You are herecontent / Democrats still backing senseless war

Democrats still backing senseless war


Seattle Post Intelligencer
By HELEN THOMAS
HEARST NEWSPAPERS

WASHINGTON -- It's time for the Democratic Party to take a courageous stand and call for the withdrawal of troops from the senseless war in Iraq.

Its human cost and the billion-dollars-a-week tab in Iraq should give all Americans pause.

Would the Republicans have hesitated to challenge the Democrats if the shoe were on the other foot? Did the opposition party give President Clinton any slack while he was in office?

What is the logic of Sens. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., Joseph Biden, D-Del., and other so-called moderate Democrats still backing the unprovoked war in Iraq when they know they were sold a bill of goods?

Furthermore, they are urging that more troops be sent to Iraq. And they are doing so at a time when the generals in Iraq are giving mixed signals. Some are talking about a draw-down of troops in a year, others in four years.

Are the Democratic leaders afraid to admit they were wrong? Does the credibility of the administration -- and, therefore, the country-- mean anything to them?

Both Clinton and Biden are presumed presidential contenders in 2008. That leaves Democratic voters -- many of whom are anti-war -- with no choice if either wins the party nomination.

Can Biden and Clinton give young men and women any valid reason why they should lay down their lives in a war that we didn't have to fight in the first place?

The fallback position apparently runs like this: "We're there and we have to stay there now. We can't cut and run."

I heard the same refrain during the dying days of the Vietnam War. And so did the moderate Democrats.

Whether viewed as a "mistake" or a "noble cause," the fact is that Vietnam survived and thrived after we departed. It is a participant in the global economy and fairly friendly to us.

I always thought the debacle in Vietnam and its aftermath had taught us a lesson. But apparently not.

Not all Democrats are so clueless. In an opinion article on Wednesday in The Washington Post, former Sen. Gary Hart, D-Col., wrote that "history will deal with George W. Bush and the neoconservatives who misled a mighty nation into a flawed war that is draining the finest military in the world ... diverting Guard and Reserve forces that should be on the front line of homeland defense, shredding international alliances that prevailed in two world wars and the Cold War ... and weakening America's national security."

But he is also tough on his own party and asks: "What will history say about an opposition party that stands silent while all this goes on?"

Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., is proposing a total pullout of U.S. troops by Dec. 31, 2006. Why wait a year?

Some Democrats think the party should simply take a back seat, bide its time and watch the administration defensively struggle for answers to Cindy Sheehan, the California mother who lost her son, Casey, in Iraq. Her vigil continues adjacent the president's Texas ranch.

Bush told the Veterans of Foreign War the United States will accept nothing less than "total victory over the terrorists and their hateful ideology."

His new argument is that anti-war protesters who want the troops brought home quickly "are advocating a policy that would weaken the United States."

Bush himself acknowledged there were no ties between the deposed dictator Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 attacks. The 9/11 commission concluded that there was no evidence of "a collaborative operational relationship" between Saddam and Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida terrorist network.

The U.S. invasion of Iraq has changed that equation. The Iraqi resistance is being helped by outsiders -- whether terrorists or sympathizers -- who were not in Iraq before we attacked.

Did Bush think that at least some Iraqis would not stand and defend their country? Is patriotism simply a U.S. phenomenon?

White House reporters have noted that in addressing military families, Bush is citing statistics on Americans killed in Iraq -- a figure now approaching the 2,000 mark. But the candid test will be when he notes the numbers of Iraqis who have been killed since the United States invaded their country.

Democrats have gone about their lives after giving the president a blank check to do anything he thought was necessary. They think they have absolved themselves of responsibility. It's somebody else's war.

But they might find that if they don't get some backbone and take a stand soon, the voters might not be that forgiving.

Helen Thomas is a columnist for Hearst Newspapers. E-mail: helent@hearstdc.com.

Copyright 2005 Hearst Newspapers.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/238448_hthomas26.html

Tags

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Democrats are idiots. Nuff said. And that's why I will vote for an Independent, unknown, or write-in candidate in 2008. The biggest mistake the anti-war crowd made was capitulating on their beliefs to vote ABB (anybody but Bush) and support a pro-war democrat.

