If you can't accept that the Democratic leadership is COMPLICIT, what other excuse do you believe?

[Wiley50]

#1 "OFF the Table"

#2 Votes 100's of billions more for Iraq

#3 forces unnecessary apology under threat of censure

#4 refuses to do anything about multiple stolen elections

#5-infinity one after another after another...............


It's tough to believe your boxing hero has thrown a fight
even when they are caught red handed.

"Say it ain't so,Joe! Say it ain't so!"

[crim son]

1. It's occurred to me that they know something we don't.

I'm not saying I believe it, though.

[Wiley50]

3. Bought off or threatened? n/t

[crim son]

34. Yeah, something like that.

How else could they so consistently be such freaking wimps?

[VP505]

4. Ya, like

which lobbyist is handing out the biggest contributions.

[crim son]

35. So, there is nobody with any character who is on our side?

I find it hard to believe.

[Wiley50]

37. I believed in Conyers and still believe in Kucinich ( for what good that does)

Conyers has done nothing but weasel out of all the promises he made

in the last two years, since the start of this session

"Say it ain't so, John! Say it ain't so"

[Vidar]

39. Conyers was my hero for almost two years & his feet of clay

reach at least his waist.

[Wiley50]

41. and when he gets cornered, he squirms n/t

[Fresh_Start]

6. I've talked to lots of people who hate the War

despise what Bush has done, but believe it would be morally wrong to leave before we fix the mess we made.
Intelligent, well-educated, liberal leaning people....

I don't think that the answers are as simple as some DUers think they are.
And killing our own is a poor excuse for a strategy.

[Wiley50]

12. I think you have that backwards

Our own are killing us

[Cha]

16. They think it's okay for more

of our Soldiers to be blown up and maimed when there's not a military solution to this?

[Fresh_Start]

17. They think its a price that has to be paid

since we created the f-in disaster in Iraq. We have to help get the Iraqis out of the disaster.
As opposed to saying "Oops" and walking away.

Yes, they are using a worldview instead of a US-centric view.
Imagine that, concern for the people that the US government f-ked over.

[Amonester]

21. What they don't get is, WE R the disaster (ok: Bush+Republix R).

Polls after polls after polls... a (growing) majority of Iraq's citizens want US out, gone, zipped, finished, over, done, buh-bye, etc. (same here, BTW).

ENOUGH BLOWING UP WOMEN AND CHILDREN AND TORTURING INNOCENTS FOR F**CK'N O I L !!

Can't they figure it out by themselves?

Does the world hate US enough for them now?

Or do they think they still have some room to hate US more than they do?

What is it going to take? :shrug:

[Fresh_Start]

24. I've had that same discussion

that we are the focus of the disaster.

But I can't honestly say that if we get our tails out of there, it won't be worse for Iraqis.
Can you say factually, that it won't be worse without us? Or are you hoping it won't be worse.

No matter how many mistakes we've made, at least some of our efforts have been to hold the line against further sectarian violence.

Reasonable people can disagree.

Someone needs to be there. I'd hope for UN forces to displace US forces.
But Bush won't let that happen. Maybe the Iraqi government can push the issue from their side.

[Wiley50]

23. Iraqis Poll HEAVILY that We Should Just Leave

We stay because our oil is under their sand

$30 trillion worth of oil

The Corps are socializing the costs
and privatizing the profits

And if you think that we'll pay them one cent a gallon less for gas

You're dreaming

"We have to stay to clean up the mess we made"

BULLSHIT!

The truth is our oil companies and the pols of both parties they OWN

are determined to stay there until that oil is extracted

come hell,dead Americans and Iraqis, bankrupting the country,

OK it's a desert, high water is doubtful

[Fresh_Start]

25. I'm not disagreeing that some policy makers are

in it for the oil and bankrupting US and Iraq.

I'm saying that democrats and liberals can disagree with the right course of action.

