Sunday, August 12, 2007

The Punk Democrats Will Not Save Us

We've been had. Hoodwinked. Pimped and Played.

Eight months have come and gone since We, the people of the United States, elected a Democratic majority to both houses of the U.S. Congress. Our hope was that they would end the occupation of Iraq, bring our troops home, deliver the Bush/Cheney/NeoCon cartel to justice and reverse the dangerous tailspin that we have endured since the first non-election of George W. Bush.

What have the Democrats given us in return?
So what gives? Why are the Democrats still the punks they were before they held power in Congress?

Nancy Pelosi and the Dems in the House took the trump card of impeachment off the table BEFORE the November elections. By doing so, they've removed the teeth from any Congressional threat to King George's royal power.

But there have been no threats. Non-binding resolutions? Unanswered questions? Tacit, even active support for Bush's neo-fascist policies?

When confronted by Cindy Sheehan, Ray McGovern and Rev. Lennox Yearwood
, former impeachment champion and current House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers of Detroit claimed that the Dems are backing off of Bush and Cheney so they can focus their attention toward a big win in the 2008 elections. Can we assume this means they also won't challenge Bush on Iraq?

You'd better believe it. Though the mainstream media is playing up this "coming confrontation on Iraq" in September, the fact is the Democrats are committed to this occupation. They voted for the invasion, allowed the escalation and are now adopting Bush's benchmarks as their own. Those benchmarks include an Iraqi law that allows foreign control of Iraqi oil.

Remember Hillary Clinton and John Edwards voted for the invasion. John Kerry did too, losing his presidential bid because he failed to promise a change in policy in Iraq only better management of the quagmire.

Old news? Not at all. On August 11, The New York Times reported that most Democratic presidential candidates have expressed no plans to remove our military from occupied Iraq if they are elected.
John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator, would keep troops in the region to intervene in an Iraqi genocide and be prepared for military action if violence spills into other countries. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York would leave residual forces to fight terrorism and to stabilize the Kurdish region in the north. And Senator Barack Obama of Illinois would leave a military presence of as-yet unspecified size in Iraq to provide security for American personnel, fight terrorism and train Iraqis.
So all those who believe the Democratic hype that they will lead us in a different direction might want to reconsider. Obama has been quoted rattling sabres with Iran and Pakistan, and would renew our commitment to NATO's flagging efforts in Afghanistan. Clinton wouldn't rule out using nukes if she received "actionable intelligence" about the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden.

Nukes?? For one man? This type of language foreshadows a continuation of the thuggish, bullying U.S. foreign policy that plays well with AIPAC, military contractors, oil companies and the banks who keep lending the government money.

The rest of the nation's citizens are tired of war, and most of us agree that George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and the principles they represent are the greatest threat to the internal security of the United States. When are the Democrats going to come to their senses and do something about it?


Blogger Paul Hue said...

Nadir, I somewhat agree with you on most of your points.

1. Though I supported the Bush invasion hypothetically, and I still object to your characterization of it as "imperialism", it ain't what I thought I was buying either: a relatively quick and painless eradication of a tyrant in a land where most of the people would use the opportunity to create a democracy, spear-headed by a competent US military effort supported by non-corrupt and efficient private US contract outfits. I do agree with you that the last election reflected a popular US call for ending the war quickly, and the democrats have failed to do that.

2. I wish that you would configure your blog as I do mine so that people who are commenting can simultaneously read what it is they are responding to, which I have now forgotten.

August 21, 2007 10:34 AM  
Blogger Nadir said...

Thanks, Paul.

If you click the "Show Original Post" link at the top of the page, you can see what you're commenting about. This config has bigger type and uses more of the screen, which is easier on my eyes. They have gotten progressively worse as I spend more time in front of computer screens...

August 21, 2007 11:12 AM  
Blogger Paul Hue said...

Nadir: But if your post is 25 inches tall, the "Show original post" option confines me to seeing your post and my post simultaneously only at the top of your post. If instead you enable "popup" for "leave a comment" I can simultaneously view my comment along with any portion of your massive posting. Go to my blog to experience the difference.

August 21, 2007 3:57 PM  
Blogger Paul Hue said...

Your linked article about the impending Iraqi oil law provides no information enabling me to judge it as a good or bad law. Nowhere do I learn that it will enable US firms to steal oil, or that it will nationalize the reserves, either of which would be a disaster.

But it does make some things clear:

1. Iraqis are in control of that law's passage, language, and adoption, not George Bush. So much for Bush's invasion creating an imperialist puppet government.

2. US taxpayers have so far paid for all attempts to fix Iraqi's petro infrastructure. Other articles document that non-US forces, such as Al KKKaida, have sabotaged these resources.

3. The Iraqis trying to build a civilization -- including civil peace, prosperity, and self-possession -- need petro income in order to achieve this goal. And achievement of that goal will make Bush look good, at the expense of his domestic critics and Iraqi enemies.

August 24, 2007 5:47 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home