NO MORE NEOCONS! NO MORE DLC!

Democrats are idiots. Nuff said. And that's why I will vote for an Independent, unknown, or write-in candidate in 2008. The biggest mistake the anti-war crowd made was capitulating on their beliefs to vote ABB (anybody but Bush) and support a pro-war democrat.

NO MORE NEOCONS! NO MORE DLC!

This war is every bit as much the responsiblity of the Democrats as the Republicans.As long as people keep buying crap from people like Helen Thomas that tell us there are no alternatives but the Republicans and Democrats, nothing will be resolved.

It's people like you who start to grasp that the Republicans and Democrats are not two ideologically distinct parties, but rather two competing wings of the same party, that are the real hope for the future.

Up until the middle of the last century, we had a two party system. When both parties failed to address the concerns of a significant portion of the constituency,a third party would always emerge to give voice to the heretofore silenced.

Today, we no longer have a two party system. Rather, we have a TWO PARTYS ONLY system, with campaign finance laws(a blatant first amendment violation),designed to stifle those who don't already enjoy a broad base of support and ever harsher ballot access requirements (exempting guess who).

As I read these articles and comments it never ceases to amaze me how people who express the common ideology found here can continue to support the Democrats.

What the hell do they have to do to lose you?

Why don't you try letting your conscience tell you who to vote for? Have you ever thought of giving the Green Party a chance? Can't you see how they regularly and consistently stand up for your avowed beliefs?

Don't hand me any of your damned "they can't win" bullshit that sure as hell is'nt their fault, but maybe it's yours.

I can proudly say that I've never voted for a Republican or a Democrat in my life.

I don't share the ideology of the Greens, as I imagine most who visit this website do, but because issues of character and conscience in these times transcend questions of political ideology I would vote for their candidates against Republicans and Democrats with a clear conscience.

What's your excuse?

Pathetic nonsense about their not being able to "win"?

Stop being a coward in the voting booth, stop obeying the Helen Thomases and the rest of the MSM and let your conscience pull the levers in the voting booth.

I take great pride in the fact that in the last presidential election I voted for my party's candidate, Micheal Badnarik.I never expected him to win, but I expected him to work hard to stand up for libertarian ideals, which he did, so he got my vote.

Where were you leftists when David Cobb needed you?

You were being a bunch of pathetic cowards and voting for,oh what was that Democrat guy's name again?

---The Bikemessenger

and never did, that I can recall. I thunk wrong>>> I should've voted my conscience .

The Resolution of Inquiry is a step in the right direction, but certainly no guarantee of success in giving the government back to the people.

Why has no prominent Democrat (sorry - is that an oxymoron?) taken advantage of the media crush in Crawford by banging on Duba's front door, copies of the DSMs in hand, saying "Hey asshole, 123 of us Congressional reps and well over 500,000 of the citizens you're supposed to be serving have signed a letter that was originally delivered to you on May fucking 5th, asking you to explain these memos,and we're STILL WAITING for a response! Despite your grand fascist fantasy you are STILL answerable to the people and Congress!"

If the reason this has not happened is so obvious to so many (as I suspect the response would be), why are so many allowing the bullshit to continue unchallenged?

Wake the hell up America.

Call the Capitol Hill switchboard toll free:
1-877-762-8762

Ask to be connected to your Rep's office, then ask what your rep is doing about this bullshit. If anybody gives you any pussy crap about a lack of respect for our elected reps, remind them that respect is fucking a two way street and that a silent Congress shows no respect for its constituents.

John Perry
http://www.johnperryonline.com

The republican party is the enemy. If they win they get everything. Those that control the inner workings of the democratic party sell out on the big issues of foreign policy, defense, trade and corporate welfare. They are allowed to keep a few scraps like environment, tax code, social security and gay marriage. I appreciate your voting your conscience but the last time a third party candidate won was ..... never. One sign of insanity is repeating an act and expecting a different outcome. The last time my nominee won was in 1972. Since then I've supported a candidate of conscience in the democratic primaries and after he lost voted for the hand picked milque toast that was left. Not very satisfying.
The Revolution must occur within the Democratic Party to select a real President. The democratic powers that be must be turned out and then the republicans can be flushed.
The sad truth is that all third parties will always be on the outside looking in. Its easy to feel good about voting for a principle, its more difficult to make one happen.

