Dems are going to have to stand and clap for the Iraq War

[Tactical Progressive]

tonight when Bush talks about 'freeing the Iraqi people' and all the Repubs stand and cheer.

Better to deal with it in advance, for those of us strong enough to stomach watching it in the first place.

[quiet.american]

1. Thanks for the warning! :) n/t

[ewagner]

2. Won't/can't watch

even with an extra dose of my blood pressure medicine, I can't watch this lying SOB without running the risk of pushing the blood pressure into the danger zone.....

think I'll stay up on DU and vent my anger here...........

[xultar]

3. Yeah, Y'all better start hating all of the Dems in congress early.

So we can get back on track and be contstructive.

[Ian David]

4. Why can't the Dems all just stand-up and leave?

[xultar]

10. Because then they can say that Democrats hate Democracy. There is a game

here that needs to be played.

[Tactical Progressive]

5. Where did I even imply that they should be hated for it?

It's just something they are going to feel compelled to do, given the timing of the Iraq election.

Personally, I think they should go halfway: sit and clap.

[xultar]

9. I'm talking to the haters here who want to dump Obama after 1 month

on the job.
You know the ones who wanna purge and hate everyone who they feel aren't worthy liberals. There's only a few of them.

[Tactical Progressive]

15. You're probably right about that.

The extremism and the unrelenting lies of the right, combined with the passivity of the political left has left alot of progressives in a black and white mood.

It's probably a good thing though, given that acquiescence, for there to be 'not give an inch' attitudes represented on the left.

[Swede Atlanta]

6. Won't be watching

My fingers have gotten very quick over the past years. Anytime Chimpy McFu*kUP or any of his henchmen and women are on TV or the radio I quickly change the station, mute or avert my eyes. It makes me physically nauseaus to see or hear any of them spew their vile lies.

But you are right. The dems will feel compelled to stand and applaud when the Clown from Crawford speaks about Iraq because if they don't, or maybe even if they do, the MSM and the RW lie machine will accuse them of being un-amurk'n and how they hate amurk'a.

If any of them had balls they would stay seated and launch a massive speaking tour to explain to the country why. But they won't. Barbara Boxer is about the closest to being a true Democrat in either chamber these days.

I so hope Dean is the next DNC Chair. He will kick some butt.

[Southsideirish]

7. Beady-eyes of freeps will be ogling them intently for "proper"

solemnity during any references to "our fighting men and women."

During the rest of the tedious speechifying freeps will fixate on all facial expressions of the Dems for any signs of sleepiness, boredom, rancor, etc.

Then they will run and post same photo(s)for mutual masturbation.

[Tinoire]

8. Going to have to? They're going to clap because they want to!

They wanted it just as much as he did and we need to quit making excuses for them. Bush hasn't been holding a gun to their head & it's time we started holding our votes to theirs.

[Tactical Progressive]

11. I don't think they 'want' to

And I think 'They wanted it just as much as he did...' is simply a false statement.

[MadHound]

13. Perhaps you should take a look at all the Dems who voted for the IWR

Along with all of those voting in favor of continuing to fund it. If these people didn't want us in Iraq, why are they voting to keep us there? And why did they vote to send us there in the first place?

[Tactical Progressive]

17. The IWR was not a black and white stance

You know it was full of caveats from the left and lies on the right.

This 'not a dime's worth of difference' bullshit doesn't play with me. Dems went into this war with reluctance and reservations, against a demagoging, deceitful administration playing the 9/11 tragedy against American fear and anger.

If you can't see the difference, it's only because you don't want to.

[Tinoire]

23. Caveats, nuances,

When is our leadership going to take a stand? When are they going to represent us?

There were NO caveats on our end- we said NO.

Nor where there any caveats on the DLC's end- they said YES.

The reservations only came into play when they tried to placate the majority to please the minority. They wanted to go to war- they only wanted to be smarter about it. They made that clear in the pre-war days and that tone carried into the elections. It's time for Dems to stop talking out of both sides of their mouths because people are getting pissed.

