Democrats in the house vote on resolution that links 9/11 to IRAQ

[still_one]

I am outraged. Yesterday a resolution was introducted by Henry Hyde which implied a direct connection between the war in Iraq and 9/11. It passed the house 406 to 16. It is house resolution 757.

Our minority leader, Nancy Pelosi voted Yes on this resolution. In fact quite a few Democrats voted yes.

I am PROUD to say that my representative, Zoe Lofgren voted no, along with Barbara Lee, and a few others.

WHAT DOES THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY STAND FOR IF THEY ALLOW THIS LIE TO STAND?

How does Kerry stand a chance with Democrats in Congress that vote this way?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/congress_9_11_resolution

[Catfight]

1. That's a great question! I guess they are not worried about losing their

jobs?

[SoCalDem]

2. Everything is political.. the government does not care about truth

or about US..

Every bit of legislation is mostly about the ability to "hang" votes around the necks of SOMEONE at a later date..

Every bill contains "poison pills" of one sort or another..

If they really cared about their responsibility, they would pass legislation that BARS bunding of issues into bills..

Single issue bills is the ONLY way to ever get control of the money also..

They get away with it because it's too convoluted of an issue to discuss in 15 second snippets on tv..

we are all seriously screwed..

[BeHereNow]

11. And still...there are DUers who

admonish others for "doom and gloom" posts.
It seems with every passing day, the truth is revealed
that we are on our OWN.
The two party system is a farce.
The corporatists own BOTH parties.
Seriously screwed and then some.
Porter Goss?
They will not utter a peep...just watch.
I for one, believe we have EVERY reason for doom and gloom
posts, or as I like to call it, understanding what IS.
BHN
On edit- I LOVE Amber...please give her a kiss from me.

[MsUSA]

25. I'm sure this is not the place to say Nader DOES have a few

talking points huh??? Like the two party system is a farce!!!

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

3. Read the full resolution

Do you have any fucking idea how it would've been spun had they not voted for it? It'd be spun as Democrats don't give a shit about 9/11 victims. That'd be a friggin disaster.

On edit: Further, it would've made a big issue out of something that does not need to be an issue.

[liveoaktx]

5. Sneaky Repubs made this a gotcha in an election year

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:3:./temp/~c1086BnJLD::

[PROGRESSIVE1]

6. and Democrats better learn to do the same back to them.

[liveoaktx]

12. I heard this on NPR yesterday-one Rep quoted was giggling

that they had been able to screw over Democrats with this.

I was thinking, why didn't the Dems just refuse to go along with this, and DO THEIR OWN RESOLUTIOn? Even if it was by calling a major press conference that wasn't on record through the House? I'm amazed that they would link 911 with Iraq so willingly.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

23. You might not have noticed this, but Repugs control Congress

They can do whatever they want. And if you trust the Fox News types to spin any "major press conference" the way you think it would be spun, you're only kidding yourself.

[RapidCreek]

39. Well if Republicans are smarter than Dems...to the degree

that they can cow them into doing there bidding...then let me ask you....what the fuck good are Dems? Why vote for them? Who needs ignorant cowards as representatives?

RC

[still_one]

7. sorry but that is a weak excuse for what they have done the last 4 years

[still_one]

9. That is exactly what they said about the new CIA director

WE ARE REALLY SCREWED!

There is nothing on principle we stand for

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

10. Well, you can keep your "sky is falling" routine.

I'll continue to keep things in proper perspective that sometimes you have be a little pragmatic, especially when you haven't much choice.

[madfloridian]

20. That is not pragmatism, that is giving in to a lie.

It is giving in to fear instead of standing up for truth.

[Eloriel]

Right, and also handing them a powerful propaganda point -

Now they can say, "But Democrats all SAID that Iraq was linked to 9-11. We have their votes right here."

It's the worst kind of "pragmatism." I'd call it treasonous. I'm SICK of the lies, and I'm sick of Dems rolling over for them.

[madfloridian]

13. Why doesn't the Iraq War, draining our resources, need to be an issue?

I don't understand. Maybe I am just not very smart.

[Goldmund]

15. Bullshit.

It ABSOLUTELY needs to be an issue. If Iraq and 9/11 are connected, then WMDs, lies, etc, don't matter; if they're not connected, then Iraq is Bush's liability (no pun intended). And that's speaking strictly in political terms.

Morally speaking this is beyond disgusting.

And what do you mean "it'd be spun", as if there's some big God of Spin in the sky who decides what to spin and how to spin it. Don't the Dems have their own muscle to influence spin? Yeah, I know, the media, blablabla. But this isn't some small political issue. This is the FUNDAMENTAL issue of Bush's presidency: 9/11 and its exploitation to justify Bush's imperial ambitions.

Fuck the Dems. Fuck them. As I've said before: I'll do everything I can to get Kerry elected (or Bush thrown out, rather), but once that's accomplished, I'm going independent and I'll be up his ass with passion.

[BeHereNow]

19. Ditto.

Every issue they do not confront is another
step towards complicity in the treason committed
against this country and its people.
Period.
And I am also of the mind, IF by some miracle
or backfiring of the touch screen machines plan
to amnipulate the votes, Kerry wins, we need
to "grab mane" and ride his ass to return our government
to the people.
BHN

[K-W]

48. WAKE UP

Welcome to America. We have a corporate controlled media and a conservative propaganda machine funded by the aristocracy. If you dont know what 'it'd be spun" means you need to educate yourself quickly.

[Goldmund]

54. puhleeze.

That's ridiculous. I agree that in this situation the Dems need to carefully choose their battles. But again, this is THE FUNDAMENTAL battle. If THIS battle is not fought, the what fucking battle will we fight??? No, it would not be spun. The spinning would be ATTEMPTED. But for chrissakes, we have some influential people up there too don't we??? And JESUS FUCKING CHRIST, BUSH* HIMSELF CLEARLY SAID THERE WAS NO INVOLMENT OF IRAQ IN 9/11. What more weapons do we need? All of the evidence in the world. Their own statements. The 9/11 comission. And WE STILL CAN'T PUT OUR OWN SPIN ON IT????

Fucking cowards and opportunists. Not even good opportunists. Fuck them.

[K-W]

57. You think this is a fundemental battle?

It is a few statements in a fairly meaningless bill. The democrats cant battle this. There is no battle. They have two choices.

1. Vote No, take a stand in this of all places, the bill still passes, and now at thier next election their opponants can say they voted against a bill to honor the victims of 9/11.

2. Vote Yes, let a little bit of republican crap slip through, live to fight a battle over something important.

You chose the wrong battle to fight the democrats on. There are time they dont fight when they should, this is not one of them. This isn't about cowardice or opportunism. This is politics. The republicans control congress, the democrats have to play by thier rules.