In Response To "Unfortunate Truths"

All third parties are will always be on the outside looking in."?When the first republican president, Abraham Lincoln, walked into the white house THAT third party was'nt on the outside anymore.

You'll never get your "revolution" within the Democratic party as long as the two parties only system allows the republicans in power to be a more compelling constituency than any aggregate of voters to the democrats. Why should they pay attention to you, when the second place position is made so cozy for them by the republicans? They may compete for your vote,but which ever of the two factions finishes second is too well off at your expense to upset the status quo at your behest.It's rather like Pervez Musharaf ignoring the will of Pakistanis because the white house in Washington is a much more compelling influence.

Voting for a third party is'nt about feeling good; it's about clearly and comprehensively understanding the nature of what you are doing when you vote.

Whatever your intentions may be, the result of your vote is limited by the actual nature of the act you commit; i.e. by voting for a candidate, you are endorsing that individual for that office. You are not making a statement about his opponent(s) and as you have only the one vote, your chances of being a deciding factor(paricularly in a federal election), while not intrinsically nonexistent, are so mathematically low that in practical terms, they must be regarded as nonexistent.

This is manifest as the "difficult to make happen". I propose that that perspective is so impertinent as to be utterly useless.

Instead, as you cannot reasonably expect to directly affect the outcome, you should rather focus on your obligation to yourself to do the right thing( as you percieve it to be). Remember, you are responsible for the candidate you vote for.

It must be understood that the COMPETITIVE aspects of the election process are the EXCLUSIVE PURVEIW OF THE CANDIDATES AND THE PARTIES. YOU THE VOTER bear exclusively MORAL OBLIGATIONS. Therefore it is fundamentally inappropriate for you to make decisions on a COMPETITIVE basis(in addition[no pun intended]as noted above, attempting to make a calculated mathematical decision cannot lead to a rational determination).

Another pitfall of competitive voting is that it leaves you highly vulnerable to mass media influences; however accurately the MSM might report on the relative standing of the candidates in an election,it still constitutes an opportuity to affect the outcome. That cannot be the case if enough people vote conscientiuosly. There again is an aspect that you cannot control directly, but must follow the dictates of your individual conscience in order to do your part to blunt that effect.

If you still have any doubts, do a little simple arthmetic. Subtract your vote from any candidate you've ever voted for,and transfer it to his opponent. See any difference? Me neither.

So please, next time you step into a voting booth, remember the outcome will be the same regardless of who you vote for. But you won't be. You owe it to me and all of your fellow citizens to follow the dictates of your conscience.But most importantly, you owe it to youself.

From a theoretical standpoint you are of course correct. It is of the highest moral obligation to select the best person for office as you percieve the facts. This however conflicts with reality. Elections are by definition competitive events. There can be only one winner, everyone else will be a loser. While we only have one vote, elections are decided by the summation of all votes. Do a little simple arithmetic, take all of Nader's votes in 2000 and add them to Gore's. The sum would put Bush in Crawford as a cowboy wantabe. No matter what Gore's failings, the envirornment would not be raped, 100,000 Iraqies and 1900 Americans would be alive, a trillion dollars in debt would not have been piled up.....
You are right, conscience must be your guide, but you cannot exercise it in a vacuum. You must think about about the outcome in a comprehensive sense. If Hitler (as a republican) were running against Kerry and you were a Jew, would you really vote for a third party candidate no matter how qualified he might be?

Darn It they did't believe that Lying Street Memo that some Democrats think is gospel. Gee I also don't see them down in Crawford supporting Cindy. Many Democrats aren't drinking the Kool Aid provided by Move On.Org. Look what they did for Kerry.

