Skip

Oooh wah heee everyone on the war train (again)
September 27, 2007 12:00 PM   Subscribe

Lieberman-Kyl’s Iran amendment passes. By a vote of 76-22, the Senate passed the Lieberman-Kyl amendment, which threatens to “combat, contain and [stop]” Iran via “military instruments.” Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) called the amendment “Cheney’s fondest pipe dream” and said it could “read as a backdoor method of gaining Congressional validation for military action.”
posted by psmealey (111 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite

 
3rd times a charm?
posted by chunking express at 12:07 PM on September 27, 2007


What the hell is wrong with the Democrats? My state, PA, voted Santorum out on his ass for voting for crap like this and now we have his replacement Casey voting the same way. What's wrong with these people?
posted by octothorpe at 12:13 PM on September 27, 2007


let's go get those bastards for fucking up iraq for us already

also: they might be trying to advance their military science to a point where they can actually defend themselves and gain equal diplomatic footing with the nuclear club

so turn that place into black glass, gentlemen


what happened to reform? what happened to that late 90s pro-american, pro-reform youth movement? why are we talking about dropping nukes and not leaflets?
posted by maus at 12:14 PM on September 27, 2007


I don't know. Do they know something we don't know? Or is it the Koolaid? They have to know that we don't want that.
posted by RussHy at 12:15 PM on September 27, 2007


Those that ignore history are doomed --- wait, does an ongoing war adequately constitute 'history?'
posted by NationalKato at 12:17 PM on September 27, 2007


Now now--let's all calm down. The Bush Administration is composed of reasonable adults and I'm sure they'll explore all diplomatic options befAAAAAAWE'REALLGONNADIE!!!
posted by DU at 12:17 PM on September 27, 2007


The parts of the amendment you quoted were removed before the vote, as per the first link. Let's save the bile for yellowbellied turncoat Democrats a little longer, until they actually roll over on this one.
posted by enn at 12:19 PM on September 27, 2007 [1 favorite]


Given the very limited support the US electorate has for its leaders, a quick easy war, such as the one on Iran will surely be, makes perfect sense for raising the country's morale and generally making the Republican party respectable again. If they time it just right, and it looks like they are, the election will come right as troops are marching triumphantly into Tehran, welcomed by the open arms of Iranians who are only so happy to elect US-friendly leaders who will share every last drop of their oil at low low prices.
posted by Llama-Lime at 12:19 PM on September 27, 2007 [2 favorites]


Llama-Lime's convinced me. War it is! Wooohoo!
posted by NationalKato at 12:22 PM on September 27, 2007


The Iraq force resolution was an illegal sham way to allow the President to declare war without Congressional approval. Democrats were elected into control of Congress in 2006 to get us out of this mess. Do we even have a democracy at this point?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:26 PM on September 27, 2007 [4 favorites]


Here is the roll call of the Senate vote on the amendment.

Here is the text of the amendment (you have to scroll down to "Sec. 1535, Sense of Senate on Iran").
posted by blucevalo at 12:27 PM on September 27, 2007


The version that passed had the most offensive parts stripped out.

Doesn't make it a total victory for truth, justice, and the American way, but it could've been worse.
posted by ibmcginty at 12:28 PM on September 27, 2007


Wonder why they didn't call it Kyl-Lieberman?
posted by Flashman at 12:29 PM on September 27, 2007


(9) General Petraeus stated on September 12, 2007, with respect to evidence of the complicity of Iran in the murder of members of the Armed Forces of the United States in Iraq, that ``[t]e evidence is very, very clear. We captured it when we captured Qais Khazali, the Lebanese Hezbollah deputy commander, and others, and it's in black and white ..... We interrogated these individuals. We have on tape ..... Qais Khazali himself. When asked, could you have done what you have done without Iranian support, he literally throws up his hands and laughs and says, of course not ..... So they told us about the amounts of money that they have received. They told us about the training that they received. They told us about the ammunition and sophisticated weaponry and all of that that they received'.

(10) General Petraeus further stated on September 14, 2007, that ``[w]hat we have got is evidence. This is not intelligence. This is evidence, off computers that we captured, documents and so forth ..... In one case, a 22-page document that lays out the planning, reconnaissance, rehearsal, conduct, and aftermath of the operation conducted that resulted in the death of five of our soldiers in Karbala back in January'.
And we're off.
posted by psmealey at 12:30 PM on September 27, 2007


Like Bush needs permission from some (probably commie) "third branch" of government. Just signingstatement the AUMF thusly: "For Iraq read Iran" and away we go!
posted by DU at 12:32 PM on September 27, 2007 [1 favorite]


The version that passed had the most offensive parts stripped out.

Doesn't make it a total victory for truth, justice, and the American way, but it could've been worse.


Greenwald says that only paragraphs 3 and 4 were removed. What's left seems to be plenty of justification for any adventure that the administration might want to launch.
posted by blucevalo at 12:36 PM on September 27, 2007


This was a "sense of the Senate" amendment, whose legal effect is exactly zero.

