Unfortunately, John, this is not a new strategy. This is their standard method of operation. They've played the same losing hand ever since 9/11 cowed them into utter sycophants. If there is one thing we can count on in the Democratic Party, it is their cowardice in the face of political controversy.
I wonder if any of the candidates will withdraw from Iraq. McCain-Clinton won't. Obama may draw down forces, but withdraw, no. He is shrewd enough to realize a real withdrawal would limit him to a one term presidency. He might withdraw after the 2012 election, then he would no longer be facing re-election as the president who lost Iraq.
My best hope for Obama is that he will not widen the theater of operations to Iran. NeoCons McCain-Clinton would do so within the first few months of the presidency. Its beginning would look different than this war. It would not look like the build-up for Iraq, most likely it would be started by a false flag action which would be hailed as a "sneak attack worst than Pearl Harbor". This scenario may also happen before Bush leaves office.
The sad part is there is no opposition party in the United States. There are simply two parties, one overtly supports the war policies, the other covertly supports the same policies. They both owe their allegiance to Wall Street, not the voters. Until there is a viable third party, there will be no real change.
The Gift Of 20/20 Hindsight
Democrats in Congress have a new plan to win back the White House. The strategy is to avoid any war-funding showdown with President Bush that would take place anytime near election day. How will they do this? A plan is currently in the works to combine the remainder of the FY 08' supplemental ($102 billion dollars for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) with an additional $70 billion dollars in war funding that would fully fund the war into the next Administration. The idea is to appropriate all war funding as soon as possible in the hopes that voters will forget this betrayal by November.
It seems like a very backward strategy being that both Senators Clinton and Obama, to their credit, are both campaigning on a platform of withdrawing our troops from Iraq within their first 60 days of taking office.
I have no doubt that either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama will be a far better President than John McCain. My concern is that this plan from the Democrats to write a final blank check for the Bush presidency to continue the war/occupation of Iraq will cause an adverse effect and backfire in our faces.
How can the Democratic presidential nominee run on ending the war when his or her own party authorized approximately $170 billion dollars in unconditional war funding? My uneducated guess is that both Democratic candidates will obviously have to deviate from their party's plan in order to pack enough heat to credibly confront John McCain in the general election.
Another important aspect to take into consideration is that John McCain, despite Bush's "below freezing" approval ratings, is neck and neck with Hillary and Obama in nationwide polls. This Democratic plan automatically assumes that McCain can't win the election. Believe me, McCain can win. And just for the record, Pat Buchanan said McCain would make "Cheney look like Ghandi." (Just a little something to get you brainstorming).
Furthermore, when the 527 hack ads begin to replay McCain 1000x over saying we could be in Iraq for maybe 100 years, McCain will have plenty of ammunition to use against his Democratic rival -- as will every Republican candidate running for Congress. After all, if the war is so terrible, and the Democrats are running to stop it, why would they vote to fully fund it into 2009? Just something for the "party faithful" to contemplate.
Beating the dead horse ...
Remember all the great stuff we heard back in 2006? "We will change course in Iraq and hold the Bush Administration accountable." All generic terms, but still very promising. Giving what we have seen and what we know now, is it wrong to feel disappointed, frustrated, and untrustworthy of the Democrats this time around?
I always operated by the rule that "actions speak louder than words." Caving in to President Bush and his Republican allies time and time again, while simultaneously threatening accountability isn't sitting well among the Democratic base.
To be clear ...
This is not an attack on all Democrats. Guilt by association is a terrible policy in my opinion. We have many great leaders in the Democratic Congress who have never stopped fighting to end the war in Iraq despite the possible consequences for drifting out of the party mainstream. The Out of Iraq and Progressive Caucuses are great examples. Give credit where credit is due.
Moving forward ....
While the people we elected to change course in Iraq in 06' begin their 08' campaigns on the same theme, more of our troops and innocent Iraqi people are being killed on a daily basis. Primarily because these very same elected officials failed to act out of fear of political ramifications. In addition , they now plan to appropriate almost $200 billion dollars more to continue this deadly cycle -- the cherry on top, just to seal the deal. How dumb do they think we are?
