The charade continues: President Bush spent a few hours of his Labor Day in Iraq -- you may have seen his photo on CNN or in your paper. While there, he talked about "progress" and even suggested he might be willing to withdraw some troops -- of course he's said that in 2003, 2004, and now in 2007.
It is all make-believe -- a carefully crafted facade to try to buy more time to win a victory anyone with any sense knows isn't coming.
Iraq is not a media battle, and it can't be won by photographs, White House "progress reports," or false proclamations of success.
It's a real war, with real guns and real tanks and real explosives.
And real Americans are dying.
We got into this war based on lies, make-believe, and well-orchestrated dog-and-pony shows.
It is time for the truth: WE MUST END THIS WAR NOW. And we can't end it until we start bringing all of our troops home.
I am out there speaking the truth every day -- everywhere I go, to everyone I can find. But it's hard for any truth to be heard over the double-talk and misrepresentation coming out of DC, especially this week. General Petraeus is due to release a report that we all expect to be chock-full of White House spin. And you can bet Bush will try to use the anniversary of September 11th to distract America from the disaster he's created in Iraq.
Democrats elected Democrats to end this war, and Congress reconvened this week with a clear mandate. Unfortunately, to date, while members of Congress talk about ending the war, they have yet to actually do it. It's time to stop the politics and the posturing and get it done.
And if Congress can't get it together to force Bush to end this war, then we'd better make sure our next President is prepared to do it their first day in office. I will start on my first day in office; and I will leave no troops behind.
It is time to end the war, reject the charade, and bring all of our troops home as quickly as we can. That's the truth."
The fine print: Gov. Bill Richardson for President
Want some more?
Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue
17 comments:
Yay for statements I like from candidates who aren't going anywhere! :) Too bad he's not going to win, but hopefully his statements touch a nerve in the public so that one of the major candidates will be able to safely take that kind of stance. I do like him though. Plus he's a cutey which is a plus!
ROTFLMAO!
Chantel says, 'don't call our democrats names like spineless or cowards'
Chantel says, "...but hopefully his statements touch a nerve in the public so that one of the major candidates will be able to safely take that kind of stance."
Yeah, we wouldn't want any of the "major candidates' to actually stand for something in public.
Thanks for the morning chuckle. ;-)
Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue
The only chuckle comes from the idea that winning isn't the most important thing in politics. Of course it is. And yes, being safe is not the same as being cowardly - otherwise we'd all play in traffic.
Glad I could brighten your day, Chad.
One more point, Chad - you've never gotten on a Democrat's case for 'not standing' for anything. You usually call them names when their 'stand' disagrees with your opinion. For instance, it's not that Baird doesn't stand for anything - clearly he does - that caused you to beat him with a verbal brickbat. It was that you disagreed with him.
There's a difference between 'stands for nothing' and 'disagrees with me', and certainly the word 'coward' is misapplied when speaking of Democrats...except when Republicans speak of them, of course. That's their language.
Chantel,
Just to make sure we are on the same page here; I hope that we agree that I am not one of those "fringe" folks who resort to name calling on this blog? I mean unlike some folks who refer to respected Democratic State Senators as, oh let's say, "Arrogant Schmuck."
Now I will allow your point about "taking a stand" vs disagreeing with my opinion. However, to suggest that by debating the differences between my opinion and Rep. Baird's stand on extending the "surge" in Iraq is in someway the same as beating him with a verbal brickbat is absurd. At no time did I call him any name, call for his resignation, or even suggest that he didn't love his mother.
As to your suggestion that winning is the most important thing in politics; I would offer that governing and representing those who elect you is probably pretty high up there as well. If not then we get to.....oh yeah, we get to where we are now.
Finally I will say this one more time to anyone who cares......sending people off to die has no equivalent in government. Taxes, environment, wages, - none of those things comes close to sending people off to die. George W. Bush and his republican henchmen in Congress - including Jennifer Dunn (along with a significant number of Democrats) sent our troops off to die based on a series of lies, distortions, and fear. Continuing to keep them there and continuing to fund the occupation (especially when you say that the invasion was wrong and that you still disagree with the policy) borders on criminal. On this point I make no apologies for inflexibility.
Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue
Thanks Chad! And I'll say it again - after her defeat, Jean acted like an arrogant schmuck. I was right about that and right to call her on it. That was a comment on how she conducted herself in the wake of a political loss. Not that I'd expect you to grasp the difference between calling someone 'arrogant' as a commentary on their behavior and calling them 'coward' because you disagree with a vote they took, but there it is.
As to your suggestion that "governing and representing those who elect you is probably pretty high up there as well", if you'd please explain how one gets to do those things without winning in the first place, then I'll be happy to listen. Otherwise, I accept your concession of the point. :)
As to Iraq, I understand your passion. I can also understand that many feel we have an obligation to remain there until the situation - which we destabalized in the first place - is corrected. But I see where you're coming from.