Bush and Bin Ladens are partners in crime .....

http://waynemadsenreport.com/

Just because the Democrat elite doesn't get it , doesn't mean we don't get the Neo Con-artists 'spiracy. We the people are playing our cards >>> us. WE are the people, NOT the reps. If they don't rep us, we rep ourselves. We don't need no stinkin' "projects", especially from the PNAC. If you want to be the sheeple, remember, Rove loves ewe. And next time you accuse someone of lying , look in the mirror. PNAC is hardly "kool-aid", it's gasoline on a fire, and that frankenstein creation of mad scientist Cheney has it's own website. Obviously, the Neocons think that Rebuilding America's Defenses (among other projects) is their Satanic gospel:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

http://www.newamericancentury.org/publicationsreports.htm

http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/cheney_0.html

http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/pnac_neo-con_artists.html

http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/pnac.html

Jay Leno>>> "OUT" THE PNAC; Oprah>>> "OUT" THE PNAC;
Saturday Night LIVE! SNL >>> "OUT" THE PNAC
MAD Magazine>>> "OUT" THE PNAC!!!

To the idiot who wrote this post (you know who you are):

"Darn It they did't believe th
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 2005-08-30 02:21.
Darn It they did't believe that Lying Street Memo that some Democrats think is gospel. Gee I also don't see them down in Crawford supporting Cindy. Many Democrats aren't drinking the Kool Aid provided by Move On.Org. Look what they did for Kerry."

Wow.

Spoken like a typical hate-filled right-wing hatemonger operating under the delusion that you're an American. I'm so sick of you right-wing creeple posing as if you were ACTUAL human beings with a soul and a beating heart. You think this dirty little war that Bush and his neo-con buddies have lied us into is such a "noble cause" to fight and die for? Then go to Iraq and pick up a weapon. Otherwise, SHUT THE HELL UP.

Stop whining, you pathetic crybabies. You didn't see us in Crawford supporting Cindy Sheehan??? Really??? Well... Mr. Bush saw us. And it's scaring the living daylights out of him. That's why he ran away from his MONTH LONG vacation shaking like a leaf with his tail between his legs. Don't kid yourself. The WORLD has seen Cindy Sheehan and the wonderful Americans at Camp Casey SUPPORTING our troops by trying to get them home by exercising their First Amendment rights peacefully and respectfully.... and Bush, as usual, when confronted with a crisis... ran away and hid ... and let his attack dogs create a campaign of hateful smears to anyone with the courage to stand up to his lies.

And please... don't tell us how YOU "support" our troops by going to Crawford and.... what? Running over crosses with American Flags attached to them that were erected to honor our kids in uniform killed in the war in Iraq? I'm confused. Was the right wing "patriot" who committed that disgraceful display of Republican values by running over the flag draped crosses in that shrine erected to honor our war dead showing his "support" for our troops.... his "love" of Jesus and his teachings.... or his "respect" for the American Flag and, by extension, the American way of life, including the freedom to speak and to peaceably assemble?

I understand, whoever you are that wrote that whiny little rant that prompted this response, that if you're reading this... you are BY FAR way too stupid and too evil to see the forest for the trees and understand that it's jackasses like YOU who are the Kool Aid drinkers. NOT the liberals.

Pesident Bush and his crew have been caught in LIE after LIE after LIE. There WERE no WMD'S in Iraq. Was there? There WAS no imminent danger of a "smoking gun being a mushroom cloud". There WAS no link between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden. In fact they hated each other. We were NOT greeted with "hearts and flowers" by the Iraqi people. We did NOT "fund the war" with oil profits from Iraq. (I could keep going... but you get the point. It'd be like piling on). Yet STILL... you folks continue to spew out, word for word, KKKarl Rove's hate-filled, RIDICULOUS talking points as told to Bill O'REALLY or Sean Insanity or the fat man on the radio who made himself deaf taking fistfuls of Hillbilly Heroin... as if you were some mindless parrot who doesn't have eyes and ears of your own. God KNOWS you don't have a working brain. Or if you do... you CERTAINLY don't use it. It's easier to let the fat man on the radio tell you what it is you are to be thinking today, isn't it? You folks even BRAG about your mindless, robotic obedience to this partisan media shill by calling yourselves "dittoheads". How pathetic.

