Did you REALLY expect the Reid-led Democrats to REALLY work to stop our out-of-control President? Did you really expect them to do anything more than enable the continued carnage?
Democratic and Republican opponents of President Bush’s troop-buildup plan joined forces last night behind the nonbinding resolution with the broadest bipartisan backing: a Republican measure from Sen. John W. Warner of Virginia.
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) announced the shift, hoping to unite a large majority of the Senate and thwart efforts by the White House and GOP leaders to derail any congressional resolution of disapproval of Bush’s decision to increase U.S. troop levels in Iraq by 21,500.
Although the original Democratic language was popular within the party, it had little appeal among Republicans. Warner’s proposal drew support from both sides, and it was retooled last night to maximize both Democratic and Republican votes.
What, you thought they represented YOU? What matters to Reid and most of the rest of them is those words in bold:
IT HAD LITTLE APPEAL AMONG REPUBLICANS
Oh, and for those of you who expect Reagan Republican Webb to listen to you “dirty hippie” protesters, you might want to go see what he thinks of people like you who tried to stop another needless war:
It is difficult to explain to my children that in my teens and early twenties the most frequently heard voices of my peers were trying to destroy the foundations of American society, so that it might be rebuilt according to their own narcissistic notions. In retrospect it’s hard even for some of us who went through those times to understand how highly educated people—most of them spawned from the comforts of the upper-middle class—could have seriously advanced the destructive ideas that were in the air during the late ’60s and early ’70s. Even Congress was influenced by the virus. […]
The rhetoric of the antiwar Left during these debates was filled with condemnation of America’s war-torn allies, and promises of a better life for them under the Communism that was sure to follow. Then-Congressman Christopher Dodd typified the hopeless naiveté of his peers when he intoned that “calling the Lon Nol regime an ally is to debase the word…. The greatest gift our country can give to the Cambodian people is peace, not guns. And the best way to accomplish that goal is by ending military aid now.” Tom Downey, having become a foreign policy expert in the two months since being freed from his mother’s apron strings, pooh-poohed the coming Cambodian holocaust that would kill more than one-third of the country’s population, saying, “The administration has warned that if we leave there will be a bloodbath. But to warn of a new bloodbath is no justification for extending the current bloodbath.” hat tip to Supervixen over at Mcat’s
He may be against the Iraq war, but only up to a point. He, Reid and many of the rest are all-but eager to back an assault on Iran, eager to pour more and more money into the coffers of the military industrial complex. They look at those who really want this war to end with contempt. From the WaPo piece linked above:
The Warner and Biden resolutions reach almost identical conclusions, in that they oppose the president’s deployment of 21,500 additional troops and call for existing troops to be reassigned to guard Iraq’s borders, combat terrorism and train Iraqi security forces. Both measures call for regional diplomacy to draw Iraq’s neighbors into a peace process.
But Warner revamped his original proposal, both to win over many reluctant Republicans who thought it was too tough and to reassure Democrats who complained he was not being tough enough on the administration.
He added language specifically opposing a cutoff of funding for U.S. troops in a targeted appeal to Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), who had offered an identical separate measure.
The changes came after two meetings earlier in the day, involving Warner, Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) and authors of the Biden proposal. Levin was the first of the original authors to join Warner as a co-sponsor, offering a brief endorsement on the Senate floor after Warner unveiled the new version. […]
Many Democrats had already expressed support for Warner’s effort and had intended to vote for both resolutions, in the event of a showdown on the Senate floor. “It’s less important whose resolution and more important what message we send,” said Sen. Jack Reed (R.I.), a senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee.
Sen. Ben Nelson (Neb.), a conservative Democrat who had concerns about the Biden proposal, predicted that the Warner resolution will “receive very strong bipartisan support” in its modified form.
THE DEMOCRATS WILL NOT FIGHT TO END THIS WAR UNTIL THEY REALLY BELIEVE THAT WE WILL PUNISH THEM IF THEY DON’T.
Repeat that several times, make it a Sutra, chant it to people who browbeat you that you have no choice but to support the Democrats, even though they do nothing but make the rich richer, lay down for corporate donations and beat their breasts about how “strong” they are. A political party that really wanted to oppose a criminal President would force that President’s party to go on the record, to vote FOR his continued imprecations. They would do to the Republicans what the Republicans have been doing to them for decades now … they would force votes that differentiated the two parties, that actually at least went through the motions of appearing to fight for “their” voters. They don’t do that, they WON’T do that … because at base Nader was right, there is little difference between the two parties.
This is all even more galling as word comes out that many more troops will be sent to Iraq:
A report from the Congressional Budget Office says President Bush’s plan for a troop increase in Iraq could cost up to $27 billion for a 12-month deployment.
The plan could mean sending thousands of support troops in addition to the 20,000-plus combat troops the Defense Department has set for deployment.
The numbers come in a letter to Rep. John Spratt, chairman of the House Budget Committee, in response to a request from Spratt’s office.
“CBO’s report concludes that the cost of the president’s plan to ‘surge’ troops will be higher than previously indicated, both in dollar terms and in the burdens it places on our military,” Spratt, D-South Carolina, said in a written statement.
The report notes that the Defense Department has identified only combat troops for deployment in the increase but says, “U.S. military operations also require substantial support forces, including personnel to staff headquarters, serve as military police and provide communications, contracting, engineering, intelligence, medical and other services.”
The report notes the Defense Department expects to use fewer support troops than in the past.
It estimates that under past proportions, 28,000 support troops would be added to the 20,000 combat troops. But it revises that figure to 15,000 support troops for a new deployment.
That would bring the total number of forces being added in Iraq to between 35,000 and 48,000 troops, the report said.
The Democratic Party is not the people’s party. It is not the peace party. It can’t even really be labeled as a functioning political party at all. It fundraises to keep members of the club in their jobs. It is a scam, a ponzi scheme, a con, a collection of huckster street preachers and grifters. There are a few noble exceptions to this sad truth, but truth it is. The only way to get real representation in our fading government is to refuse to fall for the con anymore. Refuse to vote for them, even if it means letting the Republicans win … they are winning anyway. Voting for the Democrats as they currently behave serves only to slap a condom on the same diseased cock raping this country. Howard Zinn spells it out:
Courage is in short supply in Washington, D.C. The realities of the Iraq War cry out for the overthrow of a government that is criminally responsible for death, mutilation, torture, humiliation, chaos. But all we hear in the nation’s capital, which is the source of those catastrophes, is a whimper from the Democratic Party, muttering and nattering about “unity” and “bipartisanship,” in a situation that calls for bold action to immediately reverse the present course.
These are the Democrats who were brought to power in November by an electorate fed up with the war, furious at the Bush Administration, and counting on the new majority in Congress to represent the voters. But if sanity is to be restored in our national policies, it can only come about by a great popular upheaval, pushing both Republicans and Democrats into compliance with the national will.[…]
Throughout the nation’s history, the failure of government to deliver justice has led to the establishment of grassroots organizations, often ad hoc, dissolving after their purpose was fulfilled. For instance, after passage of the Fugitive Slave Act, knowing that the national government could not be counted on to repeal the act, black and white anti-slavery groups organized to nullify the law by acts of civil disobedience. They held meetings, made plans, and set about rescuing escaped slaves who were in danger of being returned to their masters.
The Democrats won’t do what they half-promise they would do. They do not represent you. They will not represent you until they are made to, and you will never make them do anything by rewarding their support of the destruction of this country with your cash and your ballots.
They do nothing, and the dying goes on.