Not to say that they won't roll over when something real is on the line, but one way to look at this is that Democrats are casting votes to appear "tough" to their more mouthbreathing constituents, but doing so in a way that doesn't actually cause anything stupid to happen.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:36 PM on September 27, 2007


Remember when we bombed the ever living shit out of Laos and Cambodia during the Vietnam War? And remember how those campaigns completely turned the Vietnam War around? And how all the communists fled Southeast Asia after that? That's why we're going to get our war on against Iran. 'Cause then everything in Iraq will start coming up roses. Pssshhhh!! You stupid moonbats!
posted by NoMich at 12:37 PM on September 27, 2007 [4 favorites]


When the legal effect is exactly zero, why not at least make a show of doing what you were elected to do instead of (again) being goaded into appearing "tough"?
posted by psmealey at 12:40 PM on September 27, 2007


blucevalo, I think this is the link you want.
posted by MrMoonPie at 12:41 PM on September 27, 2007


Wonder why they didn't call it Kyl-Lieberman?

Because Lieberman is the "Democrat", and the democrats are in the majority.
posted by delmoi at 12:50 PM on September 27, 2007


What the hell is wrong with the Democrats? My state, PA, voted Santorum out on his ass for voting for crap like this and now we have his replacement Casey voting the same way. What's wrong with these people?

I voted for Casey, too. But only because I hate Santorum and wanted to see him fail. I knew Casey would turn out to be the (slightly) lesser of two evils.

There's no opposition party in Congress. It's all a charade to make it seem like they care about the working class.

The job of Congress is to appease the ruling class-- all at the expense of everyone else.

It doesn't pay (literally) to vote anymore.
posted by wfc123 at 12:51 PM on September 27, 2007 [2 favorites]


You're right, MrMoonPie, thanks.
posted by blucevalo at 12:54 PM on September 27, 2007


Hillary voted for it, and Edwards had an excellent comment about it at last night's debate:

“I have no intention of giving George Bush the authority to take the first step on a road to war with Iran,” Mr. Edwards said. “Because what I learned in my vote on Iraq was, you cannot give this president the authority and you can’t even give him the first step in that authority, because he cannot be trusted.”

That's the whole point--you don't hand psycho warmongers a reason to expand their wars--ever. Granted, Bush doesn't need this to do whatever the hell he wants, as we've seen, but this is just asinine and weak. I can only conclude they obviously want to lose control of Congress in 08.
posted by amberglow at 12:54 PM on September 27, 2007 [4 favorites]


WHAT
THE
FUCK,
DEMOCRATS?
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 12:55 PM on September 27, 2007


@octothorpe: What the hell is wrong with the Democrats? My state, PA, voted Santorum out on his ass for voting for crap like this and now we have his replacement Casey voting the same way. What's wrong with these people?

I'm completely with you — just watched a video of Pelosi on CNN talking about how impeachment was completely off the table and, hey, with 60 votes in the Senate, nuttin' she could do to prevent Iraq war funding, sorry, guys.

They seem to think we elected Democrats to Congress this last time around because we just gosh darn' tootin' liked them so much.
posted by WCityMike at 12:55 PM on September 27, 2007 [4 favorites]


Was there ever any doubt?
posted by telstar at 12:56 PM on September 27, 2007


I shouldn't have to regret bringing a child into this world, but god fucking dammit.
posted by WinnipegDragon at 12:56 PM on September 27, 2007 [4 favorites]


Also, by branding that official part of Iran's government a "terrorist organization, it really is endorsement of military action. The GOP knows that too, and will throw it right back in Congress' face when they start bombing.
posted by amberglow at 12:56 PM on September 27, 2007


Harpers magazine writer Garret Keizer of DEPARTMENT Notebook PUBLISHED in the October 2007 issue proposes a general strike on Election Day, November 6, 2007, for the sole purpose of removing this regime from power.
posted by Rancid Badger at 12:56 PM on September 27, 2007 [1 favorite]


If we go to war with Iran I will meet all of you outside the Whitehouse the following day.
posted by zzazazz at 12:59 PM on September 27, 2007 [2 favorites]


What the hell is wrong with the Democrats?

"This Modern World" explains it.
posted by brownpau at 12:59 PM on September 27, 2007 [9 favorites]


and Pelosi lied again to CNN about how they're powerless just the other day.

Their own actions make statements like this just laughable: "This is President Bush's war; it's Vice President Cheney's war, and now it's become the war of the Republicans in Congress."

Pelosi blamed the closely divided Senate for preventing passage of meaningful reforms in the Iraq war strategy and claimed she did not have the political clout or Constitutional authority to unilaterally cut war funding.

posted by amberglow at 1:05 PM on September 27, 2007


Let's roll!
posted by Curry at 1:09 PM on September 27, 2007


Sometimes I really regret being literate and educated. NASCAR Nazis have a lot more fun.
posted by Curry at 1:12 PM on September 27, 2007


Please note: Neither Obama nor McCain bothered to vote on the amendment.
posted by fusinski at 1:14 PM on September 27, 2007


I see Obama didn't get a chance to declare either way on the resolution. The man resembles an empty vessel more every day from my perspective.
posted by Fezboy! at 1:15 PM on September 27, 2007 [1 favorite]


Because Lieberman is the "Democrat", and the democrats are in the majority.

