POLL: Will democrats fuck up getting rid of Bush?

[yurbud]

My great fear is that they will err on the side of letting Bushies "save face" and bow out gracefully, as they have so many times in the past, and it will come back to bite us on the ass.



Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[Carolab]

1. This gang will be its own undoing. They always fuck it up.

Just wait and see.

[yurbud]

2. The problem with that approach is they can eventually get back in the game

Did forgiveness help after Watergate, the October Surprise, or Iran-Contra?

The Democrats cut them some slack, and as thanks, the Republicans cut their throats (and ours).







Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[Carolab]

6. Maybe they've learned a thing or two. Maybe not.

But maybe the real lesson is that it's not up to them, but up to US.

[yurbud]

7. that's why I'm talking about it here. We have to pressure the Dems

not to succumb to being too polite.

Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[charlie]

12. They haven't

Who dropped the ball on the October Surprise inquiry? Lee Hamilton. Who got rolled in the Iran Contra investigation? Lee Hamilton. (and who rolled him? Dick Cheney) Who did the Dems settle on to head our side of the 911 Commission? You get one guess. Talk about lessons unlearned.

If Bushco blows up, I mean really winds up two steps ahead of a public lynching, expect talk of "averting a Constitutional crisis" to bubble up from both sides. It's a golden oldie, they never get tired of singing it during Republican administrations.

[Cocoa]

20. dem senators to Bush: your investigation is going nowhere

http://truthout.org/docs_03/101103A.shtml


t r u t h o u t | letter
From Senators: Tom Daschle, Joseph R. Biden, Carl Levin, Charles E. Schumer
To: The President / The White House

Thursday 09 October 2003

The President
The White House
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

We write to express our continuing concerns regarding the manner in which your Administration is conducting the investigation into the apparently criminal leaking of a covert CIA operative's identity. You have personally pledged the White House's full cooperation in this investigation and you have stated your desire to see any culprits identified and prosecuted, but the Administration's actions are inconsistent with your words.

Already, just fourteen days into this investigation, there have been at least five serious missteps.

First, although the Department of Justice commenced its investigation on Friday, September 26, the Justice Department did not ask the White House to order employees to preserve all relevant evidence until Monday, September 29. Every former prosecutor with whom we have spoken has said that the first step in such an investigation would be to ensure all potentially relevant evidence is preserved, yet the Justice Department waited four days before making a formal request for such documents.

Second, when the Justice Department finally asked the White House to order employees to preserve documents, White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales asked for permission to delay transmitting the order to preserve evidence until morning. That request for delay was granted. Again, every former prosecutor with whom we have spoken has said that such a delay is a significant departure from standard practice.

Third, instead of immediately seeking the preservation of evidence at the two other Executive Branch departments from which the leak might have originated, i.e., State and Defense, such a request was not made until Thursday, October 1. Perhaps even more troubling, the request to State and Defense Department employees to preserve evidence was telegraphed in advance not only by the request to White House employees earlier in the week, but also by the October 1st Wall Street Journal report that such a request was "forthcoming" from the Justice Department. It is, of course, extremely unusual to tip off potential witnesses in this manner that a preservation request is forthcoming.

Fourth, on October 7, White House spokesperson Scott McClellan stated that he had personally determined three White House officials, Karl Rove, Lewis Libby and Elliot Abrams, had not disclosed classified information. According to press reports, Mr. McClellan said, "I've spoken with each of them individually. They were not involved in leaking classified information, nor did they condone it." Clearly, a media spokesperson does not have the legal expertise to be questioning possible suspects or evaluating or reaching conclusions about the legality of their conduct. In addition, by making this statement, the White House has now put the Justice Department in the position of having to determine not only what happened, but also whether to contradict the publicly stated position of the White House.

Fifth, and perhaps most importantly, the investigation continues to be directly overseen by Attorney General Ashcroft who has well-documented conflicts of interest in any investigation of the White House. Mr. Ashcroft's personal relationship and political alliance with you, his close professional relationships with Karl Rove and Mr. Gonzales, and his seat on the National Security Council all tie him so tightly to this White House that the results may not be trusted by the American people. Even if the case is being handled in the first instance by professional career prosecutors, the integrity of the inquiry may be called into question if individuals with a vested interest in protecting the White House are still involved in any matter related to the investigation.

We are at risk of seeing this investigation so compromised that those responsible for this national security breach will never be identified and prosecuted. Public confidence in the integrity of this investigation would be substantially bolstered by the appointment of a special counsel. The criteria in the Justice Department regulations that created the authority to appoint a Special Counsel have been met in the current case. Namely, there is a criminal investigation that presents a conflict of interest for the Justice Department, and it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside special counsel to assume responsibility for the matter. In the meantime, we urge you to ask Attorney General Ashcroft to recuse himself from this investigation and do everything within your power to ensure the remainder of this investigation is conducted in a way that engenders public confidence.

Sincerely,

Tom Daschle
Joseph R. Biden
Carl Levin
Charles E. Schumer

[Stirk]

3. They will go out of their way to fail, as usual.

Too many of current Dem leaders are simply not on our side when it comes to the struggle between corporate and public power. Their job is to see that the Dems never fail to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

No, if the Bush Administration falls- and I think it just might- they'll do it in court.

