Betrayed (American political)

[cantdog]

Gotta love Jim Hightower.

CLOGGING UP CONGRESS
Monday, July 2, 2007
Posted by Jim Hightower

To the Democratic leaders of congress, I can only say: Heck of a job!

In less than six months, the top Democrats, have squandered the outpouring of public support gained from last year's congressional elections. On the war, on ethics, and on challenging corporate power, American voters expressed faith that Democrats would change congress and begin to serve the public interest.

But – poof! – that faith is gone. The latest polls show that only 27 percent of the people approve of the way congress is doing its job.

Why the precipitous decline? Because the "new" Democrats are still burdened with too many don't-rock-the-boat, money-soaked, corporate-backed, old Democrats who sit in key leadership posts. They are so entrenched that they don't feel the public's anger about Bush's war, so they have no sense of urgency about confronting this out-of-control President.

Even on congressional ethics reform, which should be a slam dunk for Democrats, some of the old bulls have balked. They don't want an independent ethics commission, they don’t want to limit their own possibilities of cashing in to become lobbyists, and they don’t want to stop using lobbyists as their campaign fund raisers.

Then, on their first chance to confront corporate power, some old guard Democrats have weaseled. Rather than an honest, bold energy bill to stop the corporate causes of climate change, the Democrats' house bill would prevent the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks, would prevent states from doing so, and would set fuel economy standards weaker even than Bush has proposed!

What this means is that our job of congressional clean up is not complete. Voters made a good start last year, but we must continue next year, recruiting and electing more true reformers to replace the business-as-usual crowd that's clogging up both parties.

"For Democratic Leaders, a Fear That the Focus on the War Has Blurred,"
The New York Times, June 14, 2007
"The Democrat Lag on Warming,"
www.nytimes.com

 

[cantdog]

Another one from Hightower.

STAND WITH OBEY
Monday, October 15, 2007
Posted by Jim Hightower

Thank you, David Obey!

This member of congress has dared to stand up to George W and shout, “Enough is enough!” As Obey put it, “we have had it with being maneuvered and jerked around” on Bush’s misbegotten, woeful war and lies in Iraq. His is not a weak voice of frustration – Obey chairs the powerful House appropriations committee, and he is saying plainly that he will not allow Bush’s latest $200 billion supplemental war request to be approved by his committee unless it is accompanied by a plan for withdrawing America’s misused troops from Iraq.

This is exactly the kind of congressional gustiness that’s necessary to rein in Bush’s imperial presidency. The founders deliberately gave control of the pursestrings to congress. So use it! Indeed, seven out of 10 Americans say they want congress to cut Bush’s latest demand for more war funding (a number that includes nearly half of Republicans).

Obey got even tougher, calling for a war tax on the rich to pay for Bush’s misadventure, rather that letting him keep hiding the cost by putting it on our children’s credit cards. “If this war is important enough to fight,” said Obey, “then it ought to be important enough to pay for.” And, he added pointedly: “If you don’t like the cost, then shut down the war.”

Now that’s how a real congress should act! Pathetically, though, Speaker Nancy Pelosi immediately backed away from Obey’s show of strength, leaving him dangling. But we don’t have to abandon him. Call David Obey’s office to thank him and offer to help (202) 225-3365, then call Nancy Pelosi’s office to tell her to stand with Obey… and with us – (202) 225-4965.

“On War Funding, Democrats Have a Day of Disagreement,” The New York Times, October 2, 2007

“House Appropriations Chairman to Introduce War Tax Bill to Pay for Iraq,” www.foxnews.com , October 2, 2007

“Most in Poll Want War Funding Cut,” www.washingtonpost.com ,October 2, 2007

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

CANTDOG

When are you guys gonna GET that politicians are all Perfumed Princes who serve special interests? Republicans and Democrats are wolves and we're the sheep.

 

[Carnevil9]

The Democrats campaigned on a lie: that they could end the war. They don't have that power, but enough American voters were stupid enough to believe them that they got elected.

Once in power, there was nothing they could do, except cut the funding. But that would have meant they were hanging the troops out to dry. They don't have the balls to do that; it would be political suicide and they knew it.

Once again, when Democrats are backed into a corner and made to face the harsh facts of life, they turn into.... Republicans.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

CANTDOG

When are you guys gonna GET that politicians are all Perfumed Princes who serve special interests? Republicans and Democrats are wolves and we're the sheep.

Baaaaa.

 

[cantdog]

I'm not in either of those parties, JAMESBJand so, I am trying to get the partisans of both to get it. That's when-- already. Pay the fuck attention, you blinkered ass.

 

[cloudy]

I'm not in either of those parties, JAMESBJand so, I am trying to get the partisans of both to get it. That's when-- already. Pay the fuck attention, you blinkered ass.