I'm not calling for "cutting off funding." Instead, I'm regurgitating the campaign slogans of the Democratic party in 2006. "Bring our troops home" "End the occupation" & "Hold the Bush administration accountable." Too bad it was "all talk & no action" on their part. This personifies everything that is wrong with government today.
The gift of 20/20 hindsight affords us the ability not to be fooled again. We don't have to be pundits or armchair quarterbacks. We can look back clearly at what we were promised, what was actually delivered, and decide if we want to take another risk by electing the same people who broke their commitment to us.
We know what we'll get if the Republicans regain the White House and both Houses of Congress -- Bush/Cheney 08.' What we don't know is what we'll get if the Democrats prevail. Should we all flip a coin?
For clarity ...
I'm not saying to vote for John McCain, not in a million years. Nor am I saying to deviate from the Democratic party if you are a member. However, until Democrats in Congress fully understand that we will not vote for leaders who won't lead, they'll continue to take us for granted and assume they have our votes because of the lesser of two evils dilemma. This gross underestimation of the "will of the people" by "do nothing" politicians is exactly what we need to change. Once we accomplish that, maybe we will be taken a little more seriously.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
EspritDeVoltaire,
It does appear that this is their method of operation. Although, Clinton and Obama both gave their word in the debate this past week in Philadelphia that they, as Commander in Chief, will withdraw our troops from Iraq. I'm paying close attention to their rhetoric -- let's see how they vote on the next round of war funding. But your right ... I think that the failures of Congress over the past 7 years, are in fact bringing a 3rd party into a viable state. What exactly that party is ? I have no idea. Good to hear from you again. V/R John
My wife has known the Clintons since the '90s. My mother-in-law has known them since the '80s in Little Rock. The Clintons are people who will say anything to sway votes and they worship power. My family has seen them in action up close for almost 30 years and we don't like what we see. People might as well vote for John McCain as Hillary since the differences in their REAL agendas are so slight as to be almost unnoticeable.
John,
You are so spot on!!! This is our dilemma - we know what republicans will do and we know what democrats won't do!
I fear an attack on Iran late in the game as a political move to help mcinsane (sorry, I cannot call him anything else - I really believe he has a diagnosable mental disorder). This would shift the conversation and distract the ADD american public from the Iraq disaster. Are democrats even considering this possibility?
I think I will go back to bed and pull the covers over my head.
itmaybetoolate,
Thank you. I too worry about an attack on Iran & the Democrats should as well. I assume that the rumors regarding the real reasons why Admiral Fallon retired from CENTCOM have some truth to them. Good to hear from you again. V/R John
I also fear very much about an attack against Iran.
The Iraq war started after Saddam made a deal with France and Germany to sell oil in euros.
Iran started in February to sell polyethylen in currencies other than the US dollar.
I'm not very good at economics, but I guess that if the US dollar is no longer the currency used for international business, as it's not backed by anything else than that, it might loose even more value, which might be serious in dire times.
Whether or not it's worth another war in the eyes of the heartless neocons, I don't know. In Iran there might not be as many cherries on the cake as there were in Iraq, cherries for Bush and his croonies of course, because not many American citizens got the taste of cherries in their mouths in the last 5 years of war and occupation.
John,
I posted my comment in two parts because of the words limit. However, as I suck in computer ;-), my comment is upside down ;-(
I hope it will make sense. Oh, I'm not too worried though, you're smart enough to get it !
By the way, "My uneducated guess" were the only words in any of your posts that I've ever disagreed with ;-)
francoise,
No worries. I understood your message perfectly. I very much appreciate it. -- John
Like you, JB, I say there's no better time to draw a line in the sand with this criminal administration than RIGHT NOW. I ALSO feel that caving to it even once more will be used against the Dems in some unexpected move that will hurt them, and the world, in an unimaginable way. I no longer trust this neoCON government as far as I can toss it. Their plan of perpetual war and forever indentured working-class tax-payers is almost complete, and with a final looting of OUR Treasury they will likely disappear into the confusion, riding away with OUR children's futures.
