~Yawn.~ Who cares what Dick Armey thinks?
Posted by Christopher at January 8, 2007 04:00 AMS frgt bt mttrs f lf nd dth nd vn ntnl scrty cs pprvl s wht w rlly crv.
[Editor: ignore=off]Honestly, I agree with Armey's sentiments. The Democratic House has a responsibility to conduct the affairs of state in a way that goes beyond simply considering the desire of a vocal portion of the electorate. They are also responsible for making sure that their actions don't endanger or weaken the interests of the nation. I have nothing but respect for any Representative or Senator who councils determined vigilance in fully understanding ALL factors related to ending our involvement in Iraq before commiting to support for a particular policy. George Bush made an historical fuck up when he chose to invade Iraq. That doesn't mean that I expect my representatives in Congress to ignore all other considerations and make major foreign policy decisions based on the vocalized will of a passionate laymen majority. Yes, majority. We have a representative system of government for the very reason that literal democracy in a nation of 300 million people would be impossible.
Sorry, but like it or not, there is more at stake here than appeasing the likes of Cindy Sheehan and others opposed to continuing our involvement in Iraq. And the comparison to the Schiavo matter is not as far off as it sounds. Those opposed to the war are the most vocal. It doesn't make them the most correct.
Do I expect the Democrats to oppose Bush's escalation plan? They better.
Do I expect the Democrats to call for immediate withdrawal or cut off financing for the current operations? No.
Posted by snark at January 8, 2007 06:01 AMI think Mr. Armey was referring to the Fundie Values base. I have heard him speak to this before. But the G Bush/New World Order base are Republican "Pioneers" who indulge corporations with lots of free-market enabled government "undersight" and who are reciprocally rewarded with lots of cash. The Decider was a MBA before he was screw up.
Posted by gtash at January 8, 2007 06:17 AMTerry Schiavo~Iraq War of Occupation
There's more than coincidence in the similarity.
Two functionally dead human expressions forced to endure a miserable existence in order to perpetuate delusions by cynical self-aggrandizing political grifters.
Cue John Cornyn and Joe Lieberman for some venomous sanctimony.
Posted by Pvt. Keepout at January 8, 2007 06:43 AMHow lovely for Dick Armey, a Republican, to tell the Democrats what they should and should not do. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Posted by Judith at January 8, 2007 06:58 AMAnd by-the-way Dick, we can run our Party without Republican imput, thank you very much.
Posted by Judith at January 8, 2007 07:02 AMYeah, I'd really be pretty attentive to advice on how to run a new Congressional majority from shitbrain "conservative" Texas Repubs. They've REALLY got the Dems best interests at heart.
Hey, MSM and television news teams---why didn't we hear arguments like this from Armey when the Fristenstein/Delay Repubs were running the show and "catering" to their base? And where were your stories like this then?
Posted by euzoius at January 8, 2007 07:32 AMI'm a Democrat.
Yes, I'm angry , and for good reason. Yes, I'm also demanding.
I'm demanding that our Government respect and follow the Constitution, The Bill of Rights, and the many Treaties and Agreements we have made in the past to benefit not just the United States but the Planet as a whole. I'm demanding a return to the Ideals this Country was founded apon. Freedom and Justice for starters. I'm demanding that the individuals we employ to leadership positions obey the law and tell truth or be removed and prosecuted. I demand that these employees take responsibility for their actions and the results of those actions.
I demand an end to empire for empires sake, Illegal war, Torture, Propaganda, and the removal of Habeus Corpus,
These are reasonable demands for a Citizen of a Free Nation created "by the People", and "for the People."
These are reasonable demands for a Citizen of a Free Nation created "by the People", and "for the People."
Which country do you live in? It sounds wonderful. Where I live we flushed the Bill of Rights and corporations run the government.