[Hydra]

27. We aren't helping there

which is perhaps the biggest lie we tell. Blackwater and our troops are "kicking the anthill" by searching for "Al-Qaeda."

If we really wanted to be responsible, we'd use the army corp of engineers to give them their water, power and other infrastructure back, dismantle our bases and leave immediately.

[Fresh_Start]

28. we'd give them the money and

let them hire/build the facilities themselves.

[Hydra]

31. What money?

Our dollar is sliding more every day. Far better that we fix the damage...but it may have to be the Russians who do it. Ironies abound.

[Cha]

42. I'm imagining Dead Soldiers and

More Dead Soldiers and More Dead Iraqis. Are your friends willing to suit up for their beliefs?

[Poll_Blind]

13. Crim Son, I think I know what you're talking about. Unfortunately, even the...

...most-informed of us would probably rate as "still entirely in the dark" when it comes to knowing/understanding what they might in this hypothesis.

  Speculation, even best-guess speculation, would not really be welcomed here because, let's face it, if they do know something we don't, it would, by definition almost, have to be A) outrageously frightening or B) an acceptance of a political world-view so abhorrent to most members here that the resulting backlash would go against the posting rules of DU, itself.

  I think DU was set up with a certain mindset. A mindset here which about 99% of us, despite our superficial differences, strongly agree with. But DU was kind of set up with the given that the Democratic Party, on the whole, would be a saviour against BushCo's evil plans.

  It's really hard for the model to work, and I think some sizable part of the friction between posters, or groups of posters, at DU, is because it appears that what used to be euphemistically called "The Dry Powder Gang" in the congress appears as though they don't ever appear to fire a shot.

  Or, I should say, to fire the kinds of legislative shots which would slow this juggernaut down in any measurable way.

  This is really concerning to me.

PB

[Lerkfish]

20. "the given that the Democratic Party, on the whole, would be a saviour"

you have hit the point right there, actually.

we are discovering the "given" is not necessarily so. And if it ISN"T so, at what point do we reevaluate our strategy?

[endarkenment]

29. I vote for (B), which in turn is (A) to me.

An acceptance of a political world-view so abhorrent to most members here that the resulting backlash would go against the posting rules of DU, itself.

That has been my working theory for quite some time.

[dysfunctional press]

45. it could be that they know just how bad and how quickly things are REALLY expected to get...

global warming and peak-oilwise, that is.

perhaps there's a very somber truth out there, being kept shielded in hopes of holding society togather for as long as possible.

what if there really are NO good answers/solutions for mankind's future, and they know it?

what would you have them do/do if you were in their shoes...:shrug:

[TornadoTN]

2. I was a doubter, but not anymore

This is just too much to ignore. Complicit most likely because they both answer to the same corporate masters at the end of the day.

[_testify_]

9. Well, if you were the corporate master...

would you have it any other way?

How better to control the debate than to orchestrate both sides of it?

[TornadoTN]

10. Exactly

And it's going to seal the fate of this country, sooner rather than later. The sad part about it is that we will be the ones that pay the price while the fat cats make off with everything.

[Wiley50]

14. Right. We're not here trashing the party

but, after repeated evidence,

The party is trashing us

Sooner or later, even the most willfully blind

must see the light

[Poll_Blind]

5. Ignorant? Terribly, terribly ignorant and possibly self-medicated?

Then again, these are some of the most cunning and intelligent minds in America. At least some of the most cunning and intelligent who chose to pursue politics, anyway.

Oh, they also have access to information which you and I do not.

Ok, so I think the "Ignorant" is out.

Is heavily self-medicated still an option?

Because I have no problem, at all, admitting that I'm afraid of what kind of future awaits my children and I when the representatives elected to help us out of this mess seem to get whiff of something which causes them to start playing along with Team Evil.