I assume you quoted that because he is technically an independent right now. Which, if there is a naming convention in place that is accepted, seems odd.
posted by fusinski at 1:21 PM on September 27, 2007


Sen. Jim Webb D. VA he seems to understand the Senate dog & pony show and fought against the crazy Iran vote. Drafting him as president nominee is looking better. He is ex USMC from a red state and wickeed smARt!
posted by Rancid Badger at 1:22 PM on September 27, 2007 [1 favorite]


I see Obama didn't get a chance to declare either way on the resolution. The man resembles an empty vessel more every day from my perspective.

Oh come on. If it passed by 1 vote or something, it might mater. Judging candidates by whether they attended lopsided votes is the epitome of 'emptiness' in terms of political information.
posted by delmoi at 1:23 PM on September 27, 2007


Lieberman needs to move his residence to Israel, he can then get his orders face to face. The Democrats in the Senate who rolled over have lost their credibility. Obama's sportin' blood turned to piss, and we always knew Ms. Clinton was a phony...
posted by shnarg at 1:23 PM on September 27, 2007 [1 favorite]


Oh come on. If it passed by 1 vote or something, it might mater

It still matters. I don't want another non-character President. If you agree or disagree with the resolution, you better take a damn position. I am sick of this bullshit.
posted by fusinski at 1:24 PM on September 27, 2007 [1 favorite]


I really can't believe Hilary voted FOR this amendment... what.the.fuck?

I mean I live in Texas, I expect Hutchinson and Kronyn to vote the way of the right wing conservative war machine... but Hilary???

and Fezboy!, Obama is an empty vessel... at least Edwards still has balls to say what he stands for...
posted by Benway at 1:30 PM on September 27, 2007 [1 favorite]


Only 2 "Not Votings" in the Senate... Obama and McCain. No surprise they're both candidates I guess.
posted by wildcrdj at 1:33 PM on September 27, 2007 [2 favorites]


Putting aside the morality of it for a second; this is totally insane.

War is never a good thing, but a war with Iran at this point is crazy. This is the country that fought Iraq (with all of the West and Saudi money) behind it to a meat-grinder of a stalemate over the course of 8 years. They will not roll over for the US.

The US might think that they will be fighting a limited engagement of some kind with them bombing the shit out of Iran and then just walking away unscathed. Iran will not see it that way at all. They do not fuck around.

This is a bloodbath that does not need to happen. If it happens it will be the absolute stupidest thing the US has ever done with the invasion of Iraq being a close second.
posted by dougzilla at 1:53 PM on September 27, 2007 [2 favorites]


Lovely, both of NY's Democratic senators voted "Yea". Hilary, WTF?
posted by tommasz at 1:59 PM on September 27, 2007 [1 favorite]


The KyLieberman amendment.
posted by ryoshu at 2:01 PM on September 27, 2007


Benway why do you think Edwards has a chance. Don't get me wrong, I have been out working for the Edwards team, but I do not know how large his image is. I am always hearing about H & O WHO HAVE SHOWN what they are made of.
posted by Rancid Badger at 2:03 PM on September 27, 2007


I think a general strike is a fine idea, at this point. November 6, eh?
posted by Slarty Bartfast at 2:03 PM on September 27, 2007


Blazecock Pileon: "Do we even have a democracy at this point?"

I have just been shouting at a wall the last eight years, haven't I?

WE LIVE IN A CORPORATE OLIGARCHY! THIS IS NOTHING NEW! IT'S BEEN LIKE THIS FOR YEARS. ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT A DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC IS A BUNCH OF LIES TO PACIFY THE SHEEP.

I've come to terms with this and am now welcoming our idiotic overlords. Took me almost a decade but I've gone through the many levels of loss and have come to Acceptance. Oh, and my straitjacket is on backorder.

Do something about it or get over it and accept that the Christians, Jews, and Muslims of this world are going to force their interpretations of their books' prophecies to come true, even if it means dragging the rest of us into hells of their creation. They are reverse engineering armaggeddon cuz they got tired of waiting for their gods to do it for them.

I would ask you to wake up, but I gave up trying to wake up sheep years ago, and instead chose to become one.