Folks like you think that a war hero like John Kerry is a "coward", that every person who dares to voice dissent for the war in Iraq or for any of the Presiden't policies either here or abroad is a "traitor", that George W. Bush is a "fighter pilot", and that right wing nutbag convicted criminals like Ollie North, G. Gordon Liddy and Timothy McVeigh are "patriots". Wake up, sheeple.

It's abundantly obvious that no matter what proof is presented to you.... right wing idiotlogs like you are going to continue to believe that President Bush, like George Washington, is incapable of telling a lie (although I'm SURE you're convinced it was REALLY those "dirty damned liberals" that chopped down the cherry tree, wasn't it????) and that this "war of liberation" in Iraq is "keeping America safer" and that "the insurgency is in it's death knell", anyway. (And they laughed at Baghdad Bob). So GET your fat butt OFF the couch and GET OFF that computer and go over to the local U.S. Marines recuiting office and go enlist. Put your butt where your mouth is. Go show us how you support this war and support our troops by joining them.

Or shut up.

MOTHERS ARE EVERYWHERE

Excellent reply to another "unknown" right winger!

I am certain you channeled yourrage into your post so well that you unintentionally omitted posting your name. Do not be afraid! Most of us who regularly follow and post on this site freely use our names and post our e-mails. You can be proud of your post and should let everyone on both sides of the philosophical fence know who you are. It is rare that the righties, such as the "person" to whom you responded, give any name. I number you among those on our side and we proudly identify ourselves. Of course if there are extenuating circumstances which may make it troublesome to give your name, that is a completely different matter and we all understand. Again great post and let that "chickenhawk" bushshitter live with himself and his kind.

I share your feelings but to demonize your opponent is to fall into the same trap they are in are in when they try to justify their "war on terror".They create of muslims a gratuitous comic book villian with no reference in the real world, which exists only to give our "hero" something to defend us against.

When the facts are so conclusively on your side, it is better to employ dispassionate, rigorous logic to get your point across. Even the most severe and confused right-wing extremist is still your follow human being.

It's even rumored that we libertarians are too (just kidding).

But seriously, for an example of how this strategy can be made to work on this very issue please see my "The Death of the Death in Vain Argument" at ( http://www.smallgov.org )

---The Bikemessenger

You have made a great point but you left out the real reason we have gone to war. The new American project for the 21'st century written by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, Libby, AND MANY OTHERS CONNECTED TO THIS ADMINISTRATION IN THE 80'S. We have fourteen permanant military basis along the oil fields in Iraq, put there right before the war.

In this dualistic complicated political system, some know what it takes to win in 2008. Instead of coming in a faithful 3rd, they would much rather ride the middle ground and try to take the power from the sick folks we have in office. Consider Bush who also knew there were millions of bigots and uninformed voters who can identify with hate and other mindless thought processes that belong next to the early evolution of man. What is not said of Sen. Clinton and Bidden is this hidden appeal that they know the real truth involving the Iraq situation, but to say it is to lose more of the middle right and crossover vote. It’s all a numbers game that you either play or get played on. Again, there is always the faithful but true to the cause 3rd.

Joseph

Condy rice looks like the bride of chucky. cept meaner

Can't imagine her as a Mommy, except as "Mommy Dearest"

I liked Helen Thomas article and I hope the Democrats don't run Clinton and the attack on Hilary's lack of conscience is on the money.

I also agree with Bikemessenger, I may just vote Green, I went almost every day to David Cobb's Recount website which they did on a shoestring budget since Kerry apparently kept the $51 million he raised in the last few days of the "Campaign" specifically for a recount.

Rep. Conyers asked us all to email Kerry to sign the papers so that the lawsuit against the Election Fraud and Obstruction of the Recount can continue so that, maybe, we can have honest elections in 2006. The deadline for Kerry's signature to put Ken Blackwell and others who are being prosectuted to continue is August 30, 2005 and no answer to my 4 emails.