Faster, faster, yelled the pro-war faction. Hit Iran first! Damn it, we told you to go to Iran first! Bush isn't doing it energetically enough!

And all of that is preserved for posterity.

Dead kids all over the streets of Iraq, women being gang-banged in US prisons, an entire civilization destroyed and Democrats want to hide behind weak caveats. Those caveats were nothing more than symbolic little twigs placed in the way of a tank battalion pretending that were road-blocks.

I'm not buying it anymore than I bought the WMD story. To be very, very frank, I'm not buying anything else the 'we can all get along with caveats' wing of the Democratic Party has to sell. Their caveats ain't worth shit.

And those weren't caveats from the Left. They were caveats from the center. The Left was out in the streets howling because we're in no mood to play nice over war nor were we ever.

Those who can't see the difference aren't looking anymore than they did before the war started.

[dpibel]

24. That was then

All the reluctance, reservations, demagoguery, and deceit don't change the fact that Iraq is right this minute a bloody catastrophy based on lies. It's one thing to say, "We were reluctant, reserved, demagogued, and deceived," and quite another to stand and applaud the deceiver for his triumph in getting the country into the mess.

For those who urge that decorum is vital, consider this: the people who will demagogue indecorum are the true believers of the other side. They'll criticize the dems no matter what they do. "They didn't applaud long enough!" "They weren't smiling broadly enough."

With a slim majority of Americans now awake to the fact that, well, things aren't going all that swimmy in Iraq, maybe it's time to start reinforcing that realization. Maybe if the dems sat on their hands those people, and the people who are uneasily coming to the truth, would feel a bit of reinforcement. Instead, they'll see thunderous rounds of applause in support of Our Fierce Warrior Chieftain and say, "Heck. If the wise ones in congress think he's doin' good, who am I to question."

What is there to lose? The bloviating heads have no respect for the Democrats. Same for the lost souls of the far right. They don't care about applause or no applause.

It's a party out of power in every branch of the government. What is to be gained by appeasement? Play to the majority who now believes that Iraq was a mistake and things are not going so very well.

[Tactical Progressive]

29. I'll be damned if I disagree with anything you wrote

I just don't think that obviates the need to play the politics out.

Look, the Congressional Dems aren't going to pull out revolvers and gun Bush down at the podium when he brings up Iraq; they're not going to walk out en masse when he mentions the Iraq elections; they're not going to boo and hiss and give him the finger; they're not going to turn their backs and discommodate him; they're not even going to sit on their hands when the subject of democracy in Iraq comes up.

They're either going to stand and politely applaud, or stay seated and politely applaud. That's the range of choices, and I don't think it's a bad choice because I think sitting and quietly applauding sends quite enough of a message while Republicans are standing and cheering. If some don't even clap that's fine too, but not as a party.

And they're probably not even going to stay seated either. Just deal with it now so you don't have to go apoplectic when it happens and confer all kinds of war lust intent for them doing so.

[dpibel]

32. Apoplexy "R" Us

Excuse me if I think you have me confused with someone else. I'm in the habit of questioning the entire system we've got going here, but I think you will search in vain for the posts in which I go all apoplectic on the Democrats in general or any Democrat in particular.

I think in your range of choices from one to two, you leave out a third possibility: Don't applaud.

That is not revolvers nor walking out nor even booing.

I think, however, if you were to run the tapes of Clinton's SOTUs, you would find more than a few instances of Republicans sitting in stony silence at critical points, and maybe even a few boos.

This is not revolutionary. But refusing to applaud the perpetrator of an unjust war hardly seems to me out of line.

Call me Pollyanna if you must.

But, boy, when somebody calls me apoplectic, it just makes me all, well, you know, apoplectic.