Oh, and you're not strictly 'the fringe', Chad, though you do support some pretty 'out there' candidates at times *cough* Mark Wilson *cough*.
Also, your call for someone to run as a sacrificial Democratic lamb against Larsen is hardly a mainstream Democratic oopinion. So while you're not necessarily on the fringe, you can certainly see the fringe quite well from where you've placed yourself. :)
Wow,
This is deep. Mark Wilson was bought and paid for by none other Maria Cantwell. Talk about ethical behavior from a senator. *cough*
I supported Mark Wilson as well. Guess what? He stabbed many of us in the back. Just like Maria did when she paid him off! Slice it anyway you like. After Mark folded, for whatever his personal reasons were, I got behind Hong Tran.
Both Mark and Hung have the message right. But hey good ole Maria has the cash!
I find Marias performance as a UNITED STATES SENATOR lackluster to say the least but that’s my opinion.
Although some closed minded dems are all about the win rather than the representation many of us know that if we do not change the status quo we are going to get corporatist policies which do not help the public.
Full public financing of elections may just level the field and bring some honest representation without having to pander for votes and campaign financing.
The media is conning the public with their unfair coverage and promotion of Hillary Clinton & Barak Obama.
If you sit down and take an honest look at what each candidate is promoting without a doubt Dennis Kucinich is the peoples candidate.
If the people who know about the different platforms do not reach out to educate the not so informed public to the positions of each candidate they are not being true to democratic principles and falling to help inform the electorate.
Welcome Back Chad! I hope you had a great weekend.
Hi Chantel. Always interesting to read your opinions.
Later folks =)
Ozy,
Better be careful with that Kucinich talk. Our friend Chantel is likely to hit you with the "Kookcitizen" club.
Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue
Hey, if DK is such a great candidate then he'll get the money and the support. If he's not, he won't. There's no conspiracy to that at all!
Still waiting for an explanation of how you can 'represent' and 'govern' without winning...anyone??????
Mark Wilson got his butt kicked because his message was unpopular and he couldn't motivate people to vote for him in a primary.
Take your favorite Joe, for example. Lieberman lost his Connecticut primary because his opposition was able to do what Mark Wilson did not - get out a popular message and garner support. Of course, that message wasn't popular enough to win, but hey - don't whine that it's all about the Benjamins when it's the message and the popularity that bring the Benjies to the campaign.
DK is not the 'people's' candidate. He's a perennial candidate who doesn't stand a chance of winning and registers in near last place because he sucks at getting his message out. The only person keeping Dennis Kucinich down is Dennis Kucinich. He is the fringe personified, no question.
Hey, how's Hong Tran doing at that 'governing' thing after her loss? :)
Dennis Sucks?
"Take your favorite Joe, for example. Lieberman lost his Connecticut primary because his opposition was able to do what Mark Wilson did not - get out a popular message and garner support. Of course, that message wasn't popular enough to win, but hey - don't whine that it's all about the Benjamins when it's the message and the popularity that bring the Benjies to the campaign."
Chantel, It wasn't enough to win because the Lieberman Democrats broke with the state party and voted with the pukes to put Joey over the top.
The message Ned Lamont put out there was backed up by Ned's million dollar checks he wrote to the campaign.
Democratic defection of the worst kind Knee capped Lamont . If I were Ned I would send a bill to all those puke lovers who voted for Bomb Iran Now Lieberman.
If mark Wilson had all that cash he may have broke Maria's nose or at least rubbed her nose in it. Still why did good ole Maria buy off Mark? Was she scared of his message damaging her in the general election.
Right is right wrong is wrong anyway you cut it! If you compromise your principles for political gain you are no better than the opposition and ultimately you sell out the people you supposedly represent!
Mark Wilson 18,000 dollars
Maria Cantwell 6.2 Million
Who is gonna win?
Give me a break LOL
Mark put some good dent's in her boney ass and she didn't like it. Not bad for a guy with so little cash.
If you would like to discuss the merits of A president Like Dennis Kucinich vs and President like HC by all means. =)
Frankly I think Martin Sheen should be president. :)
If money were all that mattered, then Steve Forbes or Ross Perot would be president. It just isn't.
Oh, and nice to talk about Maria's 'bony ass'. I guess even so-called 'progressives' still believe in judging us for our looks. But no matter.
Maria hired Mark to do PR for her with the so-called 'progressive' community, even though her polling showed she'd easily bowl over Mr. Safeco without them. She did that because she actually wanted to reach out...but I guess it's easier to paint her as an evil tool of the blah blah blah.
Oh, and all of us were saying at the time that Hong and Wilson were irrevelant - Maria would win. The so-called progressives yelled at us and shouted at us and waved signs at us and told us Maria would lose. Yeah.