It's probably best you just sleep through it.
posted by ZachsMind at 2:18 PM on September 27, 2007 [7 favorites]


Where do the odds now stand on Bushco actually leaving office?
posted by Smedleyman at 2:18 PM on September 27, 2007 [1 favorite]




Hills vote is one that is based on her constituates wishes, her peeps. Do you think she ever read "Profiles in Courages" by JFK?
posted by Rancid Badger at 2:19 PM on September 27, 2007


This is what happens when there's no accountability. And because there will not now, nor will there ever be accountability for Iraq, there will be no course correction.
posted by nixerman at 2:21 PM on September 27, 2007


Ugg...Courages
posted by Rancid Badger at 2:25 PM on September 27, 2007




For those who may have missed it, there was some discussion of the Lieberman-Kyl amendment here already in the bottom half of this thread. I think saulgoodman's comment does a better job of explaining why the amendment matters than mine did.
posted by naoko at 2:30 PM on September 27, 2007


I didn't realize that there were people who didn't realize that Hillary is among the hawkiest of hawks.
posted by telstar at 2:36 PM on September 27, 2007 [3 favorites]


Hills vote is one that is based on her constituates wishes, her peeps. Do you think she ever read "Profiles in Courages" by JFK?
Bull. I'm one of her millions of peeps (are we 30 million now in NY?), and we're overwhelmingly and almost totally against any more military anything anywhere--except to finally get Osama--and he's not in Iran, although i bet they'll be saying he is next.
posted by amberglow at 2:38 PM on September 27, 2007


I believe U.S. Americans don't have maps and such as South Africa and the Iraq...
posted by kuujjuarapik at 2:40 PM on September 27, 2007


Running for President in 2002 Hillary presented the boy king with a blank check. No different now. It's how she calculates.
posted by wrapper at 2:42 PM on September 27, 2007


Oh yeah. Hill's peeps are not necessarily in New York.
posted by wrapper at 2:44 PM on September 27, 2007


I didn't realize that there were people who didn't realize that Hillary is among the hawkiest of hawks.

Just because she doesn't have one doesn't make up for prick-waving.
posted by Pollomacho at 2:48 PM on September 27, 2007


I didn't realize that there were people who didn't realize that Hillary is among the hawkiest of hawks.

Let's try again: Just because she doesn't have one doesn't make her not up for some prick-waving.
posted by Pollomacho at 2:49 PM on September 27, 2007


This means nothing.

The The Hague Invasion Act has been passed years ago.
And look: nothing happened.
posted by jouke at 3:02 PM on September 27, 2007


Keeping Iran in U.S. gunsights also serves U.S. domestic industrial military spending goals, such as the re-fit of the USS Florida (and her sister SSGN's USS Michigan and 2 others), from being ballistic missile boats, to becoming guided missle boats, a weapons system of primary interest only for actions against targets within 750 miles of an ocean, created from expensive ballistic missile platforms that once had global reach. You create things like SSGN's if you are planning on driving up near the coast of an adversary, dropping off some SEAL teams, and then supporting them, if necessary, with Tomahawk provided air cover, which can include tactical nuclear warheads, on a short, expensive, and highly accurate leash. Although it may not be a mission profile that means much strategically, it's the kind of thing that changes balance of power in the Middle East, particularly.

And this resolution also provides some publicly visible sabre rattling for notice by Israeli and Syrian interests, although those interests be diametrically opposed. Continued tough talk about Iran warms the hearts of many Israelis, and gives some interests in Syria plausible scope for exploratory talks with other U.S. interests.

It's not a direct step in a good direction, as I see it, but it is the clumsy kind of gunboat diplomacy this Administration tries to practice. At least, for now, by their lights, it's diplomacy.
posted by paulsc at 3:05 PM on September 27, 2007


nixerman: "there will be no course correction."

Since before the Iran Contra Affair, they have been STAYING the course.

Please go stand by the stairs, so that the pusherbots may protect you from the terrible secret of space.
posted by ZachsMind at 3:09 PM on September 27, 2007


pitchforks and torches folks!
posted by i_am_a_Jedi at 3:13 PM on September 27, 2007


Remember when we bombed the ever living shit out of Laos and Cambodia during the Vietnam War? And remember how those campaigns completely turned the Vietnam War around?

Why go that far back? I remember when we totally shock-and-awed Iraq into submission. It was shocking and awesome.
posted by kirkaracha at 3:24 PM on September 27, 2007


i_am_a_Jedi: "pitchforks and torches folks!"


LOL!

Try popcorn and soda. Or maybe pizza and beer if you're really daring. We're just spectators in all this. Unless you make more than eight figures a year, you're not on the playing field, but my guess is the revolution won't be televised, because there will not be one. If the common man rises up in arms and pounds their plowshares into swords, this country will cease to be at all, and we'll join the rest of the world in the third world country department. I don't think anyone inside the States is ready for that, so they'll cling to their illusion of security.

Personally, I'm allergic to bullets, and revolutions make me queasy.
posted by ZachsMind at 3:30 PM on September 27, 2007


I think we should invade Russia. I mean seriously, while we're wanting measure our dicks, let's so how big they really are.
posted by Tommy Gnosis at 3:54 PM on September 27, 2007


“Personally, I'm allergic to bullets, and revolutions make me queasy.”