[Goldmund]

63. That's not how I see the two options.

The bill is meaningless practically, that is true. But politically it's very meaningful. And the statements connecting Iraq with 9/11 are not just "a little bit of republican crap", they are an admission that the Iraq war was justified. Not only the IWR, not only the "threat of force", but the war itself.

I see the options like this:

1. Vote No, take a stand, the bill still passes, and now at their next election their opponents can say they voted against a bill to honor the victims of 9/11; but the Dems can say that the Republicans led us into an unjustified and false war that cost thousands upon thousands of casualties and billions upon billions of dollars, all on false premises, and that they are trying to replace the missing truth about the war with exploitation of 9/11. Yes, I do think that is the fundamental issue of Bush's presidency. "Strong leader", "resolute", and all that crap. What else is he going to run on? The economy? The environment? No, he's running on warmongering.

And the other option:

2. Vote Yes, and signed a document that practically says that supporting the Iraq war and honoring the 9/11 victims are two sides of the same coin. Thank God for Bush, the strong and resolute leader he is. He could have executed the "post-war" planning better, for sure, but Iraq is justified by 9/11. The rest are... umm... nuances.

How is Kerry going to say now "W stands for wrong war at a wrong time for America"? After all, America didn't pick the time of 9/11 attacks (at least not in the minds of most), and if Iraq is connected with 9/11 then the whole argument crumbles.

[K-W]

65. you are putting WAY too much importance on this

It is not politically very meaningful. The language just mirrors that of the republican party everywhere. It is nothing new, and the fact that the democrats voted yes means very little. If the bill meant more politically the dems may have opposed it.

The democrats can attack the war no matter what. You seem to be under the false impression that this was an admission by dems that there was a 9/11 iraq war connection. It isnt. It is a bill honoring the 9/11 victims that contains some confusing language about Iraq. Nothing more, nothing less.

The democrats could not afford to vote against this bill. It wouldnt have given them any political ammunition to do so, and it would have garunteed each of them a huge stumbling block at thier next election.

Kerry can still say everything he has been saying. This changes nothing.

[Goldmund]

70. "Confusing language about Iraq"?

"Whereas since the United States was attacked, it has led an international military coalition in the destruction of two terrorist regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq..."

It clearly puts Afghanistan and Iraq in the same category; also, it clearly defines the Iraq regime as "terrorist". That's much more than "confusing language".

As far as whether this will be meaningful politically, and whether this will be used against anti-war Dems, we shall see. My instincts are different from yours. Let's revisit this in a month or so, eh?

[K-W]

74. Right, because what it said was defensibly true.

We were attacked. We did lead an international coalition in taking out the taliban. We did also lead a nominally international coalition to take out Saddam. Was Saddam a terrorist regime? I wouldnt classify it as such, but it is hard to argue against those who do.

So yes, the statement does put the two together. It does define Iraq as terrorist. It is sneaky wording like that used by many republicans. But it isnt definitive. It doesnt actually say that Iraq caused 9/11. So you couldnt argue from that statement that the democrats voted for a bill taht said Saddam caused 9/11/

All this is is a sucker punch, where the republican controlled house gets to put thier talking points in legislation where it doesnt really matter.

[Eloriel]

82. It's excruciatingly meaningful, just as the IWR was

excruciatingly meaningful (by which I mean not just for the war itself but for putting their stamp of approval on the whole Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war).

THey just put their stamp of approval on a LIE. That LIE has been used to go to war, killing a thousand plus of our own, maiming thousands more, kiling thousands upon thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians AND military, poisoning probably hundreds of thousands more, turning the WORLD against us, making us LESS safe and Iraq a non-viable state, AND --

promoting Bush as a "war time leader who must not be abandoned in this crucial time in our history."

This is THE BIG LIE of this administration, their whole raison d'etre for being/staying in power. And the Dems said, "Yeah, okay. Saddam caused 9-11."

BULLSHIT.

Not only all that, but as I pointed out upthread, now the Dems have NOTHING to stand on when they try to separate out the LIE about Iraq being involved in 9-11. They can't. They legally avowed that there WAS a connection. For for the foreseeable, they've rendered themselves mute on the subject. If they TRY to backtrack on this, they're "flip floppers."

[K-W]

86. No, this isnt meaningful. You are mistaken, just as you are with the IWR.

This isnt meaningful at all. This is a bunch of republican BS thrown in a fluff bill. It is nothing more than that. This isnt a stamp of approval on the Bush doctrine anymore than the IWR was a vote to invade Iraq.

Why do both the far left and the far right twist the facts to villianize democrats?

All they did was pass a bill to honor the 9/11 dead that included some republican nonsense about 9/11 and Iraq. That is all this is. You only play into the republicans hands by trying to stretch this into the democrats approving of Bush's actions.

Just as the IWR vote didnt in any way shape or form promote the Bush doctrine. The IWR stated that war was a last resort and called for international support.

But you spin both of them, generalizing and oversimplifying until both actions are approval's of Bush so that you can villianize democrats. Meanwhile Bush does the exact same thing. And now the democrats are supposed to win elections with both the republicans and liberals like you taking unfair shots at them.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[K-W]

51. You missed the point completely.

It is your junk thinking that has got to stop. You are mischarecterizing and oversimplyfing the argument.

The point is that the democrats had to vote on this bill. The republicans control the house. So the democrats have a choice.
1. Vote Yes, including the Iraq statement.
2. vote No on the entire bill, which is mostly related to 9/11

While 1 might be a nice stand to take to you, it would be absolutely insane for most dems to do it. They cant afford the political flak of voting against this bill. And you should be ashamed of yourself for asking them to.

[Carla in Ca]

79. Sorry, I'm with Leesa on this one.

You do NOT vote for it! A yes vote endorses all of *'s lies from the State of the Union Address. It endorses the nitwit thinking that Saddam Hussein is somehow a match to an Al Queda network that is all over this planet. It endorses the idea that he too could attack us as Al Queda did on 9/11.

You do NOT vote for it, you stand on principle and vote no and then have a press conference and sign a letter telling the country why you did not.

A yes vote endorses another term for *.

[K-W]

81. Your just not being realistic.

A yes vote does not endorse any lies. That sounds like the way a republican would spin this. The last thing in the world we need to do is spin this for the republicans.

The country doesnt watch press conferences, the country doesnt read letters. All they will know is that you voted against a bill to honor the dead of 9/11.

You are playing right into the republicans hands. They are getting them to spread thier talking points for them and getting you to dislike their only opposition. Wake up. Does this suck, yes. But we must recognize that when republicans control congress, democrats in congress have to get thier hands pretty dirty just to survive.

[Eloriel]

84. And you're just not being principled

A yes vote does not endorse any lies.

