This whole disgusting mess is so reminiscent of Vietnam. America is finally waking up, thank the gods. What on earth is wrong with Lieberman and Clinton and all the rest of the "sharks" we elect to smell Republican blood in the water and go for the kill? Do they think KKK Rove would let any of them slide? Nadir [intentional sic] will surely roast in some Republican Hell for blithely preaching that there was no difference between Gore and ]unmentionable]. The tragedy here is that Iraqis and Americans are dying every day for no good reason, and lives are being ruined on a vast scale, while they worry about their "careers" as public leaches. Enough is enough, already...

Bush says "...the terrorists are using Iraq for their base in their war on humanity."

TERRRISTS! EVERYWHERE!! BE VERY AFRAID!!!

Are we still buying this shit?
I don't think so.

Only 10% of the guys fighting us over there are even foreign. They aren't at war with humanity, they're just at war for their own country against the inhumanity that has invaded them. The same way many of us would be if we were invaded.

I don't think we're gonna be able to take their oil, Mr. Cheney...

Hold everything...Nader stood up firmly before this was and said that it was illegal and we should not go. He is certainly not to blame for this mess. Why did Democrats give Bush the power to do this anyway? When Byrd stood on the Senate floor and gave his magnificent speech about the Senate being silent, why did no one stand with him??? This could all have been avoided if the Democrats had showed a little bit of common sense in NOT giving this blackhearted administration the power to invade Iraq to begin with. Congressional Democrats ENTIRELY abdicated their elected responsibilities. And it doesn't have a goddamn thing to do with Nader. Nader was also one of the few people to challenge the legitimacy of the vote in 2000 AND 2004. He wasn't trying to put himself in office when he did that, was he? Blaming Nader for the ills of the Democratic party will do the Democrats zero good. Nader is one of the few people out there who consistently deal with truth and rationality, and he DOESN'T play politics. When he said Gore and Bush were no different, on the grand scale, he was referring about both of their essential deference to corporate America. I believe that Gore has changed SINCE he dropped out of politics, and is a far better man now than he was then. But lay off Nader, that's just ridiculous. He certainly has nothing to do with Republicans.

Sorry, Soul Rebel - I must respectfully disagree. Sure, Gore would have tried to lead us down some primrose path or other, but it would have been far more respectful of the environment, and we would never have launched our criminal, global war against all countries situated above oil fields, and we wouldn't be despised by the civilized world at large, and if you haven't gotten the idea yet, well - and, YES, Mr. Nadir was the decisive culprit in 2000 (of course if he hadn't run Diebold would have just reset a few buttons, so I guess it really doesn't matter). But hey, if you're ever in Prague let me know. I know where the beer is fine and the company is finer...

I don't deny that Bush is much much worse than Gore would have been, but that wasn't Nader's point at all. Nader was talking about extricating the American public and government from the stranglehold of corporate influence. Within degrees, Gore and Bush were different - but Clinton and the Democrats are stuck tight to corporate donors just as Republicans are. And I don't see how Nader was any kind of decisive in 2000?? If you're talking about the 537 votes in Florida, that's a joke, because we know that the election in Florida was rigged anyway. I'm sure you've read Greg Palast. If those voters weren't screwed, Gore wins Florida and we wouldn't be sitting here having this conversation. Had that happened, the world would surely be a different, and better, place. I have no argument with that. But we would still have made no strides against the corporate rape of the world. Again, this was Nader's point. Given his druthers, there is no doubt that Nader would prefer Gore over Bush. Anyone of measurable sanity would.

I may well be in Prague next year, but it more likely be Berlin or The Hague. I would like Prague, home of the finest Pilsner.

Soul Rebel - we agree on far more than we disagree on. That said, the way for Mr. Nadir and right-thinking people in general to succeed in saving our democracy is to start at the grass roots: elect good people on the local level, etc. Trying to start at the top of the pyramid is madness. I'm way sad right now, thinking about how different things could have been. Diebold has surely got to go, but can you imagine what a difference it would have made if Nadir had made an 11th hour endorsement to save the country at the cost of sacrificing his ambitions?

