- BIG NEWS:
- Health Care
- |
- John Murtha
- |
- Rahm Emanuel
- |
- War Wire
- |
Have We Ended the War Yet?
We haven't even put a dent in it. It's arguable that the laughably low approval rating the public gives the Democratic-run Congress is attributable to that body's failure to move the ball one inch down the field. Worse, the Democratic leadership has looked feckless, confused, spineless and outmaneuvered at every turn by the administration and its Republican allies, frightened though the latter may be to be tied to the war come next election day. Today, the Politico echoes what Mike Gravel contended in the Dartmouth debate -- the Congressional Dems could do far more to stop the war...if they wanted to.
Loading comments…
Most Popular on HuffingtonPost
jDWsy3mPvyx2BRLsrSQLQV7E%2BphmGA7vKV1oF%2FJgYI8uuAmdN49VnUWhaaqBm%2F%2FlVzfiAHGMQmoilQEKL7evoQ%3D%3D
MFoWe71NwXjvznFrAUa7n5TGTMbyLYvdEMYElGm6gHwFhPxMZSHgpsQ%2BhZP1IjUcYSG581wbONrlR%2BtJqJzxug%3D%3D
1 of 2
HuffingtonPost Reporters
MrS431uRtyiaebSfWeWFSEpw1Q8jOB8L
7%2FXQcjWFzvLxPj22XaXutj9Gsz5PAiYQ
1 of 2
Don't Miss HuffPost Bloggers
1 of 4
Huffington Post Apps and Feeds
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
*** TROOPS OUT or BUSH OUT ***
It's just that simple.
Can't we have both?
Do you really think that our sudden withdrawal would "Stop the War"? It might temporarily end our participation, but it wouldn't stop the bloodshed. It might just exacerbate it.
The top three Democrat candidates for president know this. Did you see last night's night debate? None of them would commit to getting our troops of Iraq if they become president. They know better than to make a promise they can't keep.
You might as well get used to this. Congress will not cut the funding, because they know it's political death. That's why they haven't done it yet, and they won't.
In other words, both major parties plan to leave American troops in harm's way until heavily-armed Sunnis and Shiites peacefully resolve centuries of deep-seeded hatred.
Why doesn't that sound like a good idea?
Julia Dear,
From your posts I am aware of your conservative take on things. True conservatives are people that want to "conserve things". Every person on this site who ever served in the military in charge of other people's lives knows that the tactics of the Iraq War are a complete misuse of military power. This is a no-win situation and was from the very beginning. It cannot be "won" in any way militarily. This is a political situation and requires a political solution.
The Armed Forces of the United States are being broken by incompetent Neo-Con ideologues who themselves have never been sent into harms way at the age of 19.
What anyone thinks about time tables being stretched out to 2013 of EITHER political party
is living in a dream. Until there is diplomatic traction, this is a military situation. And the military situation is that we are running out of troops. How many more deployments can the troops stand as individuals and as families before troopers start to turn the guns around? Have you ever had military training yourself?
The first thing someone is taught is the muscle memory of shooting to kill. The longer this goes on with no end or attainable "military" goal in sight the more dangerous this situation becomes of radicalizing everyone. BOTH middle class West Point graduates and gang bangers from the hood now with heavy weapons training. What are all these people thinking both on the right and left in their white glove postings on so many effete web sites? This is war. And war is very, very dangerous for everyone involved. The longer this goes on in stalemate with no real plan and no real diplomacy, the odds of external factors escalating become more and more likely. They are already finding Chinese infantry weapons among the Iraqi insurgents. Nuclear and missile technologies are being sold to Iran from Russia. Pakistan could have an Islamist coup at any time. What then as this all drags on and on with our military forces exhausted? What then Miss Conservative?
Wow. That was great.
I hear more and more people beginning to discuss what we will do over the coming years with the results of all this gratuitous, heavily armed violence.
Are we indeed being trained to, as Naomi Klein states, crave the luxury of survival, just as the Iraqis?
Julia....y
I'm crossing Feinstein, Boxer, Pelosi off my list to vote for again..as much as it pains me to do this (yes..as a woman)... I expected MUCH much more of them..um..
I agree with you on Feinstein, but I haven't seen Boxer to the Republican line yet. Where did she go wrong?
Exacerbate it, huh? Now I'm not going to pretend to be a war expert, but as far as the "front runners" are concerned, well, doesn't that say it all really? Just look into why they are the front runners and stop being so naive. Until the front runners are running on the front (hopefully along with their supporters, both financial and otherwise), exacerbate it will, apparently.
Congress has not reversed the Freedom killing and Constitution destroying laws that the neoCONS pushed through with Dems help.
America is farther away from being a free country then ever.
Just say 'impeach', say it loudly and repeatedly, and while you're at it, go sign up
at:
www.impeac
Quite the impressive democratic return to power you've got there. You've got what...not
Good luck with Hillary btw. Good to know she's going to keep us in Iraq for about as long as we've been in Germany...