And that's called denial. Of COURSE it endorses lies. Not only endorses them but (repeating myself here) handing them to the Repugs to use against them -- and Kerry.

The country doesnt watch press conferences, the country doesnt read letters. All they will know is that you voted against a bill to honor the dead of 9/11.

If they make enough noise, the country DOES get it. They got it about Clinton and Gingrich and the government shut down. They're getting it about the war itself.

You are playing right into the republicans hands.

No, YOU are. You counsel rolling over and playing dead. The only thing that gets you with bullies and thugs is the need for more of the same. The ONLY way to stop this shit is to take a strong stand and fight it.

[Carla in Ca]

87. Thanks, Eloriel, I needed that

n/t

[K-W]

88. No, I have actual principles, not superficial meaningless principles.

My principle is to protect lives, freedom, and happiness. The best way to do that is not to have the democrats abandon any hope of getting political power.

Are you still pushing the obviously false idea that if democrats just spoke out more they would magically regain the ability to get thier message heard in a conservative controlled media?

I dont counsel rolling over and playing dead, and the fact that you think I do proves that you simply dont understand the issue. The way to stop this is NOT to take stands at stupid times in battles we are sure to lose.

You are framing things like a republican, as you do far too often. You are acting as if there are only 2 choices, fight or roll over. Weel I hate to break it to you, but things just arent that simple when you bother with the facts. They are only that simple when you overgeneralize.

There are times to fight, and admittedly the democrats do pass those up far too often, but this is NOT one of them. The country would not understand why the democrats chose to vote against this bill. even if the country was totally behind the issue at stake, they still wouldnt support a protest on this bill.

[Eloriel]

113. Oh, fie. Your principles = appeasement,

or something close enough for government work.

My principle is to protect lives, freedom, and happiness. The best way to do that is not to have the democrats abandon any hope of getting political power.

By giving UP political power -- i.e., not fighting -- you hope to accrue more? Well, the Repugs didn't get to where they are by adopting such a strategy, but you're certainly entitled to your opinion on the matter. They started fighting and they fought (and still do) ALL THE TIME. We don't fight hardly at all, ever, and when we do we tend to be apologetic about it. That's a recipe for LESS political power, not more.

Are you still pushing the obviously false idea that if democrats just spoke out more they would magically regain the ability to get thier message heard in a conservative controlled media?

That's a twisted rendition of what I said (aka: strawman). But you knew that. They WILL get more media coverage if they insist on it, and actually "make news" for a change. That isn't the same thing as getting media coverage all the time. I'd also like to see them get creative about making news, or barring that, get disciplined about getting a cohesive message out there.

I dont counsel rolling over and playing dead, and the fact that you think I do proves that you simply dont understand the issue.

I understand the issue perfectly well, thank you very little. I do NOT, however, "understand" it in the way you think YOU do. I'm NOT in favor of giving in on critically important issues, and this one IS a critically important issue. You think it's not. Frankly, I think I'm the one who understands it better.

The way to stop this is NOT to take stands at stupid times in battles we are sure to lose.

Yes, that's what they seem to think, isn't it? That strategy has served them so well for so long now, which is why we have so much political power and control all the branches of government, isn't it? Trouble is, with this one they lose either way (as I've pointed out repeatedly) -- might as well have done the RIGHT thing and stand up to the bullies.

Some Democrats have never learned one of the basic lessons of the playground: if you walk away from bullies after they've taken your lunch money, they'll be back tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow for the same. If you refuse, get pushed around, and then poke them hard in the nose, they go after some other prey tomorrow. But our Democrats in Washington seem to think that somehow things will get "better" if they just keep going with the flow and giving up their lunch money day after day.

You are framing things like a republican, as you do far too often. You are acting as if there are only 2 choices, fight or roll over. Weel I hate to break it to you, but things just arent that simple when you bother with the facts. They are only that simple when you overgeneralize.

Hmmm, that's awfully close to a personal attack, AFAIC.

However, on this one I'll grant you that it IS black and white to me. I am sick to death of the lies, of too many people in Washington who should be doing much better -- aka: the RIGHT thing -- instead allowing (enabling!!) the lies. I'm sick of the assent to lying as a matter of course. I'm sick of the spinelessness, the cringing cowardice. I am so full up sick of it I can barely stand to be alive some days, and this is one of them, frankly. The whole of Washington is an enemy of the people, and that includes the bulk of our elected Democrats. Even the few "good guys" we've got are in the final analysis paper tigers -- and yes, part of that is that they have no power, but the BIGGER part of that is that they're lone voices crying in the wilderness. No support from the other appeasing, quisling Democrats.

My God, My God, My God. Do you realize what is happening to this country? With the full assent of the quisling, quivering Democrats, we are being transformed into a fascist state. It HAS TO STOP, and that stopping better begin soon. We have precious little time left. Just getting John Kerry into the White House isn't going to do it. The last time there was an all too-brief Democratic administration, the fascists merely used it as a staging ground opportunity. They've been consolidating their power for generations now, while we've been whistling a happy tune.

For the Democrats to hand this issue, this all-important issue, to the Repugs on a silver platter fills me with rage.

It might NOT fill me with rage were it (1) not so damned important and (2) not just another in a very fucking long line of betrayals. But it's very close to MY last straw. They are just about our ONLY stop gap between here and a full-blown Fourth Reich. And YOU want them to play nice so they can get re-elected. They need to start fighting and NOW, dammit. Long past time to start fighting tooth and nail.

I would remind people who favor the appeasement approach that Nazi Germany was ONLY (and IMO could only be) defeated from without.

There are times to fight, and admittedly the democrats do pass those up far too often, but this is NOT one of them. The country would not understand why the democrats chose to vote against this bill. even if the country was totally behind the issue at stake, they still wouldnt support a protest on this bill.

Aw, horse pucky. They should be fighting ALL THE TIME, even on things that truly DON'T matter.

Further, it isn't an issue of "the country," the fight would be Congressional district by Congressional district, and anyone who couldn't successfully fight off the demogoguing of the issue probably oughtn't be in Congress anyway.

What they DID hand the Repugs that "the country" will hear all about if the Repugs need it is that the Dems agree that Iraq was a "terrorist nation" that needed to be taken down, and if they try to claim it wasn't, they've almost all voted in agreement that it was.

But lucky you. You get your way. They rolled over -- oh, excuse me, they chose to live and fight another day (or whatever). Let's see how far your little strategy takes us, 'cause it's been the operative strategy for the past 4 years and, as I said, it didn't help in 2002 and I don't see it helping in 2004. The Repugs can demagogue and lie about ANYthing. No reason not to do the right thing when there's no shortage of lies they can tell. And the Dems should know this by now.

[cosmicvortex20]

115. Hmm, sounds a bit freudian...

Me thinks thou doth lean on the schoolyard bully analogy to much. It makes you look like your the weakling picked on and have an irrational axe to grind. Hes right, political choices have to be made and noone can win 100% of the fights.

