leaders know that. And here's how I know they know: days after taking control of Congress, on January 30, they invited five constitutional law experts to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee to ask them how they could end the war. Four out of five of the experts swore that the Democrats could stop the Iraq War just...like...that.

"Today we've heard convincing testimony and analysis that Congress has the power to stop the war if it wants to," said Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI). Yet eight months later, there's still no end in sight.

more...

http://www.uexpress.com/tedrall/

[bluerum]

1. Some should tally up the all the 9/11's Osama bin Laden's, terrosist's,

and other scare'em language that the shrubolinni uses tonite.

I won't watch or listen. I just ate supper.

[wuushew]

13. Here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1798714

[Dark]

2. How many times does it have to be said: Defunding the war would be political suicide. n/t

[babylonsister]

3. Doing nothing seems cowardly and spineless. What's better?

Congress' ratings are in the toilet precisely because nothing regarding Iraq is getting done.
The Dems are going to OWN this war with all its problems. I don't understand why that seems to be a viable 'solution'.

[spanone]

4. it's the ONLY way to get the 'asshole' to compromise.

[babylonsister]

10. What's the only way? I'm not understanding. nt

[Dark]

6. Very simply we have to wait until we get the votes either by a) Repubs siding with us

or b) the next election.

Sadly, Americans wouldn't accept c) defund the war, and the troops in the process.

[babylonsister]

11. There's got to be a way to defund the war except for funds to get them

the hell out of there. All the money designated for MRAPs could be put to a better cause.

[Fovea]

5. If you thought our imperial ambition for Iraq/Iran is

going to lock us into a century long resource war, wait till you see what we do to Venezuela and Mexico.
The middle east is about brokering oil to Asia. But our crude will come from Meso America. Our economic failure in Iraq can be offset with control of the remaining cantarell and the heavy reserves from Citgo.

This is the secret of the new amerikan century. It will be a bloody one, far worse than the 20th. It will bring disaster on humanity such as not seen before in recorded human history. The hydrogen economy will just have to wait. There is the mother of all resource wars to fight. In the name of freedom, of course.

But honestly, I predict we are going to get our asses shot off if we stay much longer. We cannot maintain control of the entire middle east without a much larger military presence than we can muster with volunteers. What is the other solution? Really? If not a draft, then what? And with our economy blown out of the water, and China finally flipping the switch on our debt, how else do you maintain a world oil empire in the face of a holy war against fascism? Also, who gets what written off when we start printing 'new dollars'?

[babylonsister]

14. How cheery.

By hook or by crook, there has got to be a way to waylay this train wreck.

[NanceGreggs]

7. As long as we're asking questions, Mr. Rall ...

"Why won't the 'antiwar' Democrats act to stop the carnage? And why aren't reporters calling them on it?"

Why did the Republican Party not stop the carnage when they held the majority - especially after it was widely-known that this war was based on lies from the get-go?

Why did the 'fiscally responsible' Republicans look the other way while no-bid contracts lined the pockets of BushCo's buddies, while 'money gone missing' didn't raise an eyebrow, while troops were sent into combat without the necessary equipment?

Why did the War on Terror-supporting GOP drag its feet on implementing the 9-11 Commission's recommendations for making the country safer - or, for that matter, even implementing a 9-11 investigation in the first place?

Of all the f*cking lame-ass talking points I've had to listen to since this crapola began, the one that pisses me off the MOST is this f*cking bullshit about why the Democrats aren't doing this, and doing that.

BUSH started this war, the GOP supported it - nay, encouraged it - and now the ball is thrown into the Democrat's court as though THEY are responsible.

F*CK THIS SHIT! I have HAD IT! ANOTHER example of shifting the blame from the party of 'personal responsibility'.

YOU STARTED IT, YOU BROKE IT, YOU BOUGHT IT - and what the Dems do or don't do in the aftermath DOESN'T CHANGE THOSE FACTS.

As for "why the reporters aren't calling them on it", where the f*ck were the so-called reporters when the Idiot-in-Charge lied us into this debacle in the first place?

Mr. Rall: SHUT THE F*CK UP!!!!!




... end of rant - but NOT the end of being royally pissed-off.

[babylonsister]

9. Yes, rethugs are responsible, as is the media,

but that shouldn't allow the Dems to take a pass imo, which is what they appear to be doing. I'd be happy if they did ANYTHING besides go along to get along until 08.

Edit to add: I have no clue who Ted Rall is. Care to enlighten me?

[NanceGreggs]

12. I have no idea who Ted Rall is either ...

... I was just responding to his BS.