PB

[Wiley50]

11. Heavily self- medicated is what they plea when they get caught

not what actually causes them to sell us all out

You can't blame everything on drugs

[Poll_Blind]

18. Heh heh! Just to clarify, I wasn't being serious. What I was trying...

...to say, albeit in a roundabout way, is that the only options aside from "Intentional Complicity" are bizarre or unrealistic ones like ignorance or self-medication.

PB

[leftchick]

7. they are Soooo fucking SCARED!!!! Of the wiretaps, being soft on terra

anthrax, being called weak liberals!!!! The are SCARED! I tell ya! :sarcasm:



They are Fucking Complicit!

:grr:

[earth mom]

33. F*cking Complicit! And up to their eyeballs-no, their bald spots in it. nt

[movonne]

8. I believe they are complicit.. and will continue being that...I also

believe they will be complicit into taking us into another war..remember they love lieberman...they did not want anti-war Lamont...

[Individualist]

32. Undoubtedly complicit!

Let's just look at the cold, hard facts about the DLC and its record. The DLC has pushed, among other things, the war in Iraq and "free" trade policies, using bags of corporate money to buy enough Democratic votes to help Republicans make those policies a reality. They have chastised anyone who has opposed those policies as either unpatriotic or anti-business -- even as a majority of Americans now oppose the war in Iraq, oppose the DLC's business-written trade deals, and are sick of watching America's economy sold out to the highest corporate bidder. Additionally, in brazenly Orwellian fashion, the DLC has also called its extremist agenda "centrist," even though polls show the American public opposes most of their agenda, and supports much of the progressive agenda. http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0727-32.htm

The progressive movement has not just threatened this message monopoly -- it is undoing it. Through MoveOn, the rise of popular documentaries, blogs, think tanks, etc. It's not just that we talk about real values and innovative strategies. It's because we're talking, period, that the centrists feel threatened.

Hence the DLC's vicious attempts to discredit the movement. And that's what they want. They don't seek to win an argument over policy. They seek to destroy the credibility of their opponents and restore their message monopoly. http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=721

This is why the DLC is dangerous. For all their claims of supposedly wanting to help Democrats, they employ people like Marshall Wittman who specifically try to undermine the Democratic Party, even if it means he has to publicly defecate out the most rank and easily-debunkable lies. They reguarly give credence to the right wing's agenda and its worst, most unsupportable lies. They are the real force that tries to make sure this country is a one party state and that Democrats never really challenge the Republicans in a serious way. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/why-the-dlc-is-so-dangero_b_13640.html

"The Democratic Leadership Council's agenda is indistinguishable from the Republican Neoconservative agenda," http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Kucinich_DLC_agenda_undistinguishable_from_Neocon_0813.html

DLC Watch, the wicked shall not escape justice http://dlcwatch.blogspot.com

Without a doubt, the DLC is the most fundamentalist organization within the caucus, the most ideologically rigid, and the most destructive to the progressive cause.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/5/24/1712/23448

These DLC types are amazing, they really are. Their pathology is unique; they all secretly worship the guilt-by-association tactics of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove, but unlike those two, not one of them has enough balls to take being thought of as the bad guy by the general public.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/11275627/the_low_post_democrats_walk_themselves_to_the_gallows

[CT_Progressive]

15. I believe they are listening to "Advisors" and not "The People"

That is what I believe.

And I'd wager cold, hard cash that I'm right.

[Wiley50]

19. Those "Advisors" are mostly Lobbyists

and the rest are people like Carville

[Lerkfish]

22. not much difference, actually.

the only difference is lobbyists pay money.

[catmandu57]

26. Makes one wonder

Why to even keep trying. Sometimes it feels like I've just jumped off the deck of the Titanic and no amount of frantic thrashing is going to prevent the inevitable. Still, I keep hoping that one of these days I'm actually going to kick that football.
I've got to, otherwise what the fuck am I doing?

[backscatter712]

30. They were bought.

That's how things operate in that shark tank we call DC. Play ball and you're a made man. Fight the program and you sleep with da fishes.