[MadHound]

28. How about the Dems do their damn job, represent their constituents

At the time of the IWR, polls were showing that the people in this country didn't want to go into Iraq, that they wanted to wait until the inspectors were done, no matter how long it took, and then decide. Messages to ALL of our Senators and Congressmen were running 200-1 against the IWR. Millions of people were out in the streets saying NO to the IWR. There was absolutely no majority support for the IWR. And yet our represenatives caved to the demagoguery from the RW and failed their in their single most important job duty, representing the will of their constituents. Nothing nuanced about that friend.

And if you can't see that we are living under the two party/same corporate master system of government, then perhaps you need to wake up and smell the greed.

Dime's bit of difference my ass, the IWR, the continual funding of this illegal and immoral war, the Patriot Act, NAFTA, welfare "reform", NCLB, the Ashcroft nomination, the '96 Telecom Act, the prescription drug bill etc. etc. ad nauseum. And all the bobbleheaded Dems continue to nod their head up and down, as innocents abroad and at home continue to die. At least Bushco comes right out and tells you that they are for the "haves and have mores". The Dems wish to fool you by pretending they're for the little guy. But when the money is on the line, well, we all see what happens.

[KnowerOfLogic]

36. Oh yes it was, and the 'caveats' were just 'ass-covering.' nt

[Tinoire]

18. I am unyielding on this one because I remember how loudly we howled

and let them know that if they were representing us, their duty was to say no. Before the IWR vote, you could hardly get through to their offices because the phones were so busy. The aides I spoke to said they'd never, never seen anything like it. We called, faxed, e-mailed, petitioned, protested and clearly let them know that they weren't representing us and that if they planned to continue representing us they should say no. I still have the "kiss-my-ass" letter Feinstein & Clinton sent me about it. They said they "knew better".

I'm no spring chicken. I know why they wanted this war- it was to save the sinking empire that Democratic politicans felt just as obligated to save, the easy way, as Republicans did. They didn't want the death & destruction that went with it but they wanted this war to keep the petrodollar alive, to destabilize that region to make it more friendly to odious free-market principles and keep our little friend in the region happy so that he would continue guarding our weapons dump.

People want to keep blaming the Republicans when there's enough blame to go around on both sides of the aisle. That's simply wrong and as long as we continue to blame only them, nothing will ever change.

The PPI was instrumental in pushing for this war. The New Republic was so bloodthirsty it was shameful. We can't bury our heads in the quicksan and only point at the other guys. It's time for a house-cleaning. It's time they started representing US.

I wouldn't clap. You wouldn't clap. So you tell me, who are they representing when they clap? They're representing themselves and their corporate donors & they let us know that. No more time for their games or what some would call political niceties. People are dying at alarming rates. No more. No more excuses.

[Blue_Tires]

19. spot on n/t

[G_j]

20. absolutely

I think it would safe to say that they were completely swamped with calls and letters begging them not to go along with the war resolution.
We pleaded, we reasoned, we screamed, we cried, over and over, night and day. To this day they will barely acknowledge this substantial segment of the American public even exists.

[Tactical Progressive]

34. I agree with much of what you say

except such ridiculous claims as 'They wanted it just as much as he did...' That's strident misrepresentation.

If you want to say 'almost as much as he did' you might have a defensible point, though I personally think even that is a dishonest characterization. From everything I saw it was 'reluctantly' and with provisions, but at least your point would be arguable.

You are turning the argument sideways. The issue is Democrats caving into popular pressure, not auguring for war for their own ends. By mischaracterizing it, you diminish any small chance you have of changing their behavior. They know they didn't want the war, so when attacked that they did, what to do but dismiss it as angry partisanship. Better to confront them with caving in to demagoguery.

As it is though, your indictment that Dems were as much proponents of attacking Iraq as BushCo was falls flat on its face just from common perception, and in the process diminishes the rest of your argument.

