Soccerdad - Excellent entry, and in your next post please pick up right where you left off, because you were just getting going with that last paragraph.
The torture issue is either a line in the sand between democrats and republicans, or else it is a line in the sand between the progressives and the democrats.
It's. That. Simple.
I am among those who believe that there is a seething wellspring of populism ripening out there. This torture issue really puts the DLC dems in a bind, because torture is not an issue that lends itself to triangulation and conciliation. It's just too black and white.
The hypocritical straddle that the DLC democrats do is becoming harder and harder. At some tipping point the democrats' base will start falling away big time, but not towards the republicans.
Posted by facethemusic at September 23, 2006 03:32 PMYou are precisely right, soccerdad. In fact, I've already switched my mental gears. I'm no longer a Democrat. I'll keep voting for Democrats who are willing to stand up and fight for what this country is all about, but the party as a whole is history as far as I'm concerned. The Democratic Party is dead.
Posted by VickiW at September 23, 2006 03:37 PMWhy can't the Dems just denounce the torture bill, denounce our torture-loving president and the compliant complicit Republican Congress, tell the American Boob that a minority party can't really stop a lawbreaking president and corrupt fascist majority party, and vote en masse against the bill.
Seems like that would demonstrate a clear distinction between the parties, and would show voters that there are EFFECTS resulting from handing the reins of government over to fascists.
Perhaps voters might even start to understand that Republicans must LOSE POWER if voters want to stop such disastrous legislation from being enacted.
We can't stop everything, and maybe we shouldn't. This is what it MEANS to a Republican-controlled government, folks. Like what you see?
Posted by euzoius at September 23, 2006 04:26 PMIt's unfortunate but we do have to start somewhere. We have to take over Congress as the Democratic Party first, then institute changes within the Party.
I contribute my money only to Progressive causes. Next I will only vote for Progressives in primaries. It will be gradual but I hope we can achieve it in 20 years.
The republi-cons might think that we are splintering, this is not entirely the case. Dems and Progressives will have to use each other to achieve the same goal. Which is taking back our country from the Neo-Cons.
The republi-cons are splintering themselves, the moderates repukes and the radical Neo-Cons.
I really see this as a 4 party system in the future. Hopefully their will be more of us than them.
Soccerdad, you nailed. I also agree with you facethemusic. Let torture be the "line in the sand." If the Democrats don't do everything within their power to stop this from becoming law, then I am finished also with the Democratic Party.
I first voted when I was eighteen, and I have voted every election since for the Democrats. No more. You hear that Democrats? You are on the verge of losing the very votes you need to keep you in office, and if you lose, you will have deserved the loss. I'm tired of a Do Nothing Party. If you do not try to stop this legislation, then you are cut out of the same cloth as the GOP. You will have become the enemy to our Democracy and are no better than the rest of the traitors. THIS IS IT!
Posted by Judith at September 23, 2006 05:03 PMBy-the-way, I am sending the last of my letters to everyone on my list of Democratic leaders. I would suggest we all need to inform them that if they ever needed to stand up, now is the time, and if they don't, what the consequences could be.
Posted by Judith at September 23, 2006 05:09 PMIt's unfortunate but we do have to start somewhere. We have to take over Congress as the Democratic Party first, then institute changes within the Party.
Precisely, SOS. First things first.
Posted by iamcoyote at September 23, 2006 05:31 PMDid I ever mention I despise George Bush???
Posted by Christopher at September 23, 2006 05:42 PMI think the important reason to work to reject this legislation or "compromise"...regardless of the torture techniques... is that it still does not give habeus corpus rights to the accused.
Posted by LizDexic at September 23, 2006 05:52 PMEither your different than the Republicans or you're not. Which is it?
The democrats will need to discuss this with the lobbyests and business PACs and get back to you on the many differences. If you need them, they'll be at their Bahamian vacation homes after this session...where they have dual citizenship and massive bank accounts.
Posted by phidipides at September 23, 2006 06:08 PMyour PDB is showing...12/04/1998...bad week wasn't it? Blame it on PMS or something.
Posted by peter at September 23, 2006 06:30 PMmore gibberish from the delusional peter and his "inside authoritarian baseball" approach.
Let me guess.....Clinton! Wag the Dog! Ignored Osama! Obsessed on Osama!