[Wiley50]

36. Today's Jim Hightower Piece and thread speaks to this issue

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2113987

http://alternet.org/rights/65450/?page=entire

Democratic capitulation

What we have is a lawless presidency. But our problem is not Bush. He is who he is -- a bonehead. He won't change, and why should he? He's getting away with his power grab! So he has no reason to step back, and every reason to keep pushing and to keep trying to institutionalize his coup.

Rather, our problem is those weaselly, wimpy, feckless members of Congress who have failed to confront the runaway executive, who have sat silent or (astonishingly) cheered and assisted as their own constitutional powers have been taken and their once-proud, coequal branch has been made subservient to the executive.

In the first six years of BushCheney, the Republican Congress operated as no more than a rubber stamp for the accretion of presidential power, shamelessly surrendering its own autonomy in a burst of mindless partisan zeal. Too many Democrats just went along, either buying the lies or being cowed by the unrelenting politics of fear and intimidation whipped up by Bush and Cheney. (The Bushites are still using these bullying tactics, as when they demanded this past summer that Congress legalize their illegal domestic spy program and CIA chief Mike McConnell warned publicly that "Americans are going to die" if Democrats failed to pass it.)

Which brings us to the new Congress run by Democrats. Where are they? Yes, I know they have only slim majorities and that the GOP uses veto threats, filibusters, and demagogic lies to fight them -- but, come on, suck it up! At least stop voting for "the diminution, the subversion, the destruction, of the Constitution." For example, the party now in charge did indeed cave in to Bush's summer demand that it legalize his warrantless spying on Americans (a Lowdowner sent an email to me saying he hopes Bush gets caught smoking pot, because then the Democrats will immediately legalize it).

The founders would be stunned that Congress has failed to assert itself. They saw checks and balances not as an option but as an obligation, a fundamental responsibility that goes to the very heart of each lawmaker's oath faithfully to support and defend the Constitution.

It's important to note that Congress is not a weak institution. It has powerful muscles to flex, including control of the purse, which Congress used in 1973 to tell Nixon, "No, we will not provide money for you to extend the Vietnam War into Laos and Cambodia." Nixon had to back off. Legislators also have clear constitutional mandates to oversee, probe, and expose presidential actions (remember the extensive Fulbright hearings in the '60s and the Church investigations of the '70s, for example). Members of Congress have wide-ranging subpoena power, as well as something called "inherent contempt" power to make their own charges against outlaw executive officials and to hold their own trials. And, of course, they have impeachment power -- which the founders saw not only as a way to remove an outlaw president (or veep or cabinet officer), but also as a means to compel a recidivist constitutional violator to come before the bar of Congress and to be held accountable. The process itself, even if it does not lead to conviction in the Senate, is educational and chastening, putting the executive branch back in its place.

None of this is about making a partisan attack on BushCheney. It's really not about them at all. Rather, Congress must find its backbone because our democracy cannot function without a vigilant legislative branch. Outlaw presidents must finally leave office, but their precedents live beyond them if left unchecked. As historian Arthur Schlesinger wrote of the power-grabbing Nixon administration, "If the Nixon White House escaped the legal consequences of its illegal behavior, why would future presidents not suppose themselves entitled to do ?"

Bang pots and pans

Sam Adams, the organizer of the Boston Tea Party, knew that it is the citizenry itself that ultimately has to do the heavy lifting of democracy building. "If ever a time should come when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats of government," he declared, "our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin."

That's us. And now is that time.

[Wiley50]

38. COMPLICIT! n/t

[Vidar]

40. Complicit or cowards, the result is the same.

[EFerrari]

43. I believe in the basic decency of people.

I believe in that, my friend.

And I believe that basic decency is stronger than any self serving impulse or any fear that arises. I do.

I believe groupthink can be polluting but I also know what we can all do, together.

"Nobody said it was going to be easy." -- Ceremony, Silko.

[MsMagnificent]

44. Good question

Too late to recommend, wish I had seen it in time. :(