Democrats' Innocent Bystander Fable

[babylonsister]

Run time: 02:22 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7raAL3Wld0   Posted on YouTube: June 04, 2007 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: June 04, 2007 By DU Member: babylonsister Views on DU: 3432

 

[Dhalgren]

1. K&R! Dead on!

[jgraz]

2. Beat me to it

It's really sickening, isn't it? Apparently the Dems are going after the moron vote in 2008.

[yurbud]

3. rec, but also another myth: all Democrats want to end the war

Kerry actually responded to the filibuster issue on DailyKos and said he didn't even have the 40 votes to sustain the filibuster.

Whether or not he even seriously considered it, I do believe that 40 democrats wouldn't join him. Too many are Chamber of Commerce types.

[Catchawave]

4. Wow, KnR !

[Leftist Agitator]

5. Isn't it great

how the best actors will win this election?

[ultraist]

6. Congress has the power!

No amount of justifications about why they are not using their power will excuse them from perpetuating this war.

K&R

:kick:

[robinlynne]

7. babylonsister, one of the best posts I have seen in a very long time!

Thank-you. Everyone needs to get this.

[purduejake]

8. I hope these Democratic liars are booted out...

instead of re-elected. They're lying to the American people to continue this unjust and illegal war. I have many other concerns as a voter, but the war is my primary concern and I don't see how these Dems are any better than *. A bunch of them even voted to authorize this mess in the first place! At least Bush will tell you where he stands.

[jgraz]

11. As long as we have people willing to repeat the lie, these dems will probably hold their seats

[bjobotts]

20. Consider and deliberate another view in your judgement

Either the Dems are all liars or they know a reality we don't see.

The anger and frustration about trying to end this "occupation" from an "invading force"..us, throws deliberation right out the window.
Consider this: Bush sent unprepared, poorly equipped over strained, unrested and unprotected troops into this 'splurge' and would not hesitate to "use" them as bargaining chips. Each time one died the Dems would be blamed for not funding the troops. At this point funding the troops meant getting the equipment and supplies to them to help protect them. The longer the funding was held up by vetoes and resubmissions the more the troops would be used to "prove" how deadly delaying funding would be. Bush was more than willing to sacrifice soldier's lives to prove this, the Democrats were not. They were not willing to make the troops suffer because of this President's callousness.

They hate the war(I mean occupation). They knew it was going to be politically devastating to vote yes to the funding, when their supporters elected them to stop this occupation. But in this confused moment in time these poorly equipped, worn out soldiers needed someone to protect them from Bush's failed policy and save lives by getting them the equipment they needed.
The Dems were willing to give up a lot in order to save lives. Without a majority in the Senate to override a veto the "game" of delay known as "starving the troops" would continue with each veto or filibuster. It's a damned if you do damned if you don't measure right now and "protecting the troops" dominates the Democratic side as they continue to find a way to stop this insanity of Bush's.
What if Bush said, "I will order the troops home if you stop the impeachment". Would you clamor the Dems are cowards for not continuing to impeach?
Short of impeachment or getting a veto proof majority in the Senate, only a new Democratic Administration is going to stop this occupation and bring the troops home. (Filibusters and continuing submissions and vetoes just gets more troops killed. This course would be good to pursue if the soldiers weren't already in the middle of a "turkey shoot" without armor)

Congress can stop a war is not a myth...but at what price in human lives?

The real myth is in believing the Democrats in Congress are not doing everything they can think of to "successfully" end this occupation and bring the troops home as quickly as they can. They decided that cutting the funds at this time, with this president, would be too costly in American blood and would not be protecting our most precious assets. Believe me, they have not deserted their mission of ending this occupation.

[libodem]

29. Dayum, you said that good.

Nice to meet you. Hi.

[bjobotts]

37. Yessum

Ditto libodem. You probably only one to read it. Hi.

[Greyhound]

39. Utter nonsense, you can believe this crap if you chose, but it is nothing

but pure, DC grade bullshit. The very idea that if they don't vote to fund the mass-murder in Iraq, the troops will be stranded and unequipped is ludicrous on its face. But then I suppose you also believe that we spent 3/4 of a trillion dollars on the military and we can't afford to adequately equip them in the first place.

So just how stupid do you think we are? Wait I know, as stupid as the Congress believes we are.