Priceless
Thanks for your post, Harry. I always enjoy your words.
All I know is that there are no simple answers to complicated solutions.
That said, we need to remember our grade school math (at which I totally suck). The Dems know how to count, and this is a numbers game. Not enough votes to be veto-proof.
Iraq is the Republican's occupation. This is Mr. Bush's occupation.
We need to get on our Republican (and Democratic) representatives. Write them. Call them. Tell them your dreams. Your desires. Your hopes that they'll stop killing people. (Well, maybe don't say that last sentence - they'll glaze over and then hang up on you.) At least, tell them that you can't vote for them in the next election because of their favor in occupying Iraq.
Be proactive.
We're good at dissing everyone here. That's what we do well. But we can do better. We CAN effect change. We CAN sway minds. Remember those hearts and minds? Well, now they belong to those Reps (including Hillary) who vote to either prolong the Iraq war, or start down the path toward war with Iran.
We CAN do better.
All my best,
Ani
You sound like a lovely person, Ani, but you are hopelessly naive. Many of us have been writing, phoning, and emailing our so-called representatives to no avail. They are giving us a gigantic "fuck you" after last year's election, which (remember, dems?) was all about ending the occupation.
This is not just the repub's or Bush's occupation. It belongs to the Democrats as well. 70 percent of us oppose it. 70 percent! The people no longer have a representative government. Corporations, including war profiteers Bechtel, Carlyle, Halliburton et al are very well represented by our one-party system.
Everyone in DC is beholden to their funders and lobbyists, but there's more to it than that. If the funders and lobbyists were asking them to do something that seriously went against the grain, more of them would be rebelling.
I think the Dems were brought up to believe the same core themes the Reps drum on about:
> Force is acceptable, as a way to get what you want. If you can arrange it to look like the other party did you a dirty turn first, so much the better.
> It's okay to sell the functions of government to private parties, so that our tax dollars will go to enrich people who don't even do the job, and then skate with the inflated proceeds.
> Any time the flag is waved, a patriotic citizen should go into a stunned trance with hand automatically raised to approve whatever dumass idea was put forth.
> Anyone who disagrees with any of the above is a traitor and should be shot.
> Anyone who dares to think or speak for themselves is a traitor and should be shot.
The whole problem is that we have NO real people in Congress, with a few paltry exceptions. Even John Edwards is a millionaire, and hence has not much in common with you and I. Money puts them there, and money tells them what to think, before and after.
The only thing that might cure it would be to get private money ENTIRELY out of politics.
Good luck with that.
They may not listen, but I'm not going to stop calling, writing, phoning our emailing. Because if this is the end of our democracy, I want to at least be able to say, I went down fighting the good fight.
Maybe it was inevitable that Germany fell to the Nazi's. But those that resisted were on the right side of history, may they rest in peace.
I've said it before, but it bears repeating, the same people who were afraid to vote against what they knew was wrong over four years ago will not be strong enough to vote now to end this madness. Likewise,those who were shallow enough to buy into the argumnents made for the invasion of Iraq will not now have the depth required to make intelligent decisions now. In short, there is no reason to expect congress to move the ball one inch down the field. These folks punted on first down.
The Dems are foolish to think they're guaranteed winning the election just because while at the same time sitting by for another year while Cheney plays hara-kiri with our troops.
And whoever thought up that "impeachment is off the table" bit should be demoted to trash clerk..... eh hem... NANCY?!
If they continue on this almost complicit path and not make a forceful move soon, they'll be pulling a Fred Thompson: D.O.A.
How many of you have emailed your Representative and your two Senators EVERY DAY requesting or demanding
impeachment, sending quotations and articles on why we must impeach, and promising to vote him/her out of office otherwise. You haven't? I quess we are not close to being up in arms yet.
Pun not intended.
Back in the nineties I read an article which stated that politicians considered so many votes per letter (as in posted with a stamp) in that one letter represented a certain number of voters out of which only one took the trouble to write a letter. The same article said that e-mails counted as less voters because it took less trouble to e-mail. I wonder what they think of e-mail now. Spam maybe? I seriously doubt they'd consider the e-mailer 'up in arms'.
My point here is that no one is up in arms until politicians feel their heat. I believe there is enough evidence to show that they don't feel threatened by the voter; in fact, their livelihood won't be threatened until one, their money is taken away, or two, enough people are actually up in arm that they gotta call out the hoses, dogs and rubber bullets.
Sad, but true.
The last I checked the war is still ongoing and will continue into 2009, at least the current administration says so, unless there is a change in direction.
Like my Gaffer always said: where there's a will, there's a way.
Contrariwise, where there's no way, there may be no will.
Just throwing out the possibility.
Not knowing you or your Gaffer (why upper case?), I'm not sure how to process your remarks. Maybe you were being facetious.
I happen to think the Democrats are the greatest political party God ever invented. It annoys me when people criticize them.
I happen to know that the Democrats laid down like lambs for the slaughter in the election fiasco of 2000, which let that little dick'tater into office.