As far as petrodollar valuation, I don't think anyone outside of BushCo was much concerned about it. Certainly not the American public, and from there Democratic politics. It was all about 9/11. When BushCo left America open to attack, they opened America to fear and violence. That's the crux. Don't confer right-wing machinations onto Democratic motivations. It doesn't work, and again, weakens your position, which I agree with.

[Tinoire]

35. It's ok for us to disagree on that because I'm not trying to score points

((on edit - make that score points with them))

or finesse the small chance of changing the behavior of those politicians because I just want them gone. I'm just expressing my opinion & saying things as I see them. I've long passed the point of wanting to play nice with anyone responsible for this war anymore.

I view the reasons for this war as much, much more involved than 9-11. 9-11 was a pretext to pick up the pace on a war that had started 14 years ago (economic sanctions, daily bombings, no-fly zones - that counts as war in my book). It's been one long steady war for 14 years TP and we just used 9-11 to bomb the crap out of them and get it over with because the neo-liberal method was taking too long. Good cop, bad cop is how it works now. First we try a carpet of gold, when that doesn't work, we cut off the gold and then when that doesn't work we resort to military force.

Saddaam was getting too greedy on the oil profits. In 1978 he nationalized oil production in 1972 and turned to France and Russia for partnerships. Then he had the absolute gall to invade Kuwait even though we told him it was wink, wink ok because we they were slant-drilling into Iraq's fields. Then to make matters even worse, instead of being grateful that we hadn't killed him off, he decided to dump the dollar and switch to the Euro.

There are five companies that dominate the world's oil market. 2 are American companies and two are primarily British. The 5th is French. We owned 3/4s of Iraqs oil and weren't about to let it be based in Euros. Can you imagine the catastrophe for us if OPECs dominating currency was switched from dollar to Euro? This also explains why the French & Russians didn't go into Iraq with us this time. Their government is no more moral than ours- just look at the situation in the Ivory Coast and how eagerly Chirac coordinated the latest Haiti action with Bush. France and Germany stand to gain quite a bit if the Euro wins this war. Russia started dumping the dollar about 4 months before 9-11 and stands to lose a lot over lost contracts.

Anyway, that's how I see it. 9-11 was just a pretext to escalate that old war from '91 to pump up the sagging empire. That's why I say they wanted it as much as he did- they needed it and being intelligent men they cared about petrodollar valuation whereas Bush was more concerned in the immediate gain for the oil companies imo.

What popular pressure did the Democrats cave into? Not ours. Poll after poll consistently had Democrats against the war. They did get a lot of pressure from the DLC and organizations like AIPAC but that's not popular pressure.

I watched them day after day TP. Non-stop for 4 years- ever since this web-site started. And with each passing day you just get more disgusted. And that disgust deepens when you start looking into the PPI, the DLC, the Dems on the neo-con "Committee for the Liberation of Iraq". They'll get no Hail Mary pass on this one. And you know, I don't care what they think about my attitude, or that they might dismiss it as angry partisanship. That would be their mistake because I'm the one voting/not voting for them. They made a serious mistake in not representing me and I'm going to do my civic duty of holding them accountable.

And my last point isn't to bring Dean into this because I was never a Dean supporter but what scares them about Dean isn't Dean, it's the movement behind him- a very an angry movement of Dems demanding accountability for what we witnessed day in day out ever since that little twerp was allowed to steal the 2000 election.


==
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to greater danger. It works the same in any country."

-Hermann Goering

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. Well said. And, the real solution to Democrats who collaborate.

As long as they think they can count on our votes they'll take the easiest path possible and try to play to both sides of the issues to keep their place at the trough.

[Tinoire]

21. That's exactly it. We've given our votes away too easily

and that's our fault.

We're like Esau selling our birthright away for a bowl of porridge. It's time to tell Jacob no. We're not that hungry after all.

[markomalley]

14. Collaborators each and every one of them

Any Democrat who does anything other than jeer or display some other form of dissent is no better than a Rethuglican. The world will watch this speech...they need to know that 70% of the public is against this twerp and what he stands for.