[bjobotts]

45. Maybe, but most of the money spent went to the war profiteers ...

with very little oversight. The current oversight is bringing out the waste and that the funds did not go for what was actually needed. With the present "oversight " which was missing since the war began, the Dems can now point to where the money is being spent. They were just as shocked to realize Bush spent nearly a trillion dollars and these troops still didn't have the necessary equipment...WTF.
I want it over now, but I still believe this is what the Dems want also. I wish it wasn't this way, wish they would have told Bush no more and to go screw himself...but there is a lost to be said for why they didn't at this particular time. For instance, for all I know Lieberman may have threatened to go Repub which would have flipped the senate and all the committee chairmen would have switched to Republican from Democrat removing most of their power in the Senate...that may have been an added consideration.
I still want to trust that the Democrats are not involved in some conspiracy to keep this occupation going. I "believe" they know the voters want them to end this fiasco as soon as possible. I believe they are motivated to do just that. This was the explanation they were giving at the debates( Senator Biden) and I understand their rationale though it's not what I wanted, but it's more complicated than "no funding...no war" if you really are concerned about our soldiers dying. If it were me I'd say get them the equipment they need to protect themselves till we can get them out of there. As soon as they have it, start withdrawing them. This has always been a war of profiteering and an occupation to steal and control the flow of oil. We could have bought Sadam for a 10th of the cost of this fiasco.

[Greyhound]

46. More complete falsehoods. So many in fact, I doubt your sincerity in

professing "I wish it wasn't this way" and "I want it over now".

1. You claim that there was no oversight and that "They were just as shocked to realize Bush spent nearly a trillion dollars and these troops still didn't have the necessary equipment". Would you have us believe that Congresspersons are so stupid, illiterate, or perhaps are itinerant, and have been unable to scratch up the $.50 to buy a newspaper for the last 4 years? That's how long reports about Halliburton, KBR, and affiliates, 'cost plus no-bid' contracts and the accompanying abuses have been available to anybody that wanted to know. Even if these desperately poor, completely ignorant, drooling fools did manage to miss it in the papers, surely they would have caught the weeks of lead stories on the evening news about the lack of proper armor, vehicles, and 'hillbilly upgrades'.

2. I suppose it is remotely possible that you wouldn't know it, but it is utterly impossible that Senators are unaware that after Jeffords switched affiliation in 2001, the Senate rules were changed so that now Lieberman could declare himself a member of the Nazi party if he wanted to and there would be no changes at all in The Senate.

3. It has been pointed out several times, by several different representatives, in both Houses, that it is not any more complicated than "no funding...no war". BTW, since all funding must originate in the House of Representatives, the Senate is irrelevant in this matter, so that puts the responsibility for the continues slaughter squarely on Nancy Pelosi.

Any questions?

[pberq]

47. Great responses, greyhound1966

Sometimes the most difficult thing is straightening out people who are supposedly on our side.

[dk2]

9. Great points

Thank for this video

[jgraz]

10. Link to Sirota's blog entry

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1040238&mesg_id=1040238

[Cronopio]

12. Right on. k&r. nt

[Vilis Veritas]

13. Complicity in order to continue the money train...

23 billion in Pork was being held up.

I hope and pray that someday the party I once loved will stand up and be that party again...

All we can do is support them and see if it changes when they are in the WH. If not, well, then it will be time to get fugly...

Peace.

[SergeyDovlatov]

14. DK (and Gravel?) were the only ones that mentioned this in the debates

[Yukari Yakumo]

15. Problemo, BabSis

You do need 67 votes to end the war. It's called overriding Chimpy's veto. Do you seriously think Chimpy would bring them home if there was no money? He thinks torture is A-OK! And who do you the MSM would make to look like the bad guy? Chimpy? Hah!

Plus look at the 2004 election map. See how many states are red? Think about that and the Senate for a minute.

Playing the "send the bill over and over again" game would not have worked. Chimpy is a stubborn twit, we all know that. But it would make the Dems look just as bad because we would be playing Chimpy's game. Please, do not bring the Dems down to Chimpy's level.

And if they tried to de-authorize the war, do you seriously think the Senate Repukes would let that fly? Anyone with the slightest clue would know they'd filibuster it to death.

Here's the only myth you need: Congress can stop the war.
That is a myth because the only one who can end the war is the dumbass who occupies the Oval Office. A "man" with neither a shred of decency or humanity within him.

[EVDebs]

18. The MILITARY themselves will end up clamoring for this occupation to end

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1041617&mesg_id=1041806

from a related DU posting about defunding the war. Patience.

[Yukari Yakumo]

24. *Laughs*

In case you haven't noticed, Chimpy has systematically got rid of almost all nay-sayers in the upper ranks of the military. You think the lower ranks are going to rebel? That's a laugh.

[EVDebs]

31. It's starting to feel like a draft isn't really out of the picture

Agency to Test Military Draft Machinery
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1222-01.htm

[ComerPerro]

34. The military higher-ups don't care about what they see as a minimal loss of life

mostly because they aren't in harms way.

