Now even the Democrats have declared that their real main political vision is the principle is WAR OF ONGOING COLONIAL CONQUEST IS THE FIRST PRIORITY OF THE UNITED STATES.
The vision is suicidal for the Republic. The campaign will fail, though failure may take years, and the United States will be destroyed as a light in the world.
Our national leadership simply has gone over to the dark side.
Why vote or work for these people all?
Posted by Nobody at October 1, 2007 09:01 AM...and the United States will be destroyed as a light in the world.
That light went dim in 2001. Really really dim.
What this does is allow a whitehorse candidate to step-in and swallow the Dems whole. Maybe an independent. Maybe a spoiler who throws it to the R-cons. To be honest, there will be no difference between the Dem candidates and an R-con candidate. None. There is only one rational health care plan in the offing, yet with 24-7 war and destruction not even that one will be made real.
It's the republi-con dream made real. At least I have the comfort of thinking I tried to make some difference, and I guess I will continue to do so. But we have gone from the physical incarceration society to the mental incarceration society where rationality and the quest for higher ideals has no place in civil discourse at the national level. The only thing you have is jesus. And the jesus you get to pray to is a blood thirsty son-of-a-bitch who hates anyone who isn't you.
Posted by phidipides at October 1, 2007 09:45 AMagreed Stve.
I am actually considering not voting this time around. I can't stand it. I never would have imagined that (sort of like planes hitting skyscrapers) especially after these horrible almost 7 years of Bush's reign of error. I can't see voting for Hilary, and I used to think I supported John Edwards and I was at least intrigued by an Obama candidacy...but after that vote last week, well, let's just say I am severly demoralized and I really don't give a shit. Fuck 'em. Every last fuckin' one of them.
Jesus christ, this is depressing.
Posted by Sharkbabe at October 1, 2007 11:04 AMJohn B - agree. Maybe that's why most Americans tune it all out. Why bother watching the slow moving train wreck coming our way?
Posted by Marie at October 1, 2007 11:08 AMyou know and another thing I think is ridiculous is how the antiwar left is made out to be, you know like Moveon.org and all the Democratic supporters against this heinous illegal war of agression. Who the fuck do these pundits think they are? Who do they think we are? I know who I am, and I know who my friends and associates and family are and I know what they are saying and thinking, because they tell me. And I think I am a pretty good representative of that group. So, what are my demo graphics?
age 44 male
Married ( for 25 years)
two children aged 24 and 21, one a college graduate; the other working on it
2 degrees; one bachelors, one masters
liscenced professional architect
serve on various AIA and design review boards in
hometown and state
wife is faculty at largest state University
voted in every election at all levels
voracious reader of all kinds
musician
pay my taxes
write to the editor of the paper
participate in some blogs
that is just a sampling...and the fuckin' pundits think I'm out of touch? Me? I am typical in some ways as you can get? And the Dems want to trash groups like MoveON.org? Fuck 'em.
Posted by John B. at October 1, 2007 11:30 AMLet's not become single issue voters. (sarcastic joke).
Dark times, lack of leadership, very large blocks of unenlightened citizenry, contolled media. The only thing that keeps me out of complete defeatism and apathy is the historic difference between the parties on the environment, which I consider to be the crucial issue of our day.
We will either adopt very serious measures reining in CO2 emissions in the next four years or that's the end of our planet's 11,000 year stable climate. For good, no hope of recovery. The Iraq occupation is an infected pimple on Cheney's stinking ass compared to that.
The ball's in the Iraqi's court now, they will decide the future of whether a colonial militarist power will be permitted to occupy their country to exploit its natural resources for corporate gain.
Posted by euzoius at October 1, 2007 12:06 PMJohn B - you must be one of those Volvo driving, latte drinking liberals. Because your demographics suggest that you SHOULD be a GOP. Hasn't anyone told you that your white male, middle-age, married, educated, higher income peers voted for GWB in 2000 and 2004? Sad but true. The 2004 numbers for GWB:
white male: 62%
age 41: 53%
income >$50M: 55+%
married w/children: 59%
college degree: 53%
Where you screwed up those demographics is with your advanced degee; only 44% post grad study folks went for GWB.
Posted by Marie at October 1, 2007 12:08 PMJohn B - you must be one of those Volvo driving, latte drinking liberals.
You can't always go by demographics. I'm a Broke Back Mountain leftcoast Hollywood liberal bone-smoking faggot. Yet when out with my hetero boy buds, I'm the only one of us who steps up to the counter at Starbucks and orders a plain cup of coffee. Go figure.
Posted by phidipides at October 1, 2007 12:26 PMI'm a Broke Back Mountain leftcoast Hollywood liberal bone-smoking faggot.
Geeze, Phid, here I thought you were...er...you know...ah....ahem.....*cough*....female.
