"The people have spoken, and nothing of substance has changed. The November 2006 midterm elections signified an unambiguous repudiation of the policies that landed us in our present predicament. But half a year later, the war continues, with no end in sight. Indeed, by sending more troops to Iraq (and by extending the tours of those, like my son, who were already there), Bush has signaled his complete disregard for what was once quaintly referred to as 'the will of the people.'"
The people, the soldiers, our democracy, etc. The list continues of items that Bush and Cheney reference as meaningful institutions or individuals, yet act in ways to undermine. Shaun grabs this from the NYT:
"But now on his third deployment in Iraq, he is no longer a believer in the mission. The pivotal moment came, he says, this past February when soldiers killed a man setting a roadside bomb. When they searched the bomber’s body, they found identification showing him to be a sergeant in the Iraqi Army.Yet, we are supposed to be fighting for democracy--a democracy that our Vice President doesn't even support. Cheney presented both the Geneva Conventions and our Constitution as weaknesses in our fight against terrorism. He did this, I would add, in an address to West Point where instructors are finding it harder and harder to convinced cadets that torture is wrong. But that he preaches to our military the essential message that the Geneva Conventions and Constitutional protections are niceties and not imperitives just shows how disconnected this man is. As I recall, he took an oath to protect the Constitution. Sigh.
“I thought, ‘What are we doing here? Why are we still here?’ ” said Sergeant Safstrom, a member of Delta Company of the First Battalion, 325th Airborne Infantry, 82nd Airborne Division. “We’re helping guys that are trying to kill us. We help them in the day. They turn around at night and try to kill us.”"
Sully sums up the President--one that he voted for initially and supported into this war:
"What can one say? Well: we can say this at least. The president is right that al Qaeda remains a terrible threat to Americans. He is right to insist on this. But one core reason he is right is because he has been in the White House for the last six years. Al Qaeda surely never had a more helpful man in such a powerful place. After over six years of this presidency, Bin Laden is still at large. Five and a half years after Bin Laden's religious tools murdered 3,000 innocents, this president still cannot find or capture or kill him. Five and a half years after that dreadful day, al Qaeda's reach in the Middle East is more extensive than ever, centered in Iraq, where it was barely existent before the war. Over four years after invading Iraq, the security situation there is as grave as it has ever been. Tens of thousands of innocents have been added to the three thousand murdered on 9/11 - many of them unspeakably tortured and murdered by death squads or Islamist cells empowered by Bush's jaw-dropping negligence. Over three thousand young Americans have died in order to give al Qaeda this victory and this new platform."
5 comments:
While Bush certainly deserves a great deal of the blame for the war, I also feel that some pundits and bloggers are letting Congress off too easy (though I do notice that their approval rating is even lower than Bush).
Constitutionally, there is plenty they can do to stop the war. I know that some are trying and that some have been consistently opposed to the war, but I am very disappointed at the lack of courage displayed by our Congress. Are they afraid of being painted as not patriotic? Are they afraid that people will think they hate the troops? Support for a war is low! Many of the people that won in the last election had expressed concern over how the war was being waged! How much of mandate do you need?
If this President and this Congress is the best we can do, I am wondering what will happen.
Steve, I don't disagree. This is Bush's war, but the Democrats have failed us to limit this war. But to be fair, the media is such an easy conduit for Republican talking points that the answers to your questions of what they were afraid of are both "yes." Yes, they would be painted as weak on the troops and unpatriotic. That was exactly the tone taken in the media.
I agree, but the Dems need to do a better job with PR and grow more a backbone. I am sure the opposition will throw their pundits at them, but it isn't like the majority of the media is anti-dem. I am not trying to shift any blame away from Bush, but just trying to show that Congress shares a portion of it.
I think the key answer to this can be found in this portion of the column:
"Money maintains the Republican/Democratic duopoly of trivialized politics. It confines the debate over U.S. policy to well-hewn channels. It preserves intact the cliches of 1933-45 about isolationism, appeasement and the nation's call to "global leadership." It inhibits any serious accounting of exactly how much our misadventure in Iraq is costing. It ignores completely the question of who actually pays. It negates democracy, rendering free speech little more than a means of recording dissent.
This is not some great conspiracy. It's the way our system works."
"I think he knows what Rome is. Rome is the mob. Conjure magic for them and they'll be distracted. Take away their freedom and still they'll roar. The beating heart of Rome is not the marble of the senate, it's the sand of the coliseum. He'll bring them death - and they will love him for it." Gracchus in the movie Gladiator. Until the mob takes action on a fairly grand scale, Caesar and those in the Senate who give lip service to opposing him will continue on pretty much with business as usual. They know that as long as the mob is comfortable and satiated or too busy trying to make ends meet they can make empty gestures at fulfilling campaign promises and then settle back into the real business of empire. Later-BB
Post a Comment