It's an odd country here. The total federal share for running what some here call "welfare" is about $125.00 per taxpayer, and many complain mightily about that minor share. Yet the cost per taxpayer is $8,000.00 to run the miltary, but these same people against "welfare" don't say a thing about military spending...and actually want more of it! I live in an odd country. Where do you live? I think I want to immigrate. Do the natives there complain about things like this?
Posted by phidipides at January 8, 2007 10:14 AMI'm with snark.
The war is a terrible thing, and the Dems should be—and are—voicing opposition to it. Nonetheless, with a Commander in Chief who ardently supports an escalation, Congress would have to do some genuinely radical things to stop him—things that would certainly bring up conflicting constitutional prerogatives of the Congress (spending power, power to raise armies, rules of war...) and the President (Commander in Chief). I simply can't say that it would be good for either the Party or the country in the long term if the Democratic members of Congress were to take the steps necessary to shut down the war without reaching some kind of agreement with the White House.
This country has already tolerated a lot of deterioration in observance of constitutional norms. I feel quite safe in predicting that if the Democrats cause still more of those norms to fall by the wayside, they will shoulder the blame for that decision in a way that Bush and the GOP (unfortunately) will never have to answer for their own constitutional travesties.
Posted by dj moonbat at January 8, 2007 10:37 AMI live in New Jersey phidipides, a place like any other in America where the Bill of Rights were flushed and corporations run the government.
Why does that sound wonderful to you?
where do you live? What is the problem with wanting to restore what has been taken from us?
What a revelation here:
"The war is a terrible thing, and the Dems should be—and are—voicing opposition to it."
No shit.
But when it comes down to actually doing something about it it's all too radical for you.
If the Democrats take action they might look bad. Boo hoo.
The "Contitutional norms" you're worried about have not "deteriorated". They have been broken, stolen and destroyed. The Constitution itself has been trampled with purpose by Fascists who never believed in it but only saw the rule of law and the freedom of our Citizens as an obstacle and a threat. You make it sound like the Bill of Rights just evaporated naturally.
To block funds for an illegal war is not radical. It's what should have been done by a working Congress years ago when it became clear that this war was based on lies.
Impeachment is not radical either. It is exactly what is supposed to happen when the President becomes a criminal. This President needs to be tried for high crimes.
The President is not above the law even when he says he is.
And if your afraid to do anything because the Republicans are going to make Democrats who do act look bad, well then you'll do nothing and have already surrendered.
Tojo, Benito, Adolph, and Joseph all claimed that “victory” was possible in fascist imperial aggression… Now George is peddling the same stupid crap...
Posted by james k. sayre at January 8, 2007 12:16 PMSpeaker Pelosi and the Democratic leadership are making shrewd moves and showing their political maturity. They are well aware that a frontal assault on Bush now would not be good for the country, nor good for the Democratic Party over the long term, even if it gave the vocal libtards the warm fuzzies. (Please note, there is a difference between a liberal and a libtard; I'm not tarring all of you with the same brush.)
I'm convinced that Bush is insane, but he has considerable power and despite many people thinking he is an idiot, he is very politically clever. That, in fact, is his only area of competence. If one steps back from the hyperbole, and seriously considers the idea that a person with the power of the presidency is truly insane, the question of what to do about it calls for more intelligent answers than "Impeach him!" or "throw him in jail!". The most pressing matter is how to contain him and prevent him from creating more damage and havoc here at home or out in the world at large.
Some of you need to realize that Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic Leadership now represent and work for all Americans regardless of political affiliation, and not just the interests of the Democratic Party. Your mistake is understandable, given the way the Republican Leadership has ruled over the past six (make it ten) years. There is nothing inherently wrong with listening to voices on the right, nor in taking advice from the right. Pelosi has her head screwed on straight. So far she has shown not just political acumen, but leadership qualities.
Posted by marcos at January 8, 2007 12:54 PMTo block funds for an illegal war is not radical.
But it's not an illegal war—according to U.S. law, anyway (international law obviously takes a dimmer view of Iraq). It's a war that Congress authorized.