And yeah, they serve up fine Pilsner beer here, but if you want to visit its home you have to go to Pilsen. There are a few killer microbreweries here that put Pilsen to shame, IMHO
I'd be proud to show you around my adopted home town, any time...

Love and Peace from Prague, where they just legalized possession of up to 25 magic mushrooms, Bob

Czaragorn --- Enough is enough Amen to that.

We should evaluate our elected representatives by what they say and by their actions, not by the political label they wear. Really. My opinion is that we've let certain Democrats hold back progress and be accessories to crimes long enough. No more slack just because they are "Democrats".

God, I hope the grassroots Democrats get it together and throw the bums out. There is no hope for most of the corporate, power elite Dems, IMO.

Quite awhile ago, I came to the decision that I had to act from my conscience and join the Green Party. It doesn't mean, of course, that I don't support Democrats when it is necessary to do so (and much of the most important Green work is at a local level, so most of the time we're not even thinking "presidential".)

Personally, I think Dems who (it appears at any rate) voted for dubya were the deciding factor in 2000. Just the way you look at it, I guess. (Of course, he likely didn't win.)

I may for once differ with Soul Rebel (who seems to be a "soul mate" - in the Australian sense of the word! - otherwise). Nader believes and advocates the right things, heroically, but I believe he proved to be, especially in 2004, hopelessly naive. Last year and continuing to the present, his primary political viewpoint has been "macho". Politics of macho. You're not a man if you vote for a Democrat (or Green) you don't entirely support. You are "afraid of freedom." This has gotten laughably absurd when, for example, Chomsky and Cobb are implicitly, sometimes explicitly, accused of fearing freedom. (And myself a number of times, also, by the way. For the record, I don't "fear freedom").

I'm getting off on a tangent here. I've admired Nader and still do, but, as an active Green Party Cobb supporter, I've had too many run-ins with one-dimensional macho posturing from the Nader folks, who invariably assume I know nothing of history and who arrogantly and absurdly sing in one key, oblivious to anything else. I'm not disparaging Nader supporters in any way who may read BB, but, personally and from personal experience, I've had it (and as a long-time admirer of Nader, it has taken a lot to reach this point.)

Off on a tangent. I think the progressive, grassroots Democrats should begin to think of themselves as the Democrats and take it from there. Or scare the hell out of corporate "Democrats" by moving toward independence.

Blaming Nader for Iraq is like blaming the weatherman for Hurricane Katrina. Wrong, wrong, wrong!

He was absolutely right. When it came to Iraq, there was little or no difference between Democrats and Republicans. They both saw "the same intelligence." They really didn't, but they let the public think they did.

And when Democrats accepted the 2004 election as legitimate, Nader said "It was hijacked." It's disgusting to blame Ralph Nader for what's happening in the world right now. He's the only hope we have at this point.

Things need to be shaken up by those who really are progressives but are encased in party and other political traditions. Gotta shake things up, break out. I'm talking about current progressive Democrats. Nothing will happen until they take their place in the sun.

I believe in the Green Party and am eager to see how it evolves and fits in to the national picture, but I'm most interested in a true and radical change of national direction. Things are in place. There has been a lot of thought and discussion especially from the '90's to the present. We're ready. We need a spark, an enzyme to get through this damn wall.

If we overcome inertia we will see other knights in evidence, I am convinced. (But we are the heroes.)

Nader didn't ask me to speak for him. But just look at the lead-in to this blog. "Democrats Fracture Over Iraq."

The Democrats didn't start this war. Many of them did think there were WMD in Iraq, but Bush made the decision not to wait for the inspections to end, and he wouldn't have accepted any finding by Blix that "no weapons exist" anyway.

If I could write a speech for Nader, here's what I'd write.

"The two-party system has failed us, friends. George Washington hated the idea of political parties, and now we're seeing