This week the Democrats voted us one step closer to war with Iran.
They have Not stopped or even slowed the war in Iran--in fact they voted for a Surge.
They are proving themselves to be the Least political party of the People and we are fools to act other wise
Annoyed yet? I Suuuuurely hope so.
I am completely beyond annoyance at your reference to a Man in the Sky with a Large Penis and a Book in which my Name is listed, trailing blood-red-
I am beyond loss of respect and faith in representative government due to the Democrats' appeasement to this Illegal Administration and their vote this week to continue this war.
Finally I am totally annoyed by your bourgeois naivety in confusing this current bastardization with the party of Roosevelt and Truman.
Annoyed yet? I do not want to insult you. I just don't know how much longer we, the true body politic, can afford the luxury of survival in this America.
This worm needs to turn rather to the Bourgeois Nievete, from the back hand path.
It is time now...
Crush the Infamy!
I've voted Democrat all my life (I'm old and feeling older) I keep hoping and hoping that things will change but now this old dog has changed his party and I would advise you all to do the same. Re-register in the Green party and help draft Gore. Will we win? If we get Gore yes. Even if we can't and end up with Nader, it will be enough to defeat the Democrats who are really Repug Lite. I can't vote for Repug Lite ANYMORE. Please join me to make a difference.
If we hear Al Gore proclaim himself to be the Green Party candidate, it will be worthy of consideration. Nader has to step aside. As one post a couple of days ago reminded us: "It's the SCOTUS, Stupid!", by which he meant that continued control of Supreme Court appointments falling to the Republicans as a result of a third-party spoiler or some other mishap is an unacceptable outcome for the 2008 election, no matter how disenchanted we may become with our own candidate.
If Gore ran as Green what an irony since it was Green that caused the loss in 2000. I am beginning to think it would be a good idea since the Democratic Congress is also intent on destroying constitutional limits as well as Bush is.
I'm with TyreByter.
Why should America give the Democratic Party any more power, when they refuse to use the power they have?
Time after time, Congressional Democrats (and Presidential candidates) have placed their political careers above doing what's best for this country. If they're not willing to do the right thing, they should get the hell out of public service.
Damn Right!
Let's be blunt. They're PROFESSIONAL CAREER POLITICIANS. Serving the American people by being an elected official is NOT supposed to be a career or a profession.
It is time for Democrats to stop funding the war.
Every time I receive an email from them asking for more campaign contributions such as those I have made in the past I am reminding them of that. We need this simple statement to reach deafening levels, "Stop funding the occupation of Iraq".
I am just so disgusted with the dems. I worked hard for Ned Lamont here in CT and Holy Joe was voted in by repukes and wimp dems. Even then, with a dem majority in congress, I figured we could get out of this disaster. All the repukes need to do is threaten a filibuster, and now it takes 60 votes to get anything done. Well, duh.....ho
Oh well...Van
Dennis Kucinich is the only viable candidate, and I so hope he gets the nomination.
Second, on Kucinich! He's the only principled one in the lot, perhaps excepting Edwards.
Kucinich hasn't changed his stance on a single issue the whole time he's been in Congress, much less in the debates. Everyone else tosses in periodic "adjustments" depending on which way the winds shift.
That's not because he doesn't think about the issues. On the contrary, it's because he's thought about all of these issues for years, and his positions are a result of mature reflection. The others are having to play catch-up every time they're pressed on the issues "Quick, come up with a platform!"
Sadly, the fact that Kucinich knows his own mind and doesn't change his positions, means he's a less exiting candidate to cover, and keeps him off the front pages. Every time Obama or Hilary shift a bit, or "clarify" something, they get more exposure.
For him to get the nomination, however, the DNC would have to suffer an attack of sanity, and that won't happen. All those Democrats are Republicans.
Perhaps the best strategy, already mentioned elsewhere by other writers but not in the Politico article apparently, is that the Democrats could announce in advance that there will be no action on any funding bill that does not set definite withdrawal dates. Say to Bush: "You have to send us a clean bill, a bill without the blood of yet more thousands on its hands and without the stench of war profiteering, a bill that does not smear feces on the Constituti
There's a reason Politico doesn't give Democrats any more exposure or positive coverage than they can help. Politico is run by decidedly rightist editors. They try to look centrist, but their attitudes and judgements give that the lie. They look at every issue from a right-leaning, profitist angle.
Right on.
And it's worse than a football stalemate: troops are dying at a 1,000 per year "clip" for nothing.
And no "safety" in sight.
All the talk about those troops killed and to be killed makes me think. Would you rather die in Iraq, or come home missing parts you used to have or with severe head trauma, to find your business is bankrupt or you hve no real job prospects, the government that sent you to Iraq based on lies won't take care of you, and most of the public doesn't even act as if we're at war (like, one person driving a gas-guzzler with a friggin' "Support Our Troops" magnet)? Especially if you beleive in Heaven or the like, what's worse?
Your point?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