They don't give a shit about the lives of their men. They see them as resources, not as human beings

[bjobotts]

19. Either the Dems are all liars or they know a reality we don't see.

The anger and frustration about trying to end this "occupation" from an "invading force"..us, throws deliberation right out the window.
Consider this: Bush sent unprepared, poorly equipped over strained, unrested and unprotected troops into this 'splurge' and would not hesitate to "use" them as bargaining chips. Each time one died the Dems would be blamed for not funding the troops. At this point funding the troops meant getting the equipment and supplies to them to help protect them. The longer the funding was held up by vetoes and resubmissions the more the troops would be used to "prove" how deadly delaying funding would be. Bush was more than willing to sacrifice soldier's lives to prove this, the Democrats were not. They were not willing to make the troops suffer because of this President's callousness.

They hate the war(I mean occupation). They knew it was going to be politically devastating to vote yes to the funding, when their supporters elected them to stop this occupation. But in this confused moment in time these poorly equipped, worn out soldiers needed someone to protect them from Bush's failed policy and save lives by getting them the equipment they needed.
The Dems were willing to give up a lot in order to save lives. Without a majority in the Senate to override a veto the "game" of delay known as "starving the troops" would continue with each veto or filibuster. It's a damned if you do damned if you don't measure right now and "protecting the troops" dominates the Democratic side as they continue to find a way to stop this insanity of Bush's.
What if Bush said, "I will order the troops home if you stop the impeachment". Would you clamor the Dems are cowards for not continuing to impeach?
Short of impeachment or getting a veto proof majority in the Senate, only a new Democratic Administration is going to stop this occupation and bring the troops home. (Filibusters and continuing submissions and vetoes just gets more troops killed. This course would be good to pursue if the soldiers weren't already in the middle of a "turkey shoot" without armor)

Congress can stop a war is not a myth...but at what price in human lives?

The real myth is in believing the Democrats in Congress are not doing everything they can think of to "successfully" end this occupation and bring the troops home as quickly as they can. They decided that cutting the funds at this time, with this president, would be too costly in American blood and would not be protecting our most precious assets. Believe me, they have not deserted their mission of ending this occupation.

[snot]

22. What I don't understand:

This admin has short-changed the troops at every turn so far; so how can anyone believe that if we give them more money now, they'll spend it on the troops? I'm actually v. worried about giving this admin another dime, because of what I'm afraid they'll do with it instead.

[bjobotts]

36. In the Bill some of the funds had a specific spending agenda.

I see what you are saying and all I can tell you is that some of the money had been assigned to specifically cover the cost of the armored humvees requested by the marines. Bush had stated that these and other protective equipment could not be made or sent there because there was no money available at present (where any other president would have made sure they had this equipment to begin with) so now he can't complain or deny the troops this equipment because the Dems said okay, here is the money for the humvees and the body armor you requested and is to be used solely for that purpose. Bush cannot use this portion of the funding for anything else.
I wish they could throw the blood of the dead soldiers all over these neocons, and then throw the dollar bills on them so they stick to the blood just so they would get the point. But this time Bush has to spend the money as it was appropriated with the top priority of providing the equipment necessary to protect the troops. So now all eyes are on this to make sure this is where the funding goes. But like you, I'm not only paranoid but extremely mistrustful of things Bush says or "promises" to do as we should be by his past actions.

[Usrename]

33. Remember the Murtha bill when the Repugs were in control?

It was possible for our leadership to mirror a tactic that the Rethuglicans used when they were confronted with a very popular proposal that they did not want to be forced to vote on.

The Dems *could* have brought up a bill that no one would want to vote for. Once it was unanimously voted down they could use the argument that the only funding bill that could get through the House was the one that the President vetoed.

Get it?

Forget about what they say for just a second and look at their behavior; they *WANT* to fund this war!

[cynthia]

16. those who voted for continuing funding are whiners

Bush vetoed the funding, they should have just kept sending back bills to end the war and pushed him to keep vetoing their bills. Instead they caved, and whined that they didn't have a choice B*llsh*t!

[MethuenProgressive]

17. Views on YouTube: 209 -- Views on DU: 771

Thanks, babylonsister!
:kick:

[snot]

21. Don't forget to rate it up on YouTube. nt

[Blackbird_Highway]

23. Vote Green! Donate Green!

The Democrats in congress are all talk while they continue to support the war.

Keep repeating this truth until it finally sinks in: You can vote Democratic, or you can complain about the war, BUT YOU CAN'T DO BOTH!

Only when America fully exercises the right to vote, by electing third party candidates, will freedom be achieved. Until then, we have only false choices between those who promise change but don't deliver, and those who don't even promise. Which one is which? Whichever party is out of power is the first, the party in power is the second.

Don't be fooled again folks, 38% of Americans are registered independant, more than Democratic or Republican, yet the corporate media insists that a third party can't win. Why? Because corporate America like it just the way it is.

