Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

From the Horse’s Mouth: They Chose Not To Lead

By

Earlier this week, I asked the question, why are Congressional Democrats electing not to execute their Constitutional powers in the negotiation of the Iraq War spending bill? My question is partially answered here, in a blog entry on DailyKos written by none other than Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY).

As such, we had a choice. We could send Mr. Bush the same bill, or allow something to pass that wouldn’t be vetoed. And we elected to let something pass – to let Republicans, if they so choose, fund their own war.

Straight from the horse’s mouth! Congressional Democrats, elected to run the country, abdicated their responsibility and let the minority Republican party, months after being voted out of office for their poor choices, continue to choose America’s Iraq policy.

My friends, the truth is simple: those who will not lead, are not fit to lead.

Sigh.

I have spoken ill of him in the past, but If Sen. Kerry can defeat this bill in the Senate, I’ll send him a bottle of Chardonnay. French, of course đŸ™‚

** UPDATE ** So much for the Chardonnay.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. elwood over at Blue Hampshire noted that while some Dems voted for this bill, it got a no vote from Clinton, Obama, Kucinich and Dodd.  Biden was the only Dem prez candidate to vote yes.  This sets an interesting stage for the next round of negotiations in July.

  2. Better identified as economic self interest.  Senators, congressmen on both sides understand the economics of war.  Which of our “Leaders” is going to announce that he wants layoffs in General Dynamics, Ratheon, or all the other defense contractors?  How much do they have invested in the war? 

    <

    p>
    Just one example:

    <

    p>
    “None dare call it treason.”

    • …it is also the defense subcontractors.  The defense department has–wisely from its point of view–distributed the funding of subcontractors of many projects throughout a number of congressional districts.

      <

      p>
      Welcome to the military-industrial-congressonal complex that Eisenhower was warning of.

      <

      p>
      If you watch the documentary The Selling of Iraq it is quite chilling to watch people in US military contracting facilities–armament makers–rationalize their making of armaments that will likely be used in Iraq.  It is quite chilling.

      • Why rationalize. The weaponry will be used wherever it is needed by our combatants, you know—the kid next door–our sons and daughters) upon the direction of the commander in chief. We live in a represenative democracy and 51% of the people who could get off their fat asses to vote did so and elected The Village Idiot for another four years. In a few years we’ll have another bite at the apple. Hey, you win some and you lose some. What we need is a sixteen year stream of Jimmy Carters. He kept us out of wars. Country ran like a Swiss watch.

        <

        p>
        In a few years we may be looking at a new form of government after our 30 million new voters decide that they will want to change things. Surprisingly the intellectual elites in Washington are functioning under the delusion that our new arrivals will do as they are told politically. Interesting hypoyhesis. What are the Washington parasites going to do when the new voters aspire to their own aspirations—-deport them? Too late.
        They say Australia is a beautiful country, actually it is, been there, only problem is they have no water.

        • Why rationalize. The weaponry will be used wherever it is needed by our combatants, you know—the kid next door–our sons and daughters) upon the direction of the commander in chief.

          <

          p>
          …if the war materiel is used up in a moronic war (e.g., Iraq) it will need to be replaced at a much faster rate, thereby requiring more employees at the materiel manufacturers.  Rationalize producing materiel for such a war?  Of course.

          <

          p>
          One doesn’t actually have to use the war materiel in a moronic conflict.  When I was a teenager in the 1960s, I read a science fiction book–I believe it was by Philip K. Dick–the theme of which was that the government was paying for the materiel to be produced, only to have it transformed into products that were not useful in moronic wars.  The government paid for that, too.  I recognize that that was satire, but it isn’t far from off.

          <

          p>
          Regarding…

          <

          p>
          What we need is a sixteen year stream of Jimmy Carters. He kept us out of wars.

          <

          p>
          …you might want to consider not believing everything that your conservative Republican party tells you.