Posted by euzoius at September 23, 2006 06:44 PMThe following is the text of an item from the President's Daily Brief received by President William J. Clinton on December 4, 1998. It was declassified for the Report of the 9/11 Commission. Redacted material is indicated in brackets.
SUBJECT: Bin Ladin Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks
Posted by peter at September 23, 2006 06:47 PMYou can catch the greatest president ever on Foxnews Sunday. I know he's a DLC'er but hey he's the best that you've got.
Posted by peter at September 23, 2006 06:52 PMYou can catch the greatest president ever on Foxnews Sunday. I know he's a DLC'er but hey he's the best that you've got.
He's also better thananyone you brag about.
Posted by herbal tee at September 23, 2006 06:56 PM"I authorized the CIA to get groups together to try to kill him," Clinton said. He added he had drawn up plans to go into Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban and launch an attack against bin Laden after the attack on the Cole in the Yemeni port of Aden.
"Now if you want to criticize me for one thing, you can criticize me for this: after the Cole, I had battle plans drawn to go into Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban and launch a full-scale attack search for bin Laden. But we needed basing rights in Uzbekistan -- which we got after 9/11," Clinton said.
We've got plans to invade Canada and Mexico too. A skilled State Dept. should have been able to get us basing rights.
Posted by peter at September 23, 2006 06:58 PMMy Congressman, Earl Blumenauer, has issued a Condemnation of Legalizing Torture and a call for an investigation. Please urge your Representative to join him in taking this stand.
Here is the link:
Posted by DeanOR at September 23, 2006 08:30 PM
peter, You really have to get over your obsession with Clinton.
Posted by Seven of Six at September 23, 2006 08:33 PMAccording to today's NY Times the National Intelligence Estimate says the Iraq war has help spawn a new generation of terrorist and worsened the terror threat. Contributing factors cited include: indefinite detention at Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, and torture.
So let's see, Bush authorizes torture, torture creates more terrorists, more terrorists create more subjects to torture, Bush authorizes torture, etc, etc. A never-ending saga of torture and terror. By the way, the Bush administration got a grade of D+ for their terror fighting efforts, an obvious example of grade inflation.
But amazingly, the Democrats are still expected to cave from fear of being smeared as weak on the war on terror by George Bush, the Number One producer of new terrorists according to his own spy agencies.
The vast majority of Congress members will have no idea what forms of torture are authorized when they vote on the bill, because it is unspecified.
We must oppose this bill, and so should the Dems, although it appears the outcome is already determine. However, I for one say not in my name. And should it pass I suggest public funerals throughout the land to bury the Constitution.
John
Posted by John at September 23, 2006 08:41 PMThe AEI's reaction isn't really that surprising. I guess they checked the history books and noted how many of Stalin's enablers managed to keep their nuts out of the vise in the end.
Posted by sagesource at September 23, 2006 08:52 PMA skilled State Dept. should have been able to get us basing rights.
Extraordinarily weak even for the likes of you.
The Mad King, idiot son of George, on Osama: "I don't know where he is.You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... I truly am not that concerned about him."
Now that's neo-con and republic-con diplomacy keeping us safe! So tell me, what do you think about torture? I mean, I've seen the women you cocksuckers marry. I know what your children are like. And I even know the way your parents raised you. Is that why torture doesn't matter to you? Your existence is so fucking marginal that torture doesn't seem that bad to you? Just wondering.
Posted by at September 24, 2006 08:17 AMI'm no Clinton fan, but Richard Clarke's book on 9/11 puts him in an excellennt light and Bushco as so not interested that criminal neglect comes to mind. Like the Katrina aftermath. Why does any democrat go along and get along? They are in with them. The house approval ratings are lower than Bush's. Yet our leaders still "act" scared of KKKarl. Act is the operative word.
Posted by molly at September 24, 2006 09:02 AMOliver North's current Op-Ed piece at foxnews.com is highly misleading and completely disingenuous. The laws cited in the article are executive orders and no current president is subject to the executive orders of a past president. Oliver North would have to know that and is purposely misleading the public with his diatribe. At worst, President Clinton admitted to setting a new precedent from which we cannot easily retreat. Presidents do not break the law by ignoring the Executive Orders of past presidents.
Lew Ferrin,
Sutter, CA 95982