Posted by Julie at October 1, 2007 12:35 PMI never thought I's say this again, but I'm about ready to support a third party anti-war candidate. The Democrats have to be taught a lesson.
Posted by kaleidescope at October 1, 2007 12:43 PMA few year younger and a few less years of marriage but otherwise my demographics are the same as John B.'s.
And it busts me up watching a guy order a grande double skinny decaf latte. Especially the pumpkin spice one they offer this time of year. The wife and I have a running joke between us. She likes her coffee light and sweet and I like mine black and bitter. If you know what I mean.
Posted by snark at October 1, 2007 12:43 PMOh, I do, snark, I do...
Posted by iamcoyote at October 1, 2007 01:18 PMYeah, but you're me so...
Posted by snark at October 1, 2007 01:22 PMAm I the only one who actually listened to what Clinton Obama and Edwards said? None of them said they will keep troops in Iraq unti 2013. They simply refused to promise that there would be zero troops in Iraq at that time.
Russert asked one of his STOOPID hypothectical questions - the kind which has no right answer. It does not surprise me that the pundits have distorted their answers. What does surprise me is that the left wing blogs are doing the same.
I'm not sure what is achieved by doing that, but it is wrong.
Posted by zed at October 1, 2007 01:31 PMfine zed, I see your point. But why can't the candidates be clear and unequivocal about what their position is? If they were clear it wouldn't matter a rat's ass what some fucktard corporate pundit says or tries to say...it just wouldn't matter because everyone would know where candidate X is on topic du jour...
euzoious, you may be absolutely correct in what you say but the war issue in our name and for corporate greed and control is of great importance as it may decide what is possible with regards to the environment.
and by the way, I never said I was white, caucasian, but I guess I didn't need to.
Posted by John B. at October 1, 2007 01:45 PMSteve's reading between the lines and he's correct here. These people are not about to limit themselves after all the hard work George did to get this power to the presidency. Not one of them is going to give it back with a smile on their face. Pardon me folks, we we're going anywhere out of Iraq in the next 10 years. Your leadersheep made sure of that with their all or nothing approach. After the general had his say, any compromise was off the table. Your only chance in Iraq was compromise back in the spring, but, your leadersheep were trying their 'hardest' to please the antiwar crowd and wouldn't hear it.
Steve is correct here folks. HC will take the words from UN 687 to heart, "I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998." HRC from S.J. Res 45 on 10/10/02.
She believed it in 2002, she hasn't changed.
The Security Council,
Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,
Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,
Recognizing the threat Iraqís non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,
Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area.
Nothing illegal, these authorizations never expired, were never superseded or amended.
Sidebar: Operation Desert Fox occurred after the passage of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which called for regime change against the government of Saddam Hussein. President Bill Clinton said of the results of Operation Desert Fox, on July 27, 2003:
"When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for. That is, at the end of the first Gulf War, we knew what he had. We knew what was destroyed in all the inspection processes and that was a lot. And then we bombed with the British for four days in 1998. We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half of it; we might have gotten none of it. But we didn't know."
Just a reminder
Posted by peter at October 1, 2007 03:04 PM"Why would anyone in the anti-war base fight for Obama, Hillary, or even Edwards when they all have said that there will still be tens of thousands of troops inside Iraq in 2013?"
they wouldn't and won't. I'll vote third-party antiwar candidate if there is one, otherwise I'll write in someone more serious and credible than these clown like maybe Carrot Top.
Posted by ran at October 1, 2007 03:50 PMlet's drop pants-pissing peter on Iran, that should be punishment enough (for Iran, not peter)
Posted by gay veteran at October 1, 2007 05:49 PM"Why would anyone in the anti-war base fight for Obama, Hillary, or even Edwards when they all have said that there will still be tens of thousands of troops inside Iraq in 2013?"
"they wouldn't and won't."
Ran, good question. Why would they? Evidently those of us in the anti-war camp are of no importance. If I am of no importance, then why would they be of importance to me?
Posted by Judith at October 1, 2007 06:25 PMCome on folks, let's get serious! As Zed said rather clearly, this was a PLEDGE question that no responsible candidate would answer positively. I certainly wouldn't say what, definitively, I would promise will be true 5 fucking years from now.
The top tier candidates were all showing what I would consider to be responsible withholding of judgment to a truly stupid hypothetical question which should, be ignored or challenged.
Let's consider the alternatives to a Democrat candidacy and get real. Please!
Posted by DeminNewJ at October 1, 2007 07:07 PMgay veteran said:
"let's drop pants-pissing peter on Iran, that should be punishment enough (for Iran, not peter)"
If proof was ever needed that gay veteran is as dumb as a sack of hammers, this sentence is it. Nice capitalisation, stupid.
Enjoy your stay in the idiot tree, gay veteran!
Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.
Posted by CaptainReality at October 2, 2007 11:27 PM