Should the White House be returned to the Dems this year, and they still fail us, 2010 incumbents of CONgress had better realize they've run out of time, and they will NOT be given another chance. That does NOT mean I could EVER again vote for neoCON republicants. But, we can ALL work, campaign and vote out EVERY incumbent that chooses to ignore the will of the people, the Constitutional Rule of Law, or the needs of OUR military and national defense for their corporate master's profit$.
If we've learned nothing else the last 8 years, we SHOULD have learned what the preznutz could never bring himself to finish correctly, namely, "Fool me twice, shame on me".
NoFactsJustTruth,
If folks would keep their eye on the Constitution, we would elect the right kind of people. That should be the number one measure of evaluation - how well has this individual done in honoring his or her oath to uphold the Constitution? I believe that everything else flows from this - uphold the Constitution and a "bushian presidency "can never be repeated.
NoFactsJustTruth,
Keep on speaking out. Your message comes across quite powerfully. Thank you. V/R John
Perhaps human beings are able to endure living through the worst events as long as they're promised best tomorrows. Dreaming about and expecting a better and happier future keeps citizens enslaved and complacent to their leaders. Serfs obeyed the aristocrats while hoping and believing in the afterlife in heaven as promised in the speeches they were brainswashed with in churches every sunday. Hence the worst the current situation, the highest the number of voters for a change in the governmental color. That must be the Dems' plan.
Other than that, I can't find any rational explanation. Since going on endlessly to fund the war equates sacrificing young soldiers' lives uselessly, one has got to be out of his mind to vote according to Bush's requirements. As Congress men and women are reasonable people, therefore there's a calculated purpose in their votes to fund the war.
How these politicians can live with themselves is beyond my understanding. I don't expect you to explain it to me because I assume it's beyond yours too. I guess they must shut up their moral conscience with thinking it's for the best for the nation's future. If, as I hope, Obama wins, their calculations will have worked.
Thanks, John, for refusing to belong to the collective complacent consensus. Your voice of dissent in this deafening silence disturbs the blissful oblivion of reality and makes us uncomfortably aware of the truth.
francoise,
Yes, it is beyond my understanding as well. I am very grateful for your words of wisdom and support. John
John,
I admire your tenacity.
Most people around the world, I think, from my limited perspective, have by now accepted as a fact that no one is going to stop, or try to limit, the catastrophic occupation of Iraq until the next American elections. All our hopes now rely on the future. Who's going to be elected is what people focus on, forgetting the number of deaths, not to mention the number of limbs and minds, that are going to be lost and wasted during the next months in this sad and useless conflict.
Perhaps human beings are able to endure living through the worst events as long as they're promised best tomorrows. Dreaming about and expecting a better and happier future keeps citizens enslaved and complacent to their leaders. Serfs obeyed the aristocrats while hoping and believing in the afterlife in heaven as promised in the speeches they were brainswashed with in churches every sunday. Hence the worst the current situation, the highest the number of voters for a change in the governmental color. That must be the Dems' plan.
Other than that, I can't find any rational explanation. Since going on endlessly to fund the war equates sacrificing young soldiers' lives uselessly, one has got to be out of his mind to vote according to Bush's requirements. As Congress men and women are reasonable people, therefore there's a calculated purpose in their votes to fund the war.
francoise,
Good to hear from you my friend. I really appreciated this part of your comment:
"Since going on endlessly to fund the war equates sacrificing young soldiers' lives uselessly, one has got to be out of his mind to vote according to Bush's requirements. As Congress men and women are reasonable people, therefore there's a calculated purpose in their votes to fund the war."