I once worked in a shop where everyone complained about the temperature. Half were always too hot, and half were always too cold, but the boss wouldn't let anyone touch the thermostat. Then one day, tired of hearing all the complaining, he suddenly said we could change the thermostat all we wanted. Folks would tweak the thermostat up or down, and a few minutes later say "There, that's much better". They didn't realize that the boss had unwired that thermostat, and the temperature was controlled from another one out of sight.

Well, our two party system has turned into that unwired thermostat, it gives people the illusion of control, while giving them almost no control.

[zalinda]

25. Yeah, Green party worked for us last time didn't it?

We got Bush.

Damn, you guys think that all they had to do was vote no? This isn't your little local government were things can move fast. The federal government moves at a snail's pace, it was set up to run that way. And Bush will do whatever Bush wants to do and the media will back him up, haven't you been paying attention for the last 6 years? The best the dems could do was put things in the bill which would benefit our side.

This kind of irrational thinking is what made Nader so popular, and look how that turned out.

zalidna

[Blackbird_Highway]

43. And Now You Have Democrats...

And you're still complaining about the war, aren't you! HA, HA HA!!! Lots of good that did!!!

Bush did NOT get elected by people voting GREEN, he was elected by people voting REPUBLICAN!

The big corporate media has you brainwashed just they way they want you. By all means, continue to be their puppet, they are making billions on the war, and they like it just fine!

[kenfrequed]

28. Or...

You could always fight for one of the candidates that is in favor of ending the war immediately. A few of them seem to be leaning that way. And you can bet supporting one of them might actually bring that argument a bit higher in the media game.

I think you could probably identify those candidates pretty quickly.

[libodem]

30. Hon, I'm more worried about the take over of the ONE Party System

This just isn't the time in history to try anything new. This has to go business as usual or we'll loose it again. I'm not kidding'. I Even kinda think so about Hillery and Barrack(sorry). We godda get Gore, to run and all jump in behind him. I don't see who else. Maybe another Kennedy. But ya know what happens to them.

[ComerPerro]

35. that will work real well. Maybe Cindy Sheehan can be your Pres nominee, eh?

[Blackbird_Highway]

44. Or Maybe GORE!

Al Gore doesn't sound much aligned with the Democrats these days, Haven't you read his new book? It doesn't fit well with the Demo platform at all.

And after years of criticizing Bush for doing nothing about Global Warming, except "studying" it, what does the new congress do: create a new committee to "study" it!

Hello, you could have studied the problem while you were in the minority, and been ready to go with changes once elected. Oh wait, the Dems were busy doing NOTHING about the Iraq war, no time for anything else.

[mikelewis]

26. Biden said it!!! "You are going to end this war when you elect a Democratic President"

That's why they won't end this war... they want to run against it in '08.

[bjobotts]

38. Time to take back or take over the Democratic party--it's diverse enough for 2

It's our party but 2 things have got to happen.
1) Campaign finance reform. Get big money and corporate profits (via the corporate Media) out of elections. It shouldn't cost millions to run for office

2)Go to the local Democratic party meetings and become a voice in setting the agendas for party politics. It's our party and our country and diversity is what sets us apart from the Republicans. By becoming a part of the process we can influence and help guide its direction. Everyone in this country should have to spend a year in national service with some governmental organization as part of keeping us involved in the operation of our system of democracy...be it military, medical, social or political. This is how we make our country the best it can be. We can do this and it starts with campaign finance reform which will lead to corporate reform eventually...known as regulated capitalism.
Just saying.......

[Greyhound]

41. I'm afraid you're probably right, they will waste another thousand+

American lives and who knows how many thousands of Iraqi lives just so they won't have to campaign on the other hundred problems they don't want to deal with.

Bastards.

[kenfrequed]

27. This needs airtime

I can think of little better message to the people about this last round of debates.

When Blitzer had more time than 75% of the candidates and asked questions that were either softballs for Hillary or straight out of the republican talking book playbook I had to wonder: "Who needs Faux news?"

Seriously though. Good video.

[ComerPerro]

32. Sorry, but this is just pathetic.

Constantly sending the same bill, over and over again, results in no new funding (which I assure you will probably result in even more troop deaths and even more reckless behavior by Bush to get them killed) AS WELL AS results in a do-nothing congress that can't get anything done or passed aside from constantly sending the same bill to be killed by Repig fillabuster or veto, either of which will only help Repigs score political points for the election next fall.

[bridgit]

42. i think that's right, they've already handed a lunatic a loaded gun...

and now they want to persuade it from out of his hands with piles of paper...that has to be a feeling of power a megalomaniac will never surrender consciously short of an out & out intervention here read impeachment if that fits the bill, but something has to knock that neocon balancing act off of rock-center

[Greyhound]

40. Anybody else find it strangely convenient that we are suddenly bombarded with a rash of low-post

DLC apologists just after the Congress betrays the American People yet again? Every one of them is spouting the same line of crap that is being fed to us out of DC. Another strange coincidence...