          <

          p>

          Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs [“From the Shadows”], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

          Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

          <

          p>
          From The CIA’s Intervention in Afghanistan, and there’s much more there.

          <

          p>
          Jimmy Carter got the US involved in Afghanistan in 1979.  Ronald Reagan got the US involved in Beirut in 1982–an unnecessary deployment with disastrous results.  Reagan and Bush continued Carter’s policy during the 1980s, but in the wake of the Soviet withdrawal (either 1988 or 1989, I don’t recall which), the US (Reagan or Bush I) withdrew interest in the country, leaving Afghanistan in confusion.  Which, of course, paved the way for the Taliban.

  3. Bill Maher, commenting on the Democratic takeover of Congress last year, asked us to remember that no revolution had occured.  We had not elected bold, new leaders, only Democrats, who are much like Republicans only a step slower because they have a sense of shame.  When you couple the leadership’s lack of backbone on Iraq with the slow down (meltdown?) on ethics reform, you see a textbook for reinforcing voter cynicism and apathy.  BTW where is Howard Dean on these issues?  I will continue to work for progressives but my DNC, DCC & DSC mail will go straight to recycling without touching my letter opener.

    • to cease and desist with any requests for support.
      They are all a complete embarrassment to themselves and the entire nation.

      <

      p>
      I was of the understanding that Ms. Pelosi would be a take no prisoners speaker. More often than not she now appears as a deer in headlights, and now has seemed to gone into hiding. Harry Reid remains at the podium, but his bleating and whining and his exhotations that he is powerless and has lost control are startling. What gives.

      <

      p>
      Who the hell is now at the helm? The nitwit in chief has lost his mind, Cheney is sitting on a couch and looks like he has half a bag on, the two most powerfull people on Capitol Hill are now incontinent of urine and stool.

      <

      p>
      Should I be worried?

  4. By the way, he cannot single-handedly get any bill defeated (or passed).

    <

    p>
    Senator Kerry will be giving a Community Forum on Iraq in Natick, Saturday June 16 from 4-5:30pm. As I understand it, the majority of the forum will be questions and answers. It ought to be interesting. Please RSVP if you can (not mandatory).

    • and his buddy Jon McCain are in the same boat. They are both on their way out the door.

      <

      p>
      Kerry can’t make up his mind what he wants for breakfast let alone make a solid etched in stone political decision.

      <

      p>
      What in god’s nam could Kerry offer on Iraq. How many times has he changed his vote now? Oh, that’s right, he’s being cute now, he’s abstaining. Now he’s sitting on the fence.
      Yup, that’s what we really need. another six years of, ” I voted for it—–before I voted against it—then I abstained!”

      • If you’re still on the “he was for it before he was against it” talking point, that is sooooo 2004.

        <

        p>
        Most of Congress was for it before they were against it–as was most of the American people.

        <

        p>
        But you don’t need to hear me–come ask Sen. Kerry yourself.

        • 23 Senators – almost one quarter of the Senate – were against it, both before AND after. It’s not “sooooo 2004” to be talking about this. See Al Gore’s new book about the loss of reason and logic. It’s time to find and support honest, forthright leaders and there aren’t too many of them around.

  6. If it wasn’t so sad, it would be comical.  Our leaders playing Sergeant Shultz in the Goodling hearing for example.  They realized that they had more than they could handle.  They saw nothing.

    <

    p>
    Does it even matter who the biggest criminals are? 

    • “Caging” voters is serious stuff.  What would one of the parties do if found guilty?  Expose the other party’s use of the practice?  I’m sure nobody wants to go there.

  7. Why is it ok for left-wing sites such as BMG to allow the use of disparaging adjectives as “cowardice” to describe those with whom they disagree?  This is no better or different from the right wing’s descriptions of their opponents as “moonbats.”
    p.s.  Senator Kerry probably cannnot distinguish one wine from the next.  And just what does that have to do with the point at hand?

Archives