So you’re my Mr. Glass then. Bullets slide off me and I’d love to force the bastards into bringing tanks out in the streets.
‘Course, I’d rather just sit and play in the grass with my kids instead, but y’know, I’d gladly pauperize myself if it meant loosening the shackles we’ve gained. Although apparently the opposition is attempting to both take my money and liberty (eg: the $9 billion swiped). We’re certainly headed toward a political aristocrat backed corporate oligarchy. (The oligarchy’s been in place for some time, but at least there have been some checks).
posted by Smedleyman at 4:35 PM on September 27, 2007


Americans, please take control of your country back from the hijackers. You do not have to passively sit on your couches accepting the status quo.

I mean, geez, look at the Ukraine: they didn't like how their elections were mishandled, took to the streets, and got things changed.

Americans can't do the same? If not, you deserve the destruction you're going to get.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:48 PM on September 27, 2007 [5 favorites]



I think we should invade Russia. I mean seriously, while we're wanting measure our dicks, let's so how big they really are.


Seriously. In the winter.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 5:15 PM on September 27, 2007 [1 favorite]


Bull. I'm one of her millions of peeps (are we 30 million now in NY?), and we're overwhelmingly and almost totally against any more military anything.


Amberglow what other reasons could she posableley have in voting for a measures which appears to be political self destruction? If as you say it is so very apparent there, and very apparent here (Mass) and my sisters in VA who is as vociferous as you.... WTF is she thinking. It's not like this is just a one time deal, she is consistence.

Where do we turn to when the people who are supposte to repersent us are doing anything but? It like you expect the Brown Shirts creating a Krystal Nach for a some imagened attack on the Richstage. Is this really happening or is just an overreaction on my part.

"A little rebellion now and then is a good thing. …God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. …And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." Thomas Jefferson commenting on Shay's Rebellion.
posted by Rancid Badger at 7:28 PM on September 27, 2007 [2 favorites]


Sorry for all the typos
posted by Rancid Badger at 7:32 PM on September 27, 2007


Where do we turn to when the people who are supposte to repersent us are doing anything but? It like you expect the Brown Shirts creating a Krystal Nach for a some imagened attack on the Richstage. Is this really happening or is just an overreaction on my part.
We turn to progressive primary challengers to all these horrible incumbents--like Tasini here in NY who even when shut out of the media got like 20-25% of the vote against Clinton last time in the city in the primary. And like Edwards--people who aren't sitting Senators who act against us. We scare and punish all the incumbents who suck. We make it clear to them (in the only way they understand) that we're not going to support them if they're not working for us.

We don't give to national parties or general funds but to specific people in specific places--see ActBlue and other orgs who let you send to specific candidates, and they dump candidates if they vote wrong. And work for them too, like you do for Edwards, who rocks.

I'm losing hope rapidly but not yet--in 08 Congress is going to get a rude awakening, and since they're not stopping the GOP--and not even stopping their nonsense (like the moveon shit) from coming to the floor, while the GOP stops everything decent we do, why should they stay in control? What's the point? I'm going to be sending a little money to Pelosi's challenger and Reid's, etc....to all of them. Millions are doing the same.
posted by amberglow at 8:20 PM on September 27, 2007


Right now, it's evident that there's no change in Congress since Dems took over--nothing's being stopped at all, and they're still voting wrong, and allowing Bush to set the agenda. Since they won't do what they should, they shouldn't be there anymore. Schumer and Emanuel need to be challenged too--they're in charge of anointing and funding congressional candidates and they're picking conservatives.

and as for president, Obama has lost his good press because he won't follow the media's script of catfighting with Hillary--and won't fight at all for the job or for us, it seems--Edwards has moved into that opening and is getting more attention now--people are liking what they see.
posted by amberglow at 8:28 PM on September 27, 2007


Fuck. Joe. Lieberman.
posted by fourcheesemac at 8:32 PM on September 27, 2007


Rancid, in terms of a new Kristalnacht, read this about Blackwater and others: Blackwater: Are You Scared Yet? The conventions will tell, i guess.
posted by amberglow at 8:55 PM on September 27, 2007


Over on a friend's LJ, there was this asshole in the comments who basically bitched about Nader voters, and called us "dirty hippie scum", and then demanding that we vote for Dems.

This friend (also a mefite :D) basically was bitching about that very thing in the post. How fucking absurd for them to be so haughty and demand of us our vote merely because they're the "opposition". I'm sick of "notBush".

And I wondered what the difference is between the mentality of "Vote for us, Bush is EEeeeevil! He's destroying our country" and "Vote for us, binLaden is EEveeeevil, he might destroy our country."

Both are pandering to our fear of destruction. One from an external threat, and one from an internal. Granted, I agree that Bush is a far more real threat in terms of ... well damn near everything (world stability, human rights, constitutional rights, etc...), but really? How pathetic.

That said, in one way I'm damn glad two of my Reps in congress are progressive (Feingold and Baldwin), but this means I only have one way to try to send a message against the one bastard I dislike (Herb Kohl (D)).

I also have mixed feelings, because Feingold really is awesome, and I wish he would've ran, but Obama got in the way, I think. Though I'm glad he's still in the Senate fighting the good fight.