[PST]

16. Lieberman will lead the cheers

"gimme a 'B', gimme a 'U'"

[bunkerbuster1]

30. bukakke?

thanks for the lovely visual.

[maveric]

22. Fuck Decorum!

I hope that some dems, ala Boxer and Kennedy, dont follow that rule.

[Tactical Progressive]

27. And if they do

are they going to be warmongers who wanted to attack Iraq just as much as BushCo did? No, they won't be.

I agree with you in principle. I'm hoping that they sit and clap politely, not stand. That's for 1) decorum 2) politics 3) to honor the efforts of our servicemen and 4) because even though the war was wrong, dishonest, unethical, immoral, illegal, and deadly, among other bad things, a democracy is something good, or at least it could be.

I think not standing would send a respectful message, and make the Republicans who stand up an cheer raucously look like the mindless warmongers that they are in comparison. Walking out is absurd. Sitting on their hands is simply too political. The middle ground here is probably the best.

Afterwards Dems could make the point that there are four times as many deaths and casualties in Iraq as we incurred on 9/11, and it had nothing to do with Iraq. Of course, they'll probably mealy-mouth a bunch of domestic wonkery instead of confronting the costs of this war in response, but that's what I think they should do.

[Melynn]

25. Try to be hopeful

Remember, the congressional Republicans will have to stand and clap for a Democrat President in 2009.

[TWiley]

26. Thorazine, please pass the Thorazine.

We freed them from the burden of harvesting, refining, marketing, and transporting a couple trillion dollars worth of oil. We should all be grateful to Haliburton for taking on this awful task.

[Disturbed]

31. The majority of Dems are complicit..

in advancing all of the Bush Junta actions starting from 2000 bogus selection. The majority will go along with everything now except privatizing SS because that is one issue that will get them voted out if they caved on that. The Dem majority is no longer the Loyal Opposition. They are Repub. Lite and appeasers.

[TWiley]

38. That is the new song sung by the Choir.

Myself, I will abandon the democratic party before I abandon the "old fashioned" values.

[iverglas]

33. the perils of the presidential/congressional system

Your president is your head of government AND your head of state. Tonight's dilemma is one of the difficulties such a system presents.

Up here, the Prime Minister is the head of government only. People say nasty things about him in the media daily, and to him in Parliament daily. And sometimes hit him in the face with a pie.



The Queen, generally stood in for by one of her representatives (federally the Governor General, provincially the Lieutenant - that's Leff-tenant - Governors), is the head of state. People mainly ignore them.

When the Governor General delivers the Speech from the Throne, the counterpart of the State of the Union address, she is reading what the Prime Minister wrote, but she is doing it as head of state. Everybody listening - the House of Commons and Senate - listens politely. Members of the PM's party stand and applaud when they think it appropriate. Members of the Opposition just listen politely.

Then next day, the debate on the Speech from the Throne starts, and the opposition tells the PM and his government exactly what they really thought of his speech.

I recommend parliamentary democracy for this and many other reasons, of course -- the head of government has to defend his/her policies to the people's assembled representatives every day.

But meanwhile, a question.

Why the hell can't the Democratic members of the US Congress and Senate just listen politely when Bush delivers his address???

No booing, no stomping out of the room; he is the head of state and symbolic of the country and its people and all that.

But why the hell would anybody feel called upon to stand and applaud the vicious, oppressive, exploitive things he is saying?

Oh yeah. Because Fox News will say nasty things about them.

Uh ... like it won't anyway?

[Greylyn58]

37. I won't be watching

because I can't stand to even see his face, much less hear Shrub speak his lies. I'm not on any blood pressure medicine, but I swear 3mins listening to him would send my pressure though the roof.

I'll just read the comments I know will be all over DU during and after his confession--I mean speech.

Sorry, wishful thinking.


:eyes:

When a man lies, he murders some part of the world...Merlin/Excalibur