[friesianrider]

13. Superbly said.

I would LOVE, LOVE, LOVE to be proven wrong on this, but all too often the Dem leadership "goes out og their way to fail" as Stirk so correctly said.

[wake.up.america]

4. The Demo politicians will back off, thinking it is better for the...

country, then BOOOOM Bush acts like a jerk again.

The Republicans will see it as a sign of weakness, this backing off.

[yurbud]

5. exactly.

Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[Cocoa]

21. exactly wrong

http://truthout.org/docs_03/101103A.shtml


t r u t h o u t | letter
From Senators: Tom Daschle, Joseph R. Biden, Carl Levin, Charles E. Schumer
To: The President / The White House

Thursday 09 October 2003

The President
The White House
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

We write to express our continuing concerns regarding the manner in which your Administration is conducting the investigation into the apparently criminal leaking of a covert CIA operative's identity. You have personally pledged the White House's full cooperation in this investigation and you have stated your desire to see any culprits identified and prosecuted, but the Administration's actions are inconsistent with your words.

Already, just fourteen days into this investigation, there have been at least five serious missteps.

First, although the Department of Justice commenced its investigation on Friday, September 26, the Justice Department did not ask the White House to order employees to preserve all relevant evidence until Monday, September 29. Every former prosecutor with whom we have spoken has said that the first step in such an investigation would be to ensure all potentially relevant evidence is preserved, yet the Justice Department waited four days before making a formal request for such documents.

Second, when the Justice Department finally asked the White House to order employees to preserve documents, White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales asked for permission to delay transmitting the order to preserve evidence until morning. That request for delay was granted. Again, every former prosecutor with whom we have spoken has said that such a delay is a significant departure from standard practice.

Third, instead of immediately seeking the preservation of evidence at the two other Executive Branch departments from which the leak might have originated, i.e., State and Defense, such a request was not made until Thursday, October 1. Perhaps even more troubling, the request to State and Defense Department employees to preserve evidence was telegraphed in advance not only by the request to White House employees earlier in the week, but also by the October 1st Wall Street Journal report that such a request was "forthcoming" from the Justice Department. It is, of course, extremely unusual to tip off potential witnesses in this manner that a preservation request is forthcoming.

Fourth, on October 7, White House spokesperson Scott McClellan stated that he had personally determined three White House officials, Karl Rove, Lewis Libby and Elliot Abrams, had not disclosed classified information. According to press reports, Mr. McClellan said, "I've spoken with each of them individually. They were not involved in leaking classified information, nor did they condone it." Clearly, a media spokesperson does not have the legal expertise to be questioning possible suspects or evaluating or reaching conclusions about the legality of their conduct. In addition, by making this statement, the White House has now put the Justice Department in the position of having to determine not only what happened, but also whether to contradict the publicly stated position of the White House.

Fifth, and perhaps most importantly, the investigation continues to be directly overseen by Attorney General Ashcroft who has well-documented conflicts of interest in any investigation of the White House. Mr. Ashcroft's personal relationship and political alliance with you, his close professional relationships with Karl Rove and Mr. Gonzales, and his seat on the National Security Council all tie him so tightly to this White House that the results may not be trusted by the American people. Even if the case is being handled in the first instance by professional career prosecutors, the integrity of the inquiry may be called into question if individuals with a vested interest in protecting the White House are still involved in any matter related to the investigation.

We are at risk of seeing this investigation so compromised that those responsible for this national security breach will never be identified and prosecuted. Public confidence in the integrity of this investigation would be substantially bolstered by the appointment of a special counsel. The criteria in the Justice Department regulations that created the authority to appoint a Special Counsel have been met in the current case. Namely, there is a criminal investigation that presents a conflict of interest for the Justice Department, and it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside special counsel to assume responsibility for the matter. In the meantime, we urge you to ask Attorney General Ashcroft to recuse himself from this investigation and do everything within your power to ensure the remainder of this investigation is conducted in a way that engenders public confidence.

Sincerely,

Tom Daschle
Joseph R. Biden
Carl Levin
Charles E. Schumer

[Raksha]

8. I picked option #3 - "The Dems won't screw up this time"

but I'm well aware it could be just wishful thinking.

[jane_pippin]

30. Me too...

But then we also root for the Chicago Cubs in our house and something tells me having faith in our Dems is similar to believing this year the Cubs will finally win.

Still, a girl can dream.

:)

[AndyTiedye]

9. The BFEE Will Do a "Z" If Owning the Media & Voting Machinez Isn't Enough

The Democratic leadership knows this, which is one of the reasons
they never push too hard.

That would be option 5. They need another "terrorist attack"
as a pretext. Then they start up the draft (more like a
hurricane) and then they have plenty of troops to enforce martial law.

[yorgatron]

10. i'm afraid of it turning out like Watergate or Iran/Contra

a few lower eschalon types get country club prison time,and the rest lay low until the next repub administration.
we have the same crooks and liars popping up again and again... :grr::mad:

[AndyTiedye]

11. If We Ever DO Get In Power Again, We Can Send Them to the Hague

The one court from which there is no pardon.