I dunno, I'm just sick of all this bullshit.

And that Jefferson quote? Fucking Classic! Of course, I'd love to see the Rightwing talking heads try to not call him a terrorist. Oh, I see... It was a rebellion against taxation and that's quite alright, because taxes are Eeeeevil.
posted by symbioid at 9:38 PM on September 27, 2007


They also voted to endorse a plan for the partition of Iraq, despite the fact that Iraqis hate the idea. Ha ha ha, sovereign, ha ha ha, democracy, ha ha ha.
posted by stammer at 10:20 PM on September 27, 2007


That said, in one way I'm damn glad two of my Reps in congress are progressive (Feingold and Baldwin), but this means I only have one way to try to send a message against the one bastard I dislike (Herb Kohl (D)).

I also have mixed feelings, because Feingold really is awesome, and I wish he would've ran, but Obama got in the way, I think. Though I'm glad he's still in the Senate fighting the good fight.

I dunno, I'm just sick of all this bullshit.


You know, if you and, like, a few people you knew and rung up had decided to support people like Baldwin and Feingold instead of that incredible narcissistic moron Nader, Baldwin and Feingold would have been sending stuff to President Gore to sign for the last seven years or so. Healthcare, environmental progress, no FUCKING war.

You don't get to be "sick of all this bullshit," because you're part of the bullshit.
posted by gum at 11:06 PM on September 27, 2007 [1 favorite]


amberglow I do not see any candidate being particularly intimidated by the plebs. Targeting seen to be a good response, I will send out more money to MoveOn and find some others like ActBlue. Gen Pet taken to task by MoveOn seemed tame compared to the dirty tricks of Rove. Kerry’s war record was slandered by the Swift Boat Vets to a greater degree (Wilson also pops to mind ). It seem like we haven’t reached that critical mass necessary for our representatives.

I liked the like the Blackwater link and had sometime ago picked up the book on Blackwater but after reading the 1st part and seeing that the company is owned Pentecostal Christians who believe that they deserve to become rich as they are following God’s will. This arrogant knowing the mind of God is really a burr under my saddle and it makes it hard to read. Fingers on the chalkboard kinda stuff. They are THE Praetorian Guard.

We are putting up a table at the local theater on Friday in conjunction with their movie. It will be a good place where we can talk and recruit, with the movie being “War Made Easy” 50-year pattern of government deception and media spin that has dragged the United States into one war after another. It is preaching to the choir and we really need to convince those red states in the south and Midwest. As an aside when we were punished as kids we would have to wear a republican pinback., which we all thought of that as being an unfair cruelty.
posted by Rancid Badger at 12:59 AM on September 28, 2007 [1 favorite]


It truly warms the heart to see Corporate War Party Red and Corporate War Party Blue get together and move this type of legislation forward.
posted by i_am_a_Jedi at 4:30 AM on September 28, 2007


A resolution isn't going to help him, the constitution isn't going to hinder him; GHB is going to do whatever he wants to do.

(It's for our own good, you know.)
posted by Jatayu das at 4:33 AM on September 28, 2007 [1 favorite]


Pretend that said GWB. It makes more sense that way.
posted by Jatayu das at 4:34 AM on September 28, 2007


Hey, gum, look it up, chump... My vote didn't count, because... DaDA! The electoral college means my state went to Gore. Also, hindsight is 20/20.

And, I DID vote for Kerry in 2004 (against my deepest heartfelt wishes), and our state went to him. It would have without my vote.

My point is, when the fuck are the dems gonna stop rolling over and stand up for something, like, you know, what they were elected to do? They so damn afraid of taking a principled stand, and love their platitudes and rhetoric, meanwhile, nothing happens, more people die.
posted by symbioid at 6:06 AM on September 28, 2007


"Hindsight is 20/20"?? I didn't think there were still Naderites out there who would admit that their political analysis in 2000 was so fundamentally immature that they really thought it didn't matter whether Bush or Gore won the election.

So you prove my point again. You have no standing to complain about Bush; you voted for him by proxy, and you voted for him in such a way as to make clear that, as far as you were concerned, you didn't give a damn how he governed. You are entitled to no opinion whatsoever about how things turned out.
posted by gum at 7:54 AM on September 28, 2007


Look. In 2000, I was aware that Gore had investments in a certain little oil company (Occidental) that happened to be threatening an indigenous population (the U'wa, who it might be said, were threatening collective suicide as a protest against the expropriation of their land). That, along with Lieberman as his running mate and Tipper (PMRC herself), leads one to conclude that he's a conservative at heart. (Not to mention his previous anti-choice stance as Senator).

And until 9 fucking 11, Bush was a nothing president. He sucked, but no more harder than any other Republican. And with Clinton privatizing welfare and shit like that, why the hell should I have thought that Gore would be much more "liberal".

Your claim would be ridiculous if I hadn't, as I already said, voted for Kerry to undo post-911 bush-fuckupery.