I hear what you're saying about the "Dems taking a pass" - but here's my problem with all of this:

Let me draw an analogy (hey, my friends don't call me the Queen of Analogies for nuthin').

Let's say a group of people fire-bomb a building full of people. Many die, many more are wounded, the property damage is enormous.

Now let's say the local Arson Squad comes in to investigate and oversee the clean-up. Let's say their investigation and clean-up of the debris leaves a lot to be desired. THAT is a separate issue from the initial crime. The investigators, whether they are negligent in their duties or not, were NEVER part of the initial arson. They can be held responsible for what they do or do not do in the aftermath - but to lump them in as part of the group that perpetrated the crime in the first place serves no other purpose than to shift blame, to shift responsibility, thereby attempting to LESSEN the culpability of those truly responsible.

I have no problem with people pointing their fingers at the Dems in terms of what can or cannot be done NOW, after-the-fact of the greatest clusterfuck in US history.

What I DO have a problem with is equating ANY action by the Democrats with the actions of those who initiated, encouraged, funded and supported this war IN THE FIRST PLACE.

And that's what is happening, IMHO. Too many are buying into the idea that if BushCo and the GOP broke it, the Democrats are EQUALLY RESPONSIBLE for the breakage if they don't put the broken pottery back together again.

If I promise to repair the damage done by others and DON'T follow through, I deserve to be blamed for not fulfilling my promise. But under no circumstances am I to be blamed for doing the damage in the first place.

It is a difference with a very GLARING distinction - and I wish people would stop allowing themselves to be talked into the concept that there is NO difference and NO distinction between the two.

[babylonsister]

16. I want them to do something now, and I don't really care who gets

their attention, who blames who, etc. That can be sorted out later, but The Dems needed to do something. * helped us tonight imo, and I thought Reed, and the follow-up I watched on MSNBC, was hopeful. People are fed up I pray.

[NanceGreggs]

17. I hear you ...

... but in this situation, I DO care who blames who.

It started with BUSH invading Iraq, based on BUSH'S cherry-picked intel mixed with BUSH lies, and quickly deteriorated into a BUSH-instigated quagmire.

What the GOP are now attempting to sell is "Well, you know, Bush started this and we encouraged it, but the Democrats aren't doing much to change it, so WE'RE ALL TO BLAME HERE, LET'S JUST CALL IT A DRAW AND MOVE ON."

NO! As I've said, blame the Dems for whatever part they have played, or will play, in not UNDOING THE DAMAGE.

But I WILL NOT buy into this BS that the BLAME for this debacle should be spread around among all parties, until it's spread so thin, Bush and his cohorts are portrayed as just a handful of a million people who have to share the responsibility for the carnage they initiated.

THEY BROKE IT, THEY BOUGHT IT. And they were duly warned.

In that sense, I DO CARE who blames who - because if the blame isn't laid at the feet of those truly responsible, they live (politically) to instigate another battle, secure in the knowledge that the blame can (and will) be easily passed on to others.

[babylonsister]

18. My friend, I also care. But getting

riled up about this isn't going to accomplish anything. We need to place the blame 'right now' where it is due. Name names, throw cold, hard facts in people's faces, and hope they hear. Be relentless. I absolutely agree with you that we didn't start this fire, but the Dems have not indicated to my satisfaction that they want to end it. Until they do, I will wonder, and post stuff that also wonders.

[NanceGreggs]

19. I don't think we're basically disagreeing ...

My only point is that too many are being sucked into the concept of 'well, since the Dems aren't doing anything to stop this war, they're kinda sorta equally to blame for it."

I swore - I think MOST OF US SWORE - years ago that we WOULD NOT FORGET who started this debacle. And now I see too many forgetting - by virtue of allowing themselves to think that there's plenty of blame to go around, so let's not lay at ALL at the feet of those responsible.

The Dems didn't start the fire. If they're slow to put it out, they certainly bear responsibility for their ineptitude. That goes without saying.

But I'm hearing too many people being lulled into lumping two TOTALLY DIFFERENT concepts together, i.e. the arsonist is guilty, but NO MORE guilty than the firefighter who, through negligence or failure of commitment to duty, failed to extinguish the blaze before further damage was done.

There is, unfortunately, plenty of blame to go around on this issue - I just don't want those responsible for starting the fire - in which people are dying - to get off with a slap-on-the-wrist sentence because some RW lawyer pointed his finger at others in the courtroom and said to the jury, "Aren't there others who are to blame, too?"

[Ilsa]

15. Thank you thank you thank you. nt

[OHdem10]

8. No that Bush is offering a Permanent Engagement in Iraq.

just like Korea, Permanent Compact with Iraq, do
the Dems still have skin in the game????