Letters to the Editor
-
did they fail or did they succeed in what they wanted to do?
Just because I will vote for almost any Democrat before I'd ever vote Republican doesn't mean that they're working in my interest. In fact, it only proves why they have so little incentive to work in my interest.
The "failure" explanation presupposes that Democrats in Washington ever really wanted to deal a "mortal blow" and appear as popular heroes. Most of them want to keep their jobs and this is probably the best way to go about it. As the recent commentary on Sen. Feinstein made clear, many powerful Democrats have every reason to keep the Bush war policy going strong. If they can pass off the blame to the GOP, so much the better.
There are a couple of Democrats in Washington that I really like because they share my goals, and they're smart about it. Probably my current favorite is Rep. Waxman. If I recall correctly, he actually got the Bush administration to concede a few years back that he had found them in error (I can't remember what now). But this is somebody who is working very hard, has only moderate power, and will never get the credit he deserves.
Most congresspersons are in it for the power and the perks, not so they can do lots of work with little reward. At the same time, these people are not "failures." Clearly, they are ambitious and driven. That's why they're in the Capitol and I'm just tapping away at a keyboard. If they accomplish a particular piece of legislation, I will assume by default that this is what they were trying to do all along, not that they wanted to help me but somehow just accidentally did the opposite.
-
The Democrats haven't blown anything -- yet
First, the oft-quoted polls about low standing of Congress appear to be due to the failure of the pollsters to ask, or the reporters to quote the answers, whether the respondents are mad at Democrats or the now-filibustering Republicans, or both.
Second, while it is tempting, and would be effective, to defund the Iraq war, that can't be done without a united front based on a careful analysis. "United front" is Chinese to Democrats. Still, most of them are close to the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group Report, which needs to be updated and supported. I hope that includes paying attention to polling what the Iraqi people want on a variety of options. We have known from the first that they want us out, but they also want us to provide security. Does that mean they want us to do the latter before the former, or just do our best on the way out? The pollsters need to refine that, and then we need to decide how long our moral duty requires that we do what they want anyway. Our "national interests" must be secondary in all this, because we had no right to go in in the first place. But we are the ones who took the lid off that Pandora's box, so we have to hold the bag up to some reasonable point. But beware the goal of the neocons: a permanent garrison and control of the region through military intimidation.
Third, Democrats need to be extremely careful lest a new war with Iran get started when they aren't looking. Seymour Hersch, who reported last year that Cheney had to be tied down to keep him from dropping nukes on Iran, now says a less radical bombing strike is in the works. At that point, impeachment discussion gets serious.
Similarly, Mr. Kamiya is exactly right in sounding alarm about a resolution to treat Iranian military as terrorists, because it reclassifies them in a way that serves our warmongers, and Israel's. I want to know more about this. I also am among the growing number of people who see that AIPAC is speaking for the interests of Israel in exactly the same way as the Republican Party speaks for the interest of the United States. And both of them are crawling with neocons, meaning warmongers and nut cases. Criticizing AIPAC gets you called anti-Semitic in some quarters, and it's time to call that smear despicable.
Fourth, Democrats need to pound on a peaceful and civil approach to foreign policy. Americans want us to be a good neighbor in the world. Let that be the motto of our next foreign policy.
-
Clear Alternative
1. We need a big candidate who has a chance to win to speak up for leaving Iraq. Dennis K. and Ron P. are swell, but they will not win.
Note that, only a few months ago, even John McCain could have been this candidate. But now he has joined the other Republicans in the Brutaller Than Thou election strategy. A Democrat still might break with the usual suppositions, and speak, win, and act.
2. If we get out of Iraq, we will be about where we would have been if we never had gone in: Containing Iraq with sanctions and embargoes and No Fly Zones.
It will be about the same as it would have been if we had waited for Saddam to die, rather than invading and then screwing up. But we will have the advantage of being positioned in in Afghanistan, in Iraq's neighborhood, on Iran's shoulder.
And we will stop bleeding red blood and green dollars.
3. It will take decades if we have to retreat to minor candidates, and abandon all hope of Democrats. We cannot wait that long. This time, this election, this war, we must try to work through the Democrats. One more try. God bless America.
-
I am an American, I care about the US.
a) Israel is tiny; about the size of Vancouver Island or Taiwan; it's about a quarter the size of Maine
So what? There are lots of small countries out there, but I guess they don't have powerful Lobbies or the Holocaust industry to guilt trip the world into not questioning their apartheid Police State. Other tiny countries don't even have the hundreds of illegal nukes that Israel has to protect itself with, yet Lieberman and the US' Israel-first political establishment could care less about every other country. Maybe, since Israel is so "tiny", it should pay closer attention to its perception in the region? Nah, who cares about the rest of the region when you have the 100% unquestioned support of your US Military Attack Dog.
b) Israel is the only state in the world where Jews are a majority.
Who cares? Only 1/3 of Jews live in Israel. Some even live in *gasp* Iran.
Who cares about Israel? Let it defend itself, like every other country in the world. I am not Israeli, I am not Jewish, I am not Persian or Muslim. I am an American Catholic who sees my country supporting Police States and putting military bases all over the world in order to preserve its dominance. Objectively, the blowback that comes from the occupation of Palestine by a nation with hundreds of illegal nukes seems to be more of a security threat to the US than cave dwelling bogeymen. Maybe the bogeyman needs a better PAC? I bet the Israelis, the Saudis, and the Military Media Congressional Industrial Complex could give some good advice on how to effectively control the House and Senate through powerful lobbies while ignoring the will of the People.