If 9-11 hadn't have happened, Bush never would've had the power he had. Also, there's this little thing called Florida. Gore won, anyways, but due to the electoral bullshit that happened, (choicepoint, supreme court, etc...) it doesn't fucking matter, the game was rigged.

That said, end this pissing match now of "he started it" by talking about the facts on the ground that exist right now. And that is that the weak-kneed dems, are continuing to kowtow to the right, and expecting our vote, because they are "notBush" and I'm sick of that attitude. It's no way to stand on principle, and you're never going to get people to feel passionate about you if you continue to play politics like that.

Why is it that the current congress has a lower approval rating than Bush? HOW the hell does something like that happen? Oh, by not doing the shit you said you were going to do, that's how. By playing it safe. And then demanding and expecting our votes, and you'll probably get it, because we are run by fear instead of principle.

Point is, I'm tired of Fear being the factor in our politics. We're America, the founding principle was Rational Enlightenment...
posted by symbioid at 8:11 AM on September 28, 2007 [2 favorites]


You don't get to be "sick of all this bullshit," because you're part of the bullshit.

gum: last i checked, the democratic party includes lieberman, clinton, and a ton of others who voted to give bush authority for the war. in fact, even though they were in the minority, without the dem's support, bush could never have launched the war in iraq at all. so they're part of the bullshit, too, wouldn't you say?

as far as i'm concerned, the whole scapegoating nader phenomenon is just part of the republicans and pro-establishment democrats divide-and-conquer strategy for tying the political left up in knots so it fails to organize into a coherent opposition movement and continues to waste its time and energy on internal squabbling.

if, like me, one of your chief political priorities is affecting substantial reform to loosen up the political stranglehold the two-parties have on our political process and to open up the political stage to a much broader range of political actors (in other words, to put an end to the farcical good-cop, bad-cop routine the two major parties have been playing for the last few decades), who the hell are you supposed to vote for?

you'd probably say the dems, because, well, at least they'd be better than the republicans. but when it comes to the specific issues i'm personally most invested in (namely, substantive reforms to the political process itself) the dems offer me absolutely nothing more than the republicans do. with only a few exception, neither party even bothers to lie and pretend to care about the issues that are most important to me. so i'm supposed to just overlook that fact, and support one of two equally inadequate options?

as i've said before, this time around, i'll probably vote for whoever the dems offer up (unless it's hillary, in which case, i may vote for an independent because i think the chances of hillary affecting the kind of domestic and foreign policy changes i'd like to see are nil). but that doesn't guarantee i will again in the future. and unless someone from the dems' side starts showing some leadership and talking about what i consider to be important in a meaningful way, i may go back to not voting at all.
posted by saulgoodman at 8:42 AM on September 28, 2007


as i've said before, this time around, i'll probably vote for whoever the dems offer up (unless it's hillary, in which case, i may vote for an independent because i think the chances of hillary affecting the kind of domestic and foreign policy changes i'd like to see are nil). but that doesn't guarantee i will again in the future. and unless someone from the dems' side starts showing some leadership and talking about what i consider to be important in a meaningful way, i may go back to not voting at all.

For the sake of the rest of us, I hope you take the last path.

Do you know something? Politics in the United States is not therapy for you. Picking your candidate is not like finding the Hallmark card that perfectly expresses the special way you feel. It was crystal fucking clear in 2000 that Bush would be at least half as bad as he turned out to be. It was also crystal fucking clear in 2000 that every environmental instinct ever held by 42 previous presidents didn't add up to half of what we'd get from President Gore.

Meanwhile, you were too busy worrying about whether the color of a Gore bumper sticker clashed with your color scheme. You say you want a "coherent opposition movement," but all you really want is coherence, so you sit on the sidelines and sneer. Thanks a lot.
posted by gum at 9:16 AM on September 28, 2007 [1 favorite]


Well before the 2000 election Gore had written a book on the environment, founded the GLOBE Program on Earth Day 1994, and strongly sponsored the Kyoto Treaty (symbolically signing it in 1998). Bush was the governor of a state that led the nation "in air pollution, in toxic chemicals released, in factories violating clean water standards" and "according to the Environmental Protection Agency, of having the dirtiest air in America, of ranking 47th in water quality, and having the seventh-highest rate of release of toxic industrial byproducts onto its land." You'd think supporters of the motherfucking Green Party might have seen a teensy-weensy difference instead of saying there wasn't any difference, as Nader himself did.
Appropriately enough I recycled this comment.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:33 AM on September 28, 2007 [2 favorites]


Man, I’d like to have a fucking tool, that’d be sweet.