The link to Rep. Conyers' letter to Kerry and Edwards is on Rep. Conyers blog.

Don't send one more dime to the Dems until they stand for something...It is a waste of our money...We already gave them enough to run a sham presidential election...if you believe in the NeoCon effort just give it to the Republicans...otherwise give it to Conyers or Kucinich or someone that is working for us... Who needs two Repub parties. They are leading us to disaster for their own benefit.

If kerry had stood up against the war he could have won.

However, he was cynical. He took the advice of his handlers and played the numbers. That's why he, and many other Democrats, are so pathetically helpless, and hopeless now.

cuz no body likes wussies

?

Not only the republicans but the chicken hearted democrates as well, I have voted democrate all my life, I'm 71 years old, but now, if I live for the next election, I will change my party and vote against the wimps that are suppose to represent us. Why are the democrates siding with the neocons? Let your represtatvies know that if they don't listen to the people (us), then they will be out of a job come "06". IT'S TIME WE ALL STOOD UP TO THE CROOKS IN THE HOUSE AND SENATE. If we get enough votes in the congress, then we can impeach the puppet in the White House.

voted Democrat his whole life, FDR was his only president first part of his life, and he is prepared to study each candidate individually to see who is against this Neocon War. Walter Jones, Republican who invented "Freedom Fries" , is devastated by Bush lies & is now totally against the war .

http://bluegalredstate.blogspot.com/2005/05/freedom-fries-founder-now-pr...

Let Freedom Ring, Vote Out the Neocons>>> Bush Lied, Freedom Fried!

Forget Hilary and Biden...both want to continue war. Dems badly in need of a new face and direction.
Who wants to vote for a donkey wearing an elephant's pinnochio nose?

We need either a new party, or a new outlook. Don't expect these people, or the system to change unless we make it change.

who would jesus water board ?

all buscho gotta do is drop a little anthrax a dirty bomb or two and the game is over. running out of time. who gonna stop em????

(couldn't help it)

Why on earth would anyone expect two political twins, bought and paid for by exactly the same establishment interests, to act differently or to provide any real alternative choices for the peasantry.

If Americans don't soon wake up to the realities of their so-called "free and democratic" system of governance, it won't be long before there's nothing left for them to do about it short of armed insurrection. In fact, tyrannical power is not far away from being totally "locked in" already with an imperial presidency and all the constraints on effective dissent.

To tell the truth, I'm fed up with this country. If things don't get better soon, I'm marrying a Canadian citizen and moving to Canada. This "game" our politians play with our money and lives sicken me.

Better be prepared to do a little "housecleaning" when you get there too.

Canada has been under the influence of imperial powers (first British and now U.S.) since its inception. The latter has been more economic than overtly political, but especially since NAFTA (nee the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement) there have been heavy impacts on political, cultural and social values as well as the business environment.

You'll have at least a little more "breathing space" in terms of multi-party political choice and the electoral process is publicly funded (at least in part) so that corrupting ($$$) influences are diminished to some extent. You will, however, find the northern counterparts of Republican and Democratic parties (the Conservative Party of Canada and the Liberal Party of Canada) if you're more comfortable carrying on with the duopoly approach.

Bon voyage and good luck.

Serious question here, how about Canada's care of adult disabled? I'm investigating due to being caretaker of one.

I'm not an expert on the subject, but EVERY citizen is eligible for Canada's single-payer healthcare system which cover's most (not all) medical expenses, including doctors and hospitalization. Medications are not included -- neither prescription nor non-prescription drugs. However, most provinces provide free, or nearly free, medications for seniors and there are plenty of private plans for others.

AFAIK, the costs of in-home care for the disabled is dealt with mainly through the tax system which provides various types of refundable and non-refundable tax credits. Specific questions about eligibity, however, are beyond my depth and I wouldn't want to mislead you with imprecise info.

Your most authoritative sources would be:
Health Canada (Services)
Revenue Canada (Taxation)
Canadian Health Care (NGO)
Council of Canadians with Disabilities (NGO)
and agencies of whichever provincial governments interest you. Note that most aspects of the health system are administered provincially subject to national standards.