Thank you, VR, John
Congress has the power and the responsibility to stop funding this illegal occupation! The framers divided the powers specifically for this situation!! This Congress has failed the American people, and should be held accountable. What a bunch of wimps!
mikebaldwin,
INDEED, SIR. V/R John
Oh hell, I'll say it: They're all turn coats, liars and thieves! They've caved to Bush--Mr. 29% lame duck, minority party--on Every issue. They don't have the courage of their convictions. And they are either bought and paid for or threatened by Bush/Cheney's spying to the point that they couldn't stand up for the Constitution without the proper application of a cattle prod. They are all about expediency, and getting reelected. And what we are all left feeling is exactly what Obama called it--and then some!
You really want to change things this fall? Get rid of Pelosi, Reid, Feinstein, and all the other blue dog, war profiteering dems. Turn both houses inside out and give Obama not just something to work with, but an unmistakable message that he'd Better! This war should have been ended a year and a half ago, and Bush and Cheney impeached. That is hasn't yet says more about us than it does about them...
peaceandfreedom,
Say it , say it , say it. This is what I hear from people everywhere, and it is what motivates me to write these pieces. Have you expressed your frustration to your member of Congress? I have ... although I'm not sure she cared. We just have to keep on speaking up, and taking our power and message to the polls. V/R John
The dems are hoping that no one would notice their duplicities".
PioneerKing,
You hit the nail on the head. Now it is up to us to let them know we do notice. V/R John
John, our politicians aren't do nothing types. They do plenty. They serve a ruling class, a small elite
group, to the detriment of the rest of our society and indeed the world. We have two economies, one
for the invested class who can move their money freely about the world, and another economy for
those of us who have been left here and must rely on our own labor to survive. Notice how well the
stock market has done this week, while the news about the economy the rest of us live in has been
nothing but doom and gloom? Our politicians serve their people. They just don't serve the rest of us.
One cannot serve two masters. Hang in there John, keep up the good work!........D
dogman44,
Agreed. Thanks for the insight and the kind reply. V/R John
John, the voters sent a message in November, 2006. The Democrats have utterly ignored that message -- at their own peril. There are bunches of Democrat Senators and Congresscritters in districts and states where a handful of votes can mean the difference between winning and losing. Once bitten, twice shy is going to be the mantra of the progressives who got out the vote in 2006 and helped Democrats win based on the idea that they'd do something about the war. They didn't. You don't have to vote Republican if you're totally disgusted with the Democrat you sent to Washington - just leave the box for Senator or Congrsscritter blank.
desmirl,
Your message, as you so beautifully articulated, is echoed amongst hundreds of thousands of disillusioned Americans. You have made my point and I thank you for it. If we could only get the politicians to listen to us, our points, and take us seriously. Frankly, your methodology may be the only way to really get their attention. Good to hear from you again. V/R John
So true !
If only, one day, instead of getting caught in the trap and instead of playing the game as the politicians want us to play, we went and all vote blank, it would send a powerful message !
I agree it's a dangerous proposition for this Congress to appease this President in hopes of it being forgiven by very reactionary voters. The Leadership needs to take this administration head on with a big NO. With MSM spin and gobbly-gook about pins, bitter, Bosnia "issues" filling the airwaves, this Adminstration has a free pass to do whatever they want. (like bomb Iran, too?) Hell, look at the carnage that they've all done when we were looking - I dread what they're planing today! The only thing more precarious than a lame-duck Presidnet is a LAME lame-duck President. We need to keep a close eye on this guy and the best way to get everyone back on the same page is to make him have a (usual) temper tantrum by denying him money for his war-games.
Sitco,
Well said, very well said. V/R John
This is my biggest complaint about Obama, saying he's been against this war from the beginning. In the 60s, if someone opposed a war, they sure as hell didn't vote to finance it's continuance.
For Obama to infer that we wouldn't be in Iraq, if it were not for Hillary, is just plain dishonest, and unprincipled.
transendentilist,
Agree. Obama's voting record on Iraq is identical to Hillary's. However, I think both will vote against the next round of war funding. We'll just have to wait and see. Thanks for the comment. V/R John
Posted April 18, 2008 | 03:30 PM (EST)