Compromise is the central component in any democracy.

[Carla in Ca]

85. I am very awake

and what I see is that it is House members who voted for this that are playing into republican's hands. That vote endorses the notion that the invasion of Iraq was part of the "war on terror", which it was not.
It will be interesting indeed to see how the majority of each member's constituency reacts to this vote. Who knows, maybe a few of those dirty hands will be all washed up.

[K-W]

89. Do you have any idea what you are asking the dems to do?

Democrats had no say whatsoever on the wording of the Bill. They had to either vote for it or against it. You are asking democrats to vote against a bill honoring the dead of 9/11 as a protest against the fact that part of it implicates Iraq in 9/11. Maybe in your world that makes sense, I can assure you that in the real world it doesnt.

The democrats dont get your freedom to be ideologically pure. They have to actually function in the government. A democratic party that refuses to play ball is a democratic party that will never ever ever have any power in this country.

It is a recipe for a republican controlled government for our entire forseeable future. Yah, Im sure the republicans will hate that.

[Carla in Ca]

92. Well, gee, I guess we should just give it up

We don't control Congress, we can't help craft legislation, we can't control what bills come to the floor for a vote. oh, and we have to play ball. OK, so the answer, according to you, is to roll over, play dead, and for Heaven's sake, do not articulate the differences between the two parties!
Why, then we could all be one happy family, right?

YOU are the republican here.

[K-W]

96. No, we shouldnt give up, we should fight hard and SMART.

We both agree the dems should fight, you just seem to think they should fight all the time, about everything, whereas I think they should fight in the places where the fighting will help them and us.

No I dont think they should roll over and play dead, I never suggested that and if you truely understand my posts that badly in the future, I suggest you ask for clarification before you mistate my point and change my political affiliation.

The answer in the long run is to get control of congress back. The answer in the short run is that the democrats have very little control. So they need to be very careful about which battles they fight.

You are asking them to fight a stupid battle. You are asking them to take a huge risk. A no vote would look very very bad for the democrats. It would be a struggle and a battle just to try and not take damage from the vote. It would be a task of hurculean proportions to overcome the damage of voting no and then on top of that to somehow get some advantage out of it.

Why should they risk losing any hope of retaking the house just so they can protest the Iraq/9/11 connection? Why are you asking them to risk so much to attain so little?

[Eloriel]

78. Well, sirjwtheblack, here's how they could've handled it instead

IN UNISON, walk out. Walk straight out to the Capitol steps, and hold a very angry news conference denouncing the Repugs and revealing them for the fascist thugs and bullies they are. Schedule another press conference with dozens of them listing all the dirty tricks the Repugs have done since at least back to Gingrich shutting down the government by giving Clinton the very legislation Clinton had promised he WOULD veto. Rinse and repeat. Find ways to throw a monkey wrench in the system, yelling and screaming ALL THE WHILE about the dirty trick Repugs and that everything they're doing is to bring attention to these underhanded, purely political, "gotcha" tricks.

It ain't gonna get any better until they start standing up and SHOUTING about it. Make some noise. And now is about the last chance they're gonna get. Otherwise, they're just rolling over and playing dead and the rightwing fascists get stronger and stronger, bolder and bolder, more and more successful.

[K-W]

80. Your plan would only hand the country to the right wing.

The democrats could get up, and walk out of a vote to honor the victims of 9/11. Yah, that would make them hugely popular. The democrats could try to throw a wrench in the system... yah, that would make them real popular.

Im sure the media would be sure to spin this as a brave gesture for right and not as a psychotic protest and disruption.

Things arent going to get better until we make them better. The democratic party is just a party. It isnt a group of people, it isnt an ideology. The group of people who control it now wont be the people who control it in the future. The question is, how do we get the right people in control. We dont do it by bashing the democrats and asking them to act rediculously. We do so by getting votes. We do so by making sure that people vote for good people. If good democrats win elections, good democrats will get power in the democratic party.

Stop asking the world to change on your command.

[Eloriel]

83. It's not a fucking popularity contest

It's about handing the country over to the fascists -- or not. And they're NOT on the right side on these things.

Things arent going to get better until we make them better. The democratic party is just a party. It isnt a group of people, it isnt an ideology. The group of people who control it now wont be the people who control it in the future. The question is, how do we get the right people in control. We dont do it by bashing the democrats and asking them to act rediculously. We do so by getting votes. We do so by making sure that people vote for good people. If good democrats win elections, good democrats will get power in the democratic party.

Asking them to have a spine is asking them "to act ridiculously"? I think NOT. But you, sir, are perfectly free to approve of their simpering, quisling ways.

As for "voting for good democrats," right now there are only about 15 of them in the whole House. I'd rather have them take a stand for the truth and to make a difference and lose their elections than be yellow-bellied cowards. COWARDS AIN'T GONNA DO ANYTHING FOR ME. OR YOU. OR THE COUNTRY.

I want some STATESMEN and WOMEN for a change, not self-serving hypocrites who can't be bothered to do the important things when their own necks are on the line.

This shit is by now SO predictable coming from the right that they ought to be prepared for being blindsided like this, and FIGHT THE FUCK BACK. And I don't mean practice the same dark arts -- I mean stand up and speak the truth.

[K-W]

90. Nothing would strengthen the right wing more than your plan.

Nothing would lead us faster to facism than the democrats in government giving up thier electability to be completely ideologically pure.

Asking the democrats to vote against a bill honoring those who died in 9/11 is rediculous any way you cut it. This isnt about having a spine, its about not being an idiot.

Now you accuse me of being simpering, lovely, you clearly have no clue what I am actually saying and prefer to lump me into a catagory you invented in your head of spineless dems. Just because I dare to view the government as a system that we could use to make poeples lives better rather than a constant test of just how liberal everyone is so you know who to hate.

You think that protest voting no on this bill would make a difference? What difference would it make. What planet do you live on where that would cause anything but making it harder for those democrats to get reelected.

This is predictable, they didnt get blindsided, they just dont control congress, so they can do nothing to stop it.

The only way to fix the problem is to get rid of the republicans, but youd rather just bitch about the democrats.

[Kanary]

111. Would that we had more Dems like the ones you describe!

There are a few who would do this now....... if there were more like them, they could actually *do* this, and it would wake up some in the populace who are sleeping, and energize those who are looking for some courage and integrity.

This would be a winner!

Kanary

[Gloria]

4. As I said yesterday, and then heard Bernie Ward also say--this

undermines Kerry as he tries to make the case for W = Wrong War, etc.

All Bushco has to do is point to all the Dems who supported this bullshit resolution.