Blackwater, yeah. I like to joke that they came out to Mt.Carroll just because of me. Ha ha ha, heh heh. Ahem. Yeah. *eyes the site suspiciously*
It’d be interesting tho to see where the chips fall if there is ever a beef between legal law enforcement and the mercs. Blackwater’s operatives on the whole have outstanding training, but that’s not enough to secure a population.
Just looking for the other shoe I guess....Hmmm they are state certified
posted by Smedleyman at 11:39 AM on September 28, 2007


[there is a difference between polite disagreement and calling someone a fucking tool. if you don't know what that is, ask that question in METATALK and keep it moderately civil here, thanks]
posted by jessamyn at 12:08 PM on September 28, 2007


Meanwhile, you were too busy worrying about whether the color of a Gore bumper sticker clashed with your color scheme. You say you want a "coherent opposition movement," but all you really want is coherence, so you sit on the sidelines and sneer. Thanks a lot.

yeah, gum. you've got me pegged. i'm the kind of feckless idiot who puts political bumper stickers on his car. and i was just sitting on the sidelines, sneering and gazing at my navel when i volunteered for the kerry campaign, and when i held up that picket sign at the anti-war protest downtown back before the iraq war mess ever began.

yeah, good thing we've got sensible, engaged guys like you watching our backs and making sure we don't throw our votes away on candidates based on something arbitrary, like our consciences.

do you realize that if it weren't for nader, we practically wouldn't have any consumer safety regulations in this country? as a tireless crusader for environmental causes and consumer rights, nader is exactly the opposite of the kind of narcissistic, ineffectual preening-cock corporate shill that dominates the political landscape. read a little about nader's raiders and his life-time of selfless work on behalf of the progressive causes most dems only pay lip-service to, and then come back here with that smugly superior, intolerant attitude of yours, telling me how i should and shouldn't waste my vote. you want to revoke my membership to your little country club if i don't vote the way you want me to? fine with me.

then go right ahead and elect joe lieberman president for all i care. show me just how much better off i am with a democrat in office.
posted by saulgoodman at 12:08 PM on September 28, 2007


jessamyn--you're right. but this isn't exactly civil either:

Meanwhile, you were too busy worrying about whether the color of a Gore bumper sticker clashed with your color scheme.

i don't have time for MeTa right now though, so i'll just drop it.
posted by saulgoodman at 12:10 PM on September 28, 2007


look what they snuck in just yesterday: -- ...the Senate voted 94-1 for “a stop-gap spending bill that gives the Bush White House at least $9 billion in new funding” for the Iraq war. Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) was the sole dissenter in the Senate; the House voted 404-14 to approve the measure. Congress also granted the administration “emergency authority to tap further into a $70 billion ‘bridge fund’” for the occupation while “Congress works on appropriations bills.” ...

Just asinine.
posted by amberglow at 12:53 PM on September 28, 2007


Like I said... Russ Feingold.

Also, yeah, I really want to get back on topic. How can we fix shit? How can we get them to take a stand?
posted by symbioid at 1:09 PM on September 28, 2007


Remember when conservatives crowed that Reagan "won" the cold war by forcing the USSR to ramp up its defence spending to a level it couldn't maintain, leading to its collapse?

Those who do not remember history, are doomed, etc., etc.
posted by The Card Cheat at 1:23 PM on September 28, 2007


Hillary Clinton’s Iran Vote
posted by homunculus at 1:29 PM on September 28, 2007


I think we should invade Russia. I mean seriously, while we're wanting measure our dicks, let's so how big they really are.
Seriously. In the winter.


Maybe yours behaves differently, but that doesn't sound like a lot of fun to me.
posted by oaf at 3:02 PM on September 28, 2007




Bush, Ahmadinejad & Authoritarianism
posted by homunculus at 10:47 AM on September 29, 2007


How can we fix shit? How can we get them to take a stand?

Great related post on all that at sideshow (and don't miss the comments, and links)
I spoke of doing extragovernmental things, like Solidarnosc did--but that neither fixes the political prob or Dems in Congress, and is also long-term--but helps people now and sets up the structure for a new party/system.
posted by amberglow at 12:06 PM on September 29, 2007


and Silber has tons of wonderful stuff and important observations, but not many answers.
posted by amberglow at 12:12 PM on September 29, 2007


this is for anyone wondering why all of a sudden Bush gives a shit about Myanmar: Firms Seek Access to Myanmar Oil Fields
posted by amberglow at 2:58 PM on September 29, 2007






... One excuse doesn't work, so they come up with another. And if that one doesn't fly, you can bet your bippy they'll find a third. The important thing is: sell the war.

Got it? That means there is no real reason to go to war with Iran. If there was, they wouldn't be switching reasons when they don't poll well. Bush and Cheney just want to do it. That's all. They just want to. ...

posted by amberglow at 2:55 PM on October 1, 2007


British MPs visiting the Pentagon to discuss America's stance on Iran and Iraq were shocked to be told by one of President Bush's senior women officials: "I hate all Iranians."

And she also accused Britain of "dismantling" the Anglo-US-led coalition in Iraq by pulling troops out of Basra too soon.

The all-party group of MPs say Debra Cagan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Coalition Affairs to Defence Secretary Robert Gates, made the comments this month. ...


Do not miss that picture--nazi cross and red leather--the same sort of s/m and dominatrix look Condi loves.
posted by amberglow at 4:06 PM on October 1, 2007


« Older Scholarpedia   |   The South Bank Show Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post