Just put him on ignore like everyone else has, Cant.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

CLOUDY

Who do you think youre foolin?

 

[cantdog]

The Democrats campaigned on a lie: that they could end the war. They don't have that power, but enough American voters were stupid enough to believe them that they got elected.

Once in power, there was nothing they could do, except cut the funding. But that would have meant they were hanging the troops out to dry. They don't have the balls to do that; it would be political suicide and they knew it.

Once again, when Democrats are backed into a corner and made to face the harsh facts of life, they turn into.... Republicans.

Actually, they wouldn't have been hanging any troops out to dry, owing to the feature of the funding's timing. There's already plenty in the pipeline for a withdrawal if that's the decision.

They are not withhholding funding, all the same. It's not because it'd hurt a troop withdrawal, so what is it? It's because they buy the empire. They believe in the American empire.

If we are running an American empire, then we ought to be in Iraq.

Why? Iraq has the big-ass petroleum reserves, of course. Why else?


They have enough proven reserves in the two fields, north (in the Kurdish region around Kirkuk) and south (by Basra), to still have oil even when the other reserves are largely tapped out. Enough to last almost a generation.

Who controls Iraq can dictate the terms of the world's economy during an entire generation, particularly in the absence of microwave-beam solar.

That's why we went there. It was demonstrably not because the bombed out Iraq of S. Hussein constituted any sort of threat to us. It was demonstrably not because of WMD. It was certainly not to bring democracy to the place. The people of Iraq want Blackwater gone. The gov of Iraq took measures to expel Blackwater, in a democratic response to the people's call for action, but Blackwater is not going. Because, as Bush himself explains it, there is no democracy in effect which can expel them, since there was an executive order.

The Iraqis recently got a sense of just how limited George the Great’s democracy is. When some heavily-armed paramilitary agents working for the private military contractor, Blackwater, went on a Rambo-style shooting spree that left 11 innocent civilians dead in Baghdad – the people and their elected officials were furious that trigger-happy corporate mercenaries feel free to gun people down. Iraq’s prime minister promptly ordered Blackwater and its privatized troops out of the country.

That’s when Bush-the-Democracy-Bringer reminded the sovereign leaders of Iraq that… well… um… uh… the Iraqi government has no authority over the military contractors that are loose on their land. Specifically, Order No. 17, issued in 2004 by the American occupying authority, gives Blackwater, Dyncorp, Triple Canopy, and other corporate forces immunity from Iraqi laws. Nor are they subject to U.S. military law.

No, it was the oil reserves.

That's why we have built the dozen or so permanent bases in the country. And what on earth would justify building a dozen megabases, at a cost of better than half a billion apiece, if we were nevertheless to withdraw all our troops? Why, nothing. Those incredible structures, with the exception, I suppose, of our new Embassy, itself a megabase, would be abandoned to the Iraqis. Then they could themselves defend the oil reserves they sit on.

Empire-oriented pols realize this. They support it. Dems do, and Repugs as well. No matter what, if either of those parties sits in the driver's seat, those megabases will be full of our troops. Indefinitely. Get used to it.

 

[cantdog]

Just put him on ignore like everyone else has, Cant.

I have him on ignore. Some ass quoted him.

 

[cloudy]

I have him on ignore. Some ass quoted him.

Indeed.

 

[cantdog]

Oops. It was Roxanne. Sorry, Rox.

 

[keeblercrumb]

Another one from Hightower.

Does anyone here remember the 10% Income tax surcharge to help offset the cost of the Vietnam war? I do. When not "in country" it almost exactly offset the military pay increase passed in the same legislation....

It was a total coincidence, of course, that at this time American opinion began to shift against the war.

I think a "pay as you go" plan for Iraq is exactly the right thing to do.

Like almost all Americans, I would have cheerfully coughed up more money post 9/11 to fund the Afghanistan adventures....

I was never willing to cough up more money to go into Iraq but it would have been nice if someone had asked.

-KC

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

CANTDOG

Our government isnt gonna let Iran or Russia or anyone else control the oil in Iraq. And I cant think of a a better reason to be there. That, and the minute we leave Israel will likely blow the hell out of Iran and the Arabs will cut off all our oil like they did when Israel kicked their asses in 1973.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

KC

Well, we're there, and few had a problem with us going there. So we either need to cut & run, like we usually do anymore, or do the job right.

 

[shereads]

I have him on ignore. Some ass quoted him.

That's a weakness of the Ignore function. It leaves a loophole for their tentacles.

Still, I think I'll give it a try in this case. I put amicus on ignore the dozenth time he used the "n" word, and the air around my computer smelled fresh again.

 

[cantdog]

You're my hero.