[still_one]

8. They were afraid to vote against the war in Iraq

They were afraid to vote against importing drugs from Canada
They were afraid not to approve his judicial nominations

Why the hell are they even in government!!!

[CityZen-X]

17. I Heard Bernie!

And I feel that you are both correct. What the hell is wrong with these so called Dem's?! Especially Pelousy!
The only thing I can say that may explain these traitors, is that Corporate America owns these chimps, and those who voted yes have nothing to do with representing we the people.

[derrald]

14. The Real sick Part

The way this resolution is worded is essentially:

Troops Are Great - People who fight for our country are cool
And 911 and the War in Iraq are the same conflict

It's like asking the dem senators: How did you feel about beating your wife?

If they vote no, the regressives will come out and say "They voted NO on a bill that says "We Wuv our troppie-woopies!"

Every life is just a political ploy to the republicans

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[madfloridian]

18. That is selling out.

It is fear of the GOP and fear of standing up to them.

[Kanary]

21. Yet I keep hearing so many hear want Pelosi as House Leader...gak

Dennis Kucinich consistently votes true Dem values (voted against the IRW!, and led the House opposition to that resolution.)

I tried to follow up on this bill to get the complete list of those who voted against, but ran into brick walls.

I assume that Dennis did what he always does, and voted against.

So, how can the support for Pelosi for House Leader not see what is *really* going on here?

Kanary

[still_one]

22. Kucinich voted against it of course

He is a person of principle!!!

[Kanary]

24. I can't help wondering if I'll live to see the day when integrity matters

again.

I don't know how he does it....... I get so upset that those few with integrity get overlooked, ridiculed, and bypassed time after tie.

ah crap.......

Kanary --where did you find the list of voters for and against?

[AntiCoup2K4]

26. Oh, but she's so LIBERAL, remember?

Hell, she's so liberal her own daughter flies around on Air Farce One with Junior and writes books that kiss his worthless unelected chimp ass. :puke:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

28. Pelosi voted against the IWR

Remember, she took over for Gephardt and her opposition for the job was from a pure DLC shill.

Credit where credit is due.

[Kanary]

31. Yup, but since then her record has been quite spotty

I'm just wanting to see someone who is CONSISTENT in position of House Leader.

Kanary

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

34. I agree but the alternatives were a helluva lot worse.

Rose Garden Gephardt or whatisname (Foster?) both supported the war and were downright eager to roll over for Dumbya. Pelosi may not be all we would like, but is much better than most. I'd love to see Kucinich in the slot, but the DLC pablumites would never let that happen.

We on the left are stuck with the best we can get, or really stuck with the Republican wing of the Democratic Party.

A catch-22 until we can finally get a viable third party.

[Kanary]

35. I'm just not willing to settle that much, I guess.

And to settle for someone who would actually sign a bill declaring a connection between 911 and Iraq is more than i can swallow.

If that's OK with you, then go for it......

I can't.

Kanary

[Joefess]

29. Where is the Democrats backbone??

Where is anyone's backbone for that matter? This is total BS. It has been proven false time and again that there was no link, now they are really reaching with this resolution. Makes no sense at all. Are the people that voted YES afraid to be accused of not supporting our troops or the war on terrrrrrrrr if they vote NO?

It's ok to vote the truth. Americans can handle it, and some would actually welcome it.

[LeftHander]

30. The Text of the Resolution and section in question

"Whereas since the United States was attacked, it has led an international military coalition in the destruction of two terrorist regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq while using diplomacy and sanctions in cooperation with Great Britain and the international community to lead a third terrorist regime in Libya away from its weapons of mass destruction."

Full resolutiion text below...

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives on the anniversary of the terrorist attacks launched against the United


States on September 11, 2001.

Whereas on September 11, 2001, while Americans were attending to their daily routines, terrorists hijacked four civilian aircraft, crashing two of them into the towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, and a third into the Pentagon outside Washington, D.C., and a fourth was prevented from also being used as a weapon against America by brave passengers who placed their country above their own lives;

Whereas three years later the country continues to, and shall forever, mourn the tragic loss of life at the hands of terrorist attackers;

Whereas by targeting symbols of American strength and success, these attacks clearly were intended to assail the principles, values, and freedoms of the United States and the American people, intimidate the Nation, and weaken the national resolve;

Whereas three years after September 11, 2001, the United States is fighting a Global War on Terrorism to protect America and her friends and allies;

Whereas since the United States was attacked, it has led an international military coalition in the destruction of two terrorist regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq while using diplomacy and sanctions in cooperation with Great Britain and the international community to lead a third terrorist regime in Libya away from its weapons of mass destruction;

Whereas the United States is reorganizing itself in order to more effectively wage the Global War on Terrorism by transforming the Department of Defense, sharpening the Federal Bureau of Investigation's counterterrorism focus, strengthening the authority of the Director of Central Intelligence to coordinate national intelligence activities, and creating a Department of Homeland Security;

Whereas of the senior al-Qaida leaders, operational managers, and key facilitators that the United States Government has been tracking, nearly two-thirds of such individuals have been taken into custody or killed;

Whereas just as significant, with the help of its allies, the United States has disrupted individuals and organizations that facilitate terrorism--movers of money, people, messages, and supplies--who have acted as the glue binding the global al-Qaida network together;

Whereas Pakistan has taken into custody more than 500 members of al-Qaida and the Taliban regime, including Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Ramzi bin al Shibh, conspirators in the September 11, 2001, attacks, and Kahallad Ba'Attash, an individual involved in the planning of the attack on the USS COLE in 2000;

Whereas Jordan continues its strong counterterrorism efforts, arresting two individuals with links to al-Qaida who admitted responsibility for the October 2002 murder in Amman, Jordan, of Lawrence Foley, a United States Agency for International Development Foreign Service Officer;

Whereas in June 2002, Morocco took into custody al-Qaida operatives plotting to attack United States Navy ships and ships of other member nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in the Strait of Gibraltar;

Whereas the United States and its allies in Southeast Asia have made significant advances against the regional terrorist organization Jemaah Islamiyah, which was responsible for the attack in Bali, Indonesia, in October 2003 that killed more than 200 people;

Whereas Singapore, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, and other countries in Southeast Asia have taken into custody leaders and operatives of local al-Qaida-affiliated terrorist organizations and members of al-Qaida traveling through such countries;

Whereas the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and other countries have disrupted cells of the al-Qaida terrorist organization and are vigorously pursuing other leads relating to terrorist activity;

Whereas following the attacks of September 11, 2001, the United States Government initiated innovative programs, such as the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism program and the Container Security Initiative, to extend our borders overseas and to secure and screen cargo before it is placed on ships destined for United States ports of entry;