You're great! I will investigate all your sources.

?

Hey...Congress we lost...Why are we backing a failed policy? Remember the Berlin wall that Reagan supposedly brought down...everyone forgets that Gorbachov let it happen...he knew it was indefensible and too many people would die protecting the Cold War Wall...Time for the US to get that message...it is coming down...the ME will not tolerate another Palestine in its midst...We Americans will not tolerate Iraq to be a 60 year Palestine...it is over...wake up...clean up this mess so we can save some face...don't blame Cindy Sheehan for your mess that you created. Justlike they blamed a few bad apples...now its let's blame Sheehan. Chicken hawks everyone...NeoCon DLC...go home and such you thumbs...or grow up and show some real leadership. Kerry won't sign the recount...what a piece of work. Stand up and tell us why you are getting out of the recount. NOW

The democrats mirror the american people, we can't handle the Truth. We sit on our fat asses watching mindless television, driving gas hogs, and buying and buying and buying stuff we don't need with money we don't have. Our government overthrew the government of Iran in 1953 and installed a Dictator who gave the oil companies sweetheart deals. We got our comeuppance in 1979 and have been pissed ever since. We backed Saddam for 8 years, OK'd the invasion of Kuwait and then double crossed him. ("The United States has no opinion on Arab Arab conflicts" - our reply to Saddam prior to the invasion.) We militarized the Middle East to "contain Saddam" and spent a trillion dollars doing it. All this following the demise of Soviet Communism (lose one bogeyman make another?). In 2001 we got it in the ass. Now the bogeyman is Terrorism and we'll spend whatever it takes to "protect america". Notice we haven't caught bin Laden and the "War on terrorism" is projected to go on forever. Does the phrase "follow the money" ring a bell? Its not entirely the average american's fault, they've been fed a steady diet of crap from the commercial news media. It is, nonetheles, our responsibility as Citizens to separate the lies and half truths from reality and to put two and two together. Failing this, you wind up with a country led by chicken hawk neocons and hapless democrats intent on being re-elected and serving up pork to the moneyed interests that actually run things. Sadly, a madman living in a cave in Afganistan knows more about american foreign policy than the average american.

The democrats mirror the american people, we can't handle the Truth. We sit on our fat asses watching mindless television, driving gas hogs, and buying and buying and buying stuff we don't need with money we don't have. Our government overthrew the government of Iran in 1953 and installed a Dictator who gave the oil companies sweetheart deals. We got our comeuppance in 1979 and have been pissed ever since. We backed Saddam for 8 years, OK'd the invasion of Kuwait and then double crossed him. ("The United States has no opinion on Arab Arab conflicts" - our reply to Saddam prior to the invasion.) We militarized the Middle East to "contain Saddam" and spent a trillion dollars doing it. All this following the demise of Soviet Communism (lose one bogeyman make another?). In 2001 we got it in the ass. Now the bogeyman is Terrorism and we'll spend whatever it takes to "protect america". Notice we haven't caught bin Laden and the "War on terrorism" is projected to go on forever. Does the phrase "follow the money" ring a bell? Its not entirely the average american's fault, they've been fed a steady diet of crap from the commercial news media. It is, nonetheles, our responsibility as Citizens to separate the lies and half truths from reality and to put two and two together. Failing this, you wind up with a country led by chicken hawk neocons and hapless democrats intent on being re-elected and serving up pork to the moneyed interests that actually run things. Sadly, a madman living in a cave in Afganistan knows more about american foreign policy than the average american.

I'm sitting here just laughing at you all the way to the bank!

You are so UNEDUCATED it is sad. You really need an economics class.

I can only imagine how you handle your 401K (NOT).

All conflicts are financial! DUH

Some more extreme than others.

I would love to check in with you in 2 years and make sure you still have a few dollars left to live on!

But this one has back fired 180 degrees RIGHT IN BUSHS FACE!

.

.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Support WarIsACrime



Donate.








Tweet your Congress critters here.


Advertise on this site!




Facebook      Twitter





Our Store:



















Movie Memorabilia.



The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.