Maria tried to reach out by hiring Mark and now finds the lipid content of her posterior criticized for her trouble.
Um, I simply must ask again - how's that governing thing going for Ms. Tran at the moment?
I think some folks are more interested being angry than they are in actually having a say in government. Winning precedes governing. That's all there is to it.
Chantel,
The last time I checked, Cantwell, Larsen, Baird, Clinton, et al are all elected officials who have been charged with governing and representing the people who elected them. If you look closely at what I have written about, it has been almost exclusively about elected officials. Now you may agrue that my opinions - points of view - set of principles - whatever you prefer to label them are in the minority but, as both the state and county Democrats' platforms oppose the continuing occupation of Iraq, vehimently opposed the so-called Bankruptcy Reform bill, opposed NAFTA and CAFTA, opposed the so-called Patriot Act....etc. etc. etc. I kind of feel like I have a right to question Democrats who fail on these measures. Of course we disagree on the matter of questioning elected Democrats, don't we?
Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue
Actually, Chad, I'm glad you brought that up! Of course we can disagree with our elected Dems. I do all the time. But there are degrees. Disagreeing so vehemently and so publicly that it appears the party is split is neither productive nor proves any points. Calling for the ouster of Democrats because they're only 90% with us instead of 100% is simply childish.
Disagree? Send a letter. Respect the response even if you disagree with it. Wave signs and chant in front of REPUBLICAN offices and criticize their adipose tissue levels. They're the enemy.
Singling out a dozen or so votes out of hundreds to demonize Democrats with (as you have with Cantwell and Larsen, just to name two) is not only unfair - it's downright fringey.
Now if you want to go after a "Dem" that really needs replacing, I have no problem with you focusing on Lieberman or - more locally - State Sen. Tim Sheldon. He actually caucuses with the Republicans and did ads for Rossi. That would be effort well spent, instead of harranguing the Federal delegation we worked so hard to elect.
Believe it or not, Chad, our Dem delegation falls to the left of most of Congress. Really.
Hey Chad reach out to me with eight thousand dollars a month. I could use it. Reach out and bribe someone.
Maria reminds me of Sigourney Weaver s character in Working Girl So just to get a rise out of you Chantel I used the "boney ass" reference. It worked of course. I truly hope we can publicly debate in person someday so we can establish some real back and forth dialog.Short lived as it may be.
I have more confidence in Martin Sheen than Hillary Clinton. =)
Chantel,
Here we are back at our inevitable impasse. You appear willing to set your values and principles (or opinions, as you prefer to label them) aside while you defer to any elected Democrat. I do not.
You continue to insist that I should be attacking the Republicans (after all they are "the enemy"). Yet, as I have pointed out, I am not represented by one Republican. All of my elected representatives are Democrats. My senator (Cantwell) voted TWICE for the USA Patriot Act (The second time over vehement objection of her constituents and her state party). Both of my senators voted for CAFTA (again over strenuous objection from the state party a massive phone, fax, email campaign from their constituents. Why should I criticize Republicans for those votes? Then there is the matter of continued funding of an occupation that the entire Democratic delegation calls a mistake.....
You talk about a 10% difference in opinion. I guess we grade on a different scale. War and Peace and Civil Liberties rate a bit higher on my list of priorities. What is your threshold? Environment? Education? Freedom of Choice? On which of these issues will you take a stand if your elected representative constantly voted against your values?
You say, "Disagree? Send a letter. Respect the response even if you disagree with it." My letter said: "Dear Rick, please hold firm on your recent vote to demand a time-line for withdrawing American troops from Iraq. We both know that prolonging this occupation will only lead to more loss of American and Iraqi lives with no real chance to achieve the stated goal of establishing a democracy in Iraq." After the expected veto (which would have effectively cut off the funding) Rick was one of only 14 Democrats to vote in favor of another blank check for George W Bush. According to your point of view, I should simply respect our difference and yell at the Republicans for .....what? forcing Rick Larsen to vote with them?
I guess the bottom line is this. You are a Democrat first, American second. I am an America who embraces the principles and values stated in the Democratic platform. As such, I see it as my duty to hold my elected officials (of either party) accountable for ALL the votes they take as my elected representative.
Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue
Ah, impasse indeed. If you are not represented by Republicans, thank your lucky stars and be grateful instead of looking for someone to yell at.
I'm an American first, thank you, and it's my Democratic party that keeps America free of those who would turn our great nation into a theocracy. That's more important to me than making my personal opinion on every vote known at the top of my lungs. Big picture and all.
Lieberman and Sheldon would be my standards, as I mentioned, for when we start looking for replacements. One left the Democratic party after being defeated in a primary, while the other shills for Republicans and actually caucuses with them.
Impasse or no, thanks for a civil exchange.
HILLARY 2008!!!
Post a Comment