Whereas the Department of Homeland Security implemented the US-VISIT border security screening system in December 2003 at all air and sea ports of entry, requiring that nonimmigrant visa holders entering the United States be fingerprinted and screened through various criminal and terrorist databases before entry into the United States, and this system will be expanded to land ports of entry in accordance with congressional deadlines;

Whereas since September 11, 2001, the Coast Guard has conducted more than 124,000 port security patrols, 13,000 air patrols, boarded more than 92,000 vessels, interdicted over 14,000 individuals attempting to enter the United States illegally, and created and maintained more than 90 Maritime Security Zones;

Whereas following the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Terrorist Threat Integration Center was established, which now fuses, for the first time in United States history, terrorist-related information, foreign and domestic, available to the United States Government for systematic analysis and dissemination to prevent or disrupt terrorist attacks on the United States;

Whereas following the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Terrorist Screening Center, a multi-agency partnership, was established to integrate the dozens of separate terrorist databases that existed before September 11th into a single terrorist watch list for use by Federal, State, and local law enforcement, intelligence, and border security personnel;

Whereas following the attacks of September 11, 2001, the United States Government has ensured the hardening of cockpit doors on airplanes and greatly expanded the use of armed Federal air marshals to prevent and deter future hijackings that could turn commercial planes into weapons of mass destruction;

Whereas having recognized the need to prevent terrorist organizations from using their resources, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has worked closely with the Department of the Treasury to target 62 terrorist organizations and freeze $125,000,000 in assets of such organizations worldwide used to fund terrorist activities;

Whereas to date United States Armed Forces and Coalition forces have killed or captured 43 of the 55 most wanted criminals of the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq, including Saddam Hussein himself;

Whereas the al-Zarqawi terror network used Baghdad as a base of operations to coordinate the movement of people, money, and supplies; and

Whereas thousands of families have lost loved ones in the defense of freedom and liberty against the tyranny of terror: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

(1) extends again its deepest sympathies to the thousands of innocent victims of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, their families, friends, and loved ones;

(2) honors the heroic actions and the sacrifices of United States military and civilian personnel and their families who have sacrificed much, including their lives and health, in defense of their country in the Global War on Terrorism;

(3) honors the heroic actions of first responders, law enforcement personnel, State and local officials, volunteers, and others who aided the innocent victims and, in so doing, bravely risked their own lives and long-term health;

(4) expresses thanks and gratitude to the foreign leaders and citizens of all nations who have assisted and continue to stand in solidarity with the United States against terrorism in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks;

(5) discourages, in the strongest possible terms, any effort to confuse the Global War on Terrorism with a war on any people or any faith;

(6) reaffirms its commitment to the Global War on Terrorism and to providing the United States Armed Forces with the resources and support to wage it effectively and safely;

(7) vows that it will continue to take whatever actions necessary to identify, intercept, and disrupt terrorists and their activities; and

(8) reaffirms that the American people will never forget the sacrifices made on September 11, 2001, and will never bow to terrorist demands.

[Rose Siding]

33. Do you know who the 15 dems were who voted "no"?

This kind of public affirmation of a lie will complete a Bush victory.

[Karenina]

36. The 16 whose olfactory nerves remain intact

should demand on-the-record explanations from their colleagues on behalf of ALL AMERICANS. SADDAM=911>osama is a bold-faced brazen LIE that cannot be allowed to stand if y'all are to EVER get a clue. The justifications for the invasion of Iraq were ALL LIES and have cost MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS DEARLY in hearth and home, looted the American public treasury while vastly increasing the morbidly obese portfolios of some seriously nassy, vicious, human(?) slime. What is not to get?

Spot the lie. Follow the money.

[in_cog_ni_to]

32. <sigh> I give up!

The damn Democrats don't want to win this election. Did they not learn one damn thing from the 2002 election?? OBVIOUSLY NOT!

THIS is just MORE fodder for the NEXT BUSH AD!!! :grr:

I am so DISGUTED with these people! :grr:

[Generator]

37. Damn if I don't agree with everyone here

It does appear we are doomed. Where is conscience? Where is the truth? I don't know if I want to live in a country of lies. It's driving me mad. AND I'm a LIHOP'er. I never thought I'd feel this way about America.

We dishonor the memory of those that died on 9/11 everyday by lying to ourselves and playing politics. Without honor, life is hollow.

As if putting in jail the wrong man would make me feel a-okay about my child's murder. As if mouthing words about it that have no basis in fact would make the grief go away.

This resolution is nothing but propaganda cheerleading for the whole Bush regime nightmare.

As Bob Dylan says, It's not dark yet but it's almost there.

[mmonk]

38. I guess it shows how alone we are

and anyone that wants the truth. I'm really thinking of leaving now.

[mmonk]

40. I've got an idea

Target them all for defeat except the ones that wouldn't go along. Pour resources to any third party candidate in those districts. Please don't delete, I'm a little mad.

[ComerPerro]

41. I really do hope the people in this country enjoy the coming fascism

This country deserves everything that it lets Bush and the Republicans do to it.

[Kanary]

112. I'm afraid I'm thinking the same thing. Apparently losing it all

is the only way so many people here are going to get it.

A pox on all their houses.

:(

Kanary

[madfloridian]

42. Here is one part that really bothers me....did they read it?

When was this proven?

"Whereas the al-Zarqawi terror network used Baghdad as a base of operations to coordinate the movement of people, money, and supplies"

Has this been proven true, and I just did not hear about it?

[mmonk]

43. Alot of dems are gone

They love their jobs (as Sen. Graham would have put it) more than the truth.

[madfloridian]

44. But is that true at all?

I agree with you, of course, but was that ever proven true? That statement stunned me. How could they sign a document with that in it?

[mmonk]

47. Not that I'm aware of

I heard he was a kind of Iraqi rival to al Queda and has threatened terrorist groups from the outside that come in.

[K-W]

53. Because they had to.

Because if they voted against it, they would be voting against a bill honoring the 9/11 victims. That would be political suicide for most congressmen.

[madfloridian]

61. Sorry, I disagree. They could have asked the wording be changed.

They did not have guns held to their heads. They did not have to sign a statement that said that...

[K-W]

66. The democrats control the house now!!!!!! Oh wait, they dont.

So yes, they did have a gun held to thier heads. They could have and may have asked for different wording. So what? The republicans werent going to change it. The republicans dont need the democrats to put up bills in the house. once it is up for a vote, the democrats have to either vote yes, no, or abstain. Voting no or abstaining from voting for a resolution to honor the 9/11 victims would be politically idiotic. Stop blowing this out of proportion. This is what happens when republicans control the house.

[madfloridian]

69. Last words for the Democrats: "Stop blowing this out of proportion."

I never ever again want to be told to quit blowing my desire for the truth out of proportion.

Iraq is not some little political game we are playing. I will continue to "put things in proportion."