 

[keeblercrumb]

CANTDOG

Our government isnt gonna let Iran or Russia or anyone else control the oil in Iraq. And I cant think of a a better reason to be there. That, and the minute we leave Israel will likely blow the hell out of Iran and the Arabs will cut off all our oil like they did when Israel kicked their asses in 1973.

Scary as it seems... I almost agree with you. I think the place (Iraq) will be a bloodbath when we leave, be it now or ten years from now.

Cynical as it may seem, I vote to do it now. I am tired of seeing American soldiers dying in yet another civil war we cannot fix.

We have never "controlled" the oil in Iraq anyway... I think even this administration sees our strategic interest in the Arab Gulf States oil.

-KC

 

[keeblercrumb]

KC

Well, we're there, and few had a problem with us going there. So we either need to cut & run, like we usually do anymore, or do the job right.

There is this sick side of me (wait for the NASCAR wreck side) that almost wants to know what you think "do the job right" means.

Almost. But not quite. So please don't tell me. I will just have to live my life never knowing.

Cheers Brother.

-KC

 

[Carnevil9]

Just put him on ignore like everyone else has, Cant.

Yes, ignore any dissenting voices. You are so correct you needn't suffer any alternate opinions.

 

[shereads]

Yes, ignore any dissenting voices. You are so correct you needn't suffer any alternate opinions.

To be ignored in this forum - especially by someone as tolerant as Cantdog - requires more than just an opposing view. Denying the obvious won't even do the job (Note that Cdog continues to participate in the "debate" on global warming, probably as a courtesy or maybe just out of habit.) No, intelligent debate or even sincere attempts that fall flat will rarely get anyone put on ignore lists here.

To qualify for widespread ignoring typically requires not just ignorance, but arrogant ignorance; and not just denial of the obvious, but denial to an absurd degree, ideally punctuated with some silly catch-phrase that is repeated ad nauseum, as if to elbow other participants in the ribs and say, "Get it? Get it? Perfumed princes! I made that up myself!"

Generally, a widespread, long-term Ignore is awarded only to posters who make it clear that they will never admit they're wrong, even when cornered and beaten with the proof; but will just disappear, only to emerge later in another thread, spouting the same argument that was discredited elsewhere. As Amicus used to say - and still does, for all I know - facts aren't everything.

As with most pursuits, there is a fast track to Ignoredom. An irritating AV can do the trick, if repeated exposure to the image makes even the non-violent long to hit someone in the face with a snow shovel. Present company excluded, of course, Smirking Clown-Hat Boy.

 

[sr71plt]

To be ignored in this forum - especially by someone as tolerant as Cantdog - requires more than just an opposing view. Denying the obvious won't even do the job (Note that Cdog continues to participate in the "debate" on global warming, probably as a courtesy or maybe just out of habit.) No, intelligent debate or even sincere attempts that fall flat will rarely get anyone put on ignore lists here.

To qualify for widespread ignoring typically requires not just ignorance, but arrogant ignorance; and not just denial of the obvious, but denial to an absurd degree, ideally punctuated with some silly catch-phrase that is repeated ad nauseum, as if to elbow other participants in the ribs and say, "Get it? Get it? Perfumed princes! I made that up myself!"

Generally, a widespread, long-term Ignore is awarded only to posters who make it clear that they will never admit they're wrong, even when cornered and beaten with the proof; but will just disappear, only to emerge later in another thread, spouting the same argument that was discredited elsewhere. As Amicus used to say - and still does, for all I know - facts aren't everything.

As with most pursuits, there is a fast track to Ignoredom. An irritating AV can do the trick, if repeated exposure to the image makes even the non-violent long to hit someone in the face with a snow shovel. Present company excluded, of course, Smirking Clown-Hat Boy.

Naw, it's become just another meaningless cliche here--and is handed out like candy at Halloween. And those who say they've done so, show no evidence they have done so. Those who truly want to "ignore" just don't respond.

But on the Hightower items, looks to me like he's gotten it exactly right.

 

[amicus]

Yes, ignore any dissenting voices. You are so correct you needn't suffer any alternate opinions.

~~~

Chuckles, those dildo headed liberals get so frustrated at being unable to defend their totalitarianism that they throw a hissy fit and ignore anyone who dares to disagree with their socialist dreams.

I just love it.

Oh, and JameBJohnson is it, welcome to ignoreland, like Hell, is where most of my friends are happy to have you.

Amicus...

 

[S-Des]

Generally, a widespread, long-term Ignore is awarded only to posters who make it clear that they will never admit they're wrong, even when cornered and beaten with the proof;

Yes, but we can't put Pure on ignore, he's a moderator.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

AMICUS

As Mencken said, when you expose them to the truth they bellow and moo and stampede.