[sellitman]

14. I expect a Code Red real soon.

The bushies need cover. I hate to say it but I only expect the worse out of these criminals.

[yurbud]

15. Will a terrorist attack help or hurt them at this point?

Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[sellitman]

16. It will "galvanize" the sheeple

All this silly WMD & Plaime business will go away or be behind the obits. Watch it happen. You know i am right. The fascists all work that way. Go read your history books again.

[yurbud]

17. if it had followed closer on 9/11, I would agree, but they've waited too

long.

People are at least as likely to look askance as the Brits did.


Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[sellitman]

24. The Poodle is off the hook now...

It would work the same way for Dumbya.

[bearfan454]

18. Yes some of the major players ARE on the other team

I'm sorry to say. Holy Joe is for sure.

[Cocoa]

19. regardless of what happens

the dems will be criticized by some at DU. It doesn't matter what they do or don't do, it will be spun against the dems.

[yurbud]

28. don't give anyone blind allegiance--look at their record. period.

I have a lot of respect for my congressman, Henry Waxman, one of my senators, Barbara Boxer, and of course, John Conyers, and most of the black congressional caucus.

Apart from them, and some others, precious few have dared to raise their voice in objection to a headlong, sustained assault on the middle class, our liberties, and our reputation in the world. Often their silence directly contradicted the will of their constituents.

As black voters have seen for decades, and a lot of the rest of us are figuring out, if you believe one party can do no wrong, they will do it to you because you'll forget to keep your eye on them.

I hope that one thing that separates us from the right is some minimal ability to exercise critical thinking rather than blind allegiance.

Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[tibbir]

22. The Democrats in Congress don't have the intestinal fortitude

to follow whatever happens to the end.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. The Dems will compromise and wait for "extraordinary circumstances".

They keep their hips well oiled for folding.

[Piperay]

25. Democrats will be out maneuvered

as usual. :-(

[shelley806]

26. This question is too sick to even ponder...Why did you chose it? It is

not a question that an honorable Democrat should even consider. You are too repulsive for words. No way I'm participating in this absurd poll. How defeatist can you get? You are for the Rove team.

"the Dems won't get them. They will be out-maneuvered and some key players are really on the other team."

[yurbud]

27. If you don't think about worst case scenarios, they are more likely to...

come true.

Many Democrats seem to look the other way on electronic vote rigging, black voter suppression, and the effectiveness of GOP negative campaigning, then act surprised when they get rolled as we did in 2002 and 2004.

As for Dems playing for the other team, Kerry seemed to be getting some extremely bad campaign advice, and Zell Miller isn't the only democrat in name only. Joe Biden and Joe Lieberman do more for the GOP than they do for Democrats. Lieberman even sits on the Committee on the Present Danger, the right wing group responsible for inflating the Soviet threat in the 80s and encouraging inflated estimates of Iraq's and terrorism's threat.

And in case you haven't noticed, those two were far quicker to criticize Howard Dean than they ever have been to criticize the Bushies.

A football team doesn't win by thinking their opponents are pushovers. They have to know their own strengths and weaknesses as well as the other teams. The other part of winning though is actually taking the field and playing the game, and sadly you can't really say all or even a majority of democrats are doing so.

Those that aren't represent the third party in the US that owns the GOP and leases a lot of Democrats, the Chamber of Commerce. Until we figure out how to balance their demands with the interests of actual people, we are going to get screwed every time.

Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[shelley806]

29. Hey...I don't disagree with anything you say; your methods I have

problems with. Have you never heard of the self-fulfilling prophesy? Every idea has a life of its own. Yours are only negative. IMHO, you are playing right into Rove's, Limbaugh's, Coulter's et al plans...

[yurbud]

32. If you look at what Dems have done the last couple of

years, they have consistently put less than a full hearted effort into opposing the Bushies, with disastrous results.

Just because the right is imploding, doesn't mean the Dems will prevail.

In some magnaminous gesture, they could keep them on life support long enough to recover instead of driving a stake through their heart.

My point is to get people to stay on their representatives asses, and not depend entirely on them OR the right's self-destructiveness.

John Kerry gave us the impression he was on top of the vote rigging thing, so a lot of us thought it was covered--instead, we gt scammed again.

Same thing with challenging the electoral vote, or confirming Condi or Gonzalez. Those guys shouldn't have gotten a single democratic vote, and if that had happened, a couple of republicans probably would have jumped ship too.

If you were a moderate republican, would you put your neck on the line to side with someone who will run away in the heat of battle? Why should voters for that matter?

The other course of action is of course to take over the democratic party and get rid of all the parasitic chamber of commerce types who are killing us for the sake of kicking some contracts to their friends and family.

I think it would be a pretty big selling point for a candidate to say they're not a lawyer or business man, and they don't intend to profit financially from public service.


Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[LSdemocrat]

31. As long as Repubs control Congress, Dems have no real power

We can't hold hearings, issue subpeonas, or do anything beyond making statements that are easily ignored by the media.

Sorry to say, but until we take back Congress we can't really force Bush out.