[K-W]

71. Oh for goodness sake, that isnt what I said at all.

Of course the truth is important, of course Iraq is important.

So the question is how do we best get at the truth, how do we best handle Iraq.

The answer is not crucifying democrats for the republicans throwing in a sucker punch in an honoring 9/11 bill. The democrats taking a stand in this particular case would be counter productive. We would be further from the truth and further from solving Iraq, because suddenly the news story would be the democrats disrespecting 9/11.

How exactly would that help us?

You arent putting things in proportion at all. You are obsessing.

[madfloridian]

73. No, I am not obsessing. I do not like Dems saying that to other Dems.

I am passionate, but not obsessing. You are defending the indefensible, thus you are having a hard time with it. Getting upset with me won't help.

[K-W]

75. You are twisting my words and distorting my points, dont lecture me

on tone to other dems.

You are obsessing. This is the republicans who control the house throwing some talking points into a bill that has no real effect on anyone. It is not a big deal, it is not a new development. The democrats had no choice but to let it slide and would be doing themselves and us a disservice if they tried to make this into a battle.

I am not having a hard time with anything. Face it, the republicans are going to tie 9/11 and Iraq every chance they get and the democrats, who are politically fairly impotent, wont be able to stop them every litte time it happens.

You are blowing this bill, not the war, not the issue, not the truth, just this bill out of proportion.

[elperromagico]

77. You're going to ask the Republicans to change the wording of a bill?

Good luck, pal.

[Yuna]

95. Bzzt wrong - they didn't have to

Every congress person can ABSTAIN from a vote.

The smart option in this situation would have been for every dem to ABSTAIN from the vote and IMMEDIATLY afterwards hold a press conference condemning the repubs for their little plot.

That way they would NOT be giving Rove material to make a new series of ads (which no doubt he was already started producing today) AND they could not claim any democrat voted against honoring 9/11 victims.

[K-W]

97. An abstension would look just as bad as a no vote.

Either way the repubs can say "Congressman so and so refused to vote to approve a bill honoring the dead on 9/11"

And if rove wastes ad money on this, it would be one of the best things that could ever happen to Kerry. I imagine he is smart enough not to try and make a big issue out of this.

[Yuna]

102. Not make a big issue out of this?

When the democrats on public record just conceeded that iraq = behind 9/11? Are you for real? This essentially nullifies any attacks on bush and the repubs re: iraq. Rove will get this out for that purpose alone.

Abstaining would be the best of both worlds here. MAYBE the repubs could get away with "Oh X congress person didn't vote for it" BUT they could NOT use the democrats in congress to protect bush for his iraq fuck up, and Kerry would not have to deal with what's coming down the pipe now.

The dems in congress should have taken one for the team and abstained. It MIGHT have been used as ammo against them, but it could NOT be used as ammo against kerry and various other democrats around the nation.

[K-W]

106. You are overstating the republicans case.

Why are you exagerating the republican case against the democrats? The democrats did NOT vote that Iraq was behind 9/11, they voted for a bill that included several statements that were worded in such a way that they do NOT say that Iraq was behind 9/11 they just hinted at it.

The democrats didnt concede anything, but as long as people say they do, like you, and potentially the republicans, people will think they did.

Abstaining would be just as bad as voting no. And it would be a severe problem for years to come as the democrats came up for reelection. And if the democrats did it as a block it would hurt the entire party, INCLUDING KERRY. The democratic party would be the party that refused to honor the dead of 9/11.

Do you really want that lable attached to the party? Attached to the Kerry campaign? Do you honestly think that it would be better to give the republcicans that to wave around that it would be to give them the ability to lie a slight bit more plausibly about the democrats supporting the Iraq invasion?

[Yuna]

109. Please

I think you're the one overstating.

There are two things I see here

1. Emotional

2. Factual

FACT - the resolution stated as FACT iraq was in league with terrorists.

EMOTIONAL - "honoring" the 9/11 victims. Since when is voting for a piece of paper considered "honoring" someone? Democrats have done COUNTLESS *REAL* things to honor the victims. Including NOT exploiting them for political purposes anywhere near the extent the republicans have done.

Are you telling me voting no or abstaining on this would somehow override the countless things we have done to honor the victims? That's pretty shallow thinking.

On the other hand the FACTUAL matter still exists. The democrats in congress have now affirmed that it was as the republicans have stated - iraq was partly responsible for 9/11. You can argue whether or not voting for a piece of paper is "honoring" anyone all day. (as well as if voting no/abstaining overrides all other acts to honor them) You can NOT, however, argue the cut and dry statements in the resolution stating as fact iraq = terrorist. This is where rove comes in, and I have no doubt FAUX et al will be on this like flies on shit starting monday.

[Jacobin]

45. That particular canard of a statement is already in the IWR

"Declaring it so makes it true"

Congress must feel like the Pope or something. They say it and "poof" it becomes true.

[K-W]

46. Blame the victims again.

This is a trap bill. It forces people to either vote against a bill honoring 9/11 victims or vote for a bill that contains misleading langauge linking 9/11 to Iraq.

The democrats didnt choose to be put in this position, they got stuck there by the republican majority.

[Yuna]

99. Doesn't force them to do anything

The proper course of action would have been to abstain. Yet they chose to vote for it. This many dems affirming that Iraq = Behind 9/11 is going to cause massive damage to not only Kerry's campaign, but the campaign of any other dem who was not behind Iraq. Rove is going to wet him self thinking of all the ads and talking points he can generate off of this.

When Iraq comes up in the debates bush will now be able to say "well just about every democrat in the house says iraq was behind 9/11. Here are the votes to prove it. What senator, are you against going after the people behind 9/11?" and it will be downhill from there.

[K-W]

100. Abstention would have been politically stupid, just as bad as a no vote.

You are exagerating the damage this will do to Kerry. If rove runs ads on this, he will be wasting money.

The democrats in the house didnt say Iraq was behind 9/11, and if Bush claims that, Kerry can just call him a liar.

Meanwhile, Bush and Rove are going to say what they say and lie no matter what we do. Why do you want to democrats to committ political suicide in a vein attempt to stop that?

[Yuna]

105. Seems to me

the only dems who have now comitted political suicide are the dems who are against iraq. The dems in congress saved there own asses, at the expense of any dem in the nation running against iraq. (which now can be spinned as "This dem who was against iraq supports NOT going after the people behind 9/11") This also royally screws kerry's ability to go after bush on iraq in the debates.

Again, they should have taken one for the team. Getting bush out is priority number one over their seat in congress.

[K-W]

107. Im sure being labeled as the party that refused to support 9/11 victims

would be great for the entire democratic party.

That would help Kerry so much. Im sure.


You do realize that giving the republicans the ability to save that would do more damage to Kerry that giving them the ability to say that house democrats voted on a resolution that hinted that Iraq was behind 9/11?