Should Congress have authorized it? Of course not. In addition to being morally wrong, it was fantastically ill-advised.
I would have been absolutely furious if, in the '90s, the GOP had cut Clinton off at the knees as Commander-in-Chief in the ways that some people are proposing now. America would not forgive us for doing it here, regardless of the faultiness of the original decision-making.
Posted by dj moonbat at January 8, 2007 01:15 PMCongress authorized the use of force if Saddam did not comply with US weapons inspectors. Those weapons inspectors who were on the ground doing their jobs and finding nothing. They were doing their jobs.
Those inspectors were removed by Bush from Iraq so he could start bombing.
If Saddam did not comply the use of force was authorized only AFTER Bush went back to the Security Council which he did not do, nor did he ever intend on doing.
It was during this time that Bush was already evesdropping on members of the United Nations as well as anyone else in the world he wanted.
Lying us into war is high treason. War for empire is in itself a war crime. Bush is a traitor.
"America would not forgive us for doing it here, regardless of the faultiness of the original decision-making."
That's called hand wringing.
While your doing that how many must die?
And what is it again that they are dying for?
It's not just the "faultiness of the original decision-making".
It's trying to make war on the cheap.It's sending too few troops. It's firing the 1st commander in charge who was promising elections in six months. It's putting reconstruction in the hands of 20year old kids with no experience.It's disbanding the Iraqi army with their weapons. It's not securing huge caches of high explosives which are being used against our troops every day. It's making this war a crusade, torturing and releasing Iraqi citizens.
It's mistake after mistake and you would continue on and on out of FEAR.
Why are we in Iraq again?
Posted by mparker at January 8, 2007 01:57 PMIt's mistake after mistake and you would continue on and on out of FEAR.
I fear that this country will learn entirely the wrong lessons from this debacle if the Democratic Party and its politicians embrace the solutions you seem to advocate. Luckily, I feel confident they won't.
Posted by dj moonbat at January 8, 2007 02:00 PMA little less radicalism is what this government needs. Not more.
Posted by snark at January 8, 2007 03:30 PMHow about a politician just doing what they believe is the right thing to do for a change?
Posted by TIKI AL at January 8, 2007 04:13 PMHow about a politician just doing what they believe is the right thing to do for a change?
I would venture to guess that many of our GOP overlords over the last several years thought they were doing the right thing. They just had profoundly twisted ideas of The Good.
Posted by dj moonbat at January 8, 2007 04:20 PMSince when is prosecuting criminals radical ?
I never did get an answer to my question.
Why are we in IRAQ, and how many more should DIE because your afraid of how Democrats will look ?
Why are we in IRAQ,...
We're in Iraq because George Bush, incompetent that he is, invaded and destroyed a very delicate balance that Saddam Hussein had provided and if we just up and leave as you would have us do there is no telling what sort of chaos will ensue and what the ramifications for US intersts in a part of the world that holds our immediate and forseeable energy sources in its hands will be.
...and how many more should DIE because your afraid of how Democrats will look ?
It has nothing to do with fear of how Democrats will look. If you'd stop trying to make adversaries from people who are on your side for a minute you might just realize that. It doesn't take a genius to understand that if the Democrats force their hand and it backfires and the Republicans keep the White House and/or take back some of the Congressional seats they lost this year that the Democrats will be right back in a position to do diddly. It's not about appearances you fucking idiot! It's about the affective ability to govern! How fucking blind can you be. If the Democrats have any chance of improving this situation it IS NOT going to happen overnight! That's reality. Deal with it.
And yes more will die. A true tragedy. It's a fucking tragedy that any situation ever deteriorates into a military confrontation. Save the fucking drama. No one here wants another single person to die over this conflict. But can you guarantee that if we withdraw we won't be right back in the region in two, three years fighting an even more deadly battle? With more death? No, you can't. So shut the fuck up with your primadonna bullshit. It's really fucking juvenile. Try and converse like a grown up.
Posted by snark at January 9, 2007 07:09 AM