[Yuna]

110. Sorry you're right

"the party that refused to support 9/11 victims"

I seem to have forgotten that we have never supported the victims until just now on this resolution. You're right, we haven't done a damn thing until now. It's actually the republicans and bush, who literally walked on the dead exploiting them for political purposes, who have been honoring them.

Get real. We've been supporting them from day one while the repubs have been exploiting them. Voting no on this resolution would NOT have changed that. It would have, however, prevented rove from getting a huge amount of material to support the idea that iraq = terrorist thus bush was right to go to iraq thus anyone against going in to iraq doesn't support getting terrorists.

[ieoeja]

49. They should have voted against a resolution offering sympathy?

The resolution extends sympathy to the victims, honors military and civilian personnel for their sacrifices in the war on terrorism, thanks foreign nations that have assisted the United States in that war and vows that the United States will continue to do whatever is necessary to disrupt terrorist activities.

I can't believe DUers** are actually suggesting that Democrats should have voted against the above resolution. Sure, they could have explained why. And the media would have aired their explanation. Once. While the fact that they voted against a resolution offering sympathy to the victims of 9-11 and honoring the military would have aired a thousand times.


**Not exactly true. It is actually all too easy to believe of DUers.

[madfloridian]

64. Is this statement true? Was Baghdad a base for terror? Is it true?

"Whereas the al-Zarqawi terror network used Baghdad as a base of operations to coordinate the movement of people, money, and supplies; and

Whereas thousands of families have lost loved ones in the defense of freedom and liberty against the tyranny of terror."

Has it been proven that Baghdad was a base for terror? If not, they should not have signed it.

[K-W]

76. Yes, I think democrats should give up any hope of political power

to protest one false statement in a fluff bill.

What a great strategy for a facist America indeed.

[Rose Siding]

68. The media never holds dems to account for appeasing the right

Except for when they do! As though the media is the problem. The GAME is the problem. And as long as we play it, it will never change.

How many times has Bush said, "first Kerry voted for the war and now.....blah blah blah"?

[mmonk]

50. This really screws Kerry

and his message of wrong war, wrong time. I won't let this pass. Congressman Price will hear from me and I will write a letter to the DNC denouncing this and tell them they had better change course or get no dues money from me.

[K-W]

52. This doesnt screw Kerry at all.

We are making a much bigger deal out of this than it is.

[mmonk]

56. How are you so sure

that the language will do no harm. It was worded that way for a purpose. Condolences to the families are quite easy to put into words WITHOUT LYING about a connection to Iraq.

[K-W]

59. Im positive, this doesnt change anything, except hurting dems here.

Other than making the left more pissed off at the democrats who were forced to vote for this, this changes nothing. It doesnt mean that suddenly there is a connection, it just means the republicans in congress say there is, which isnt exactly a new revelation.

[mmonk]

60. We'll see on the talking heads shows

[K-W]

67. We cant try and please the talking heads.

I dont think they will use this much, it isnt very useful. They may choose to, if they do it will be another idiotic lie.

[Freddie Stubbs]

55. Joe Hoeffel voted for it

He is the Democratic nominee for the Unitede States Senate from Pennsylvania.

[mmonk]

58. I'm sure there

are some families that rather not be used in this way.

[Larkspur]

62. Why couldnt' the Dems abstain on this vote?

[mypal]

72. Pelosi is a complete dissappointment.

.

[Disturbed]

91. Repubs have no shame.

They will milk the 911 Attacks until the end of time.

If the Neo Fascists retain power the Dem party may as well pack it in.

The Green Party should replace the Dems because they have a platform that opposes the Neo Fascists. Dems have been appeasers for so long now that knee pads are handed out.

People deride Nadar but if one listens to his msg. he is correct. Amerika the way it is now is heading toward a Neo Fascist Police State with anti-Christ Fascists and Corps directing state policy.

Choices? Stay and succumb, fight or re-locate to another country.

[K-W]

93. Thats a rediculous view of politics.

The only way that replacing the dems with the greens would be a good idea is if the greens would be better at getting elected. I think it is fair to say that while growing, the green platform does not have the ability to get a majority in congress or the president.

Societies move slowly. The democratic party moves slowly, but it is moving. It shifted left with the new deal and liberalism. It shifted right with the advent of the new republican party and thier electoral machine and corporate alliance. Now it is shifting left again and it will do so as long as the voters support it.

I am getting so sick of the people on this forum who want the world to shift at thier command. These things take excrutiating amounts of time. In the entire history of human society, we have made little progress. But we have made progress and we will continue to do so. You just have to get used to the fact that it happens very slowly and setbacks are the rule.

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Disturbed]

101. Dem Party = Repub. lite.

The Green Party will expand and the Dems will be has beens.

[K-W]

103. And the sky will turn purple and dead will rise and dance a mamba.

The democratic party is not republican lite. The green party could in some eventuality supplant the democratic party. But to do so, it would have to take over the democratic parties role as a broker party and thus loose its ideology, and Im assuming you wouldnt like that.

Your post shows a wonderful hat trick of not understanding the republican party, not understanding the democratic party, and not understanding our system.

We will, until the system is dramatically, and probably constitutionally changed, have a two party system. The two parties will be broker parties, not ideological parties. We dont have proportional representation, so ideological parties dont work well.

Now what you need to understand is that unlike the Green party, the democratic party is NOT ideological. It, like the republican party is up for grabs at all times. And what grabs it are votes. Politicians who win elections control the party, and the people they support and who support them.

Moderate conservatives controlled the democratic party because they got elected with thier crown prince, Clinton getting 2 presidential terms. No small feat in politics.

Hard right activists control the republican party because they got Reagan elected, they got control of congress under gingrich and they got Bush elected (sorta).

The democratic party will move left when grassroots activists regain the ability to influence elections. When people are going to the polls voting intelligently for liberal reforms, or at least strengthening liberal programs, we will once again have a democratic party pushing the liberal line.

[Carla in Ca]

104. Disturbed, you may be right, sadly

the vote today sure takes us in that direction. So, regardless of negative points of view, we will keep fighting.

[Disturbed]

108. Correct, I don't understand.

I don't understand why the left wing of the Dem Party persists upon staying in the party instead of joining the Greens. The agreement of the Dems to back off of their anti-Iraq War stand was a step in the wrong direction. Hyping Kerry as a war hero was a mistake, as well. The Dem Party doesn't stand for what millions of Americans want but many keep saying that they must support the Dems because the Neo Fascists, Paleo Repubs, anti-Christ Right Wing must be opposed. Yeah, they must be but the method of the Dems is weak and people don't vote for weakness; they vote for strength. Strength isn't macho posturing.

[Pepperbelly]

114. Give me a break! They salute the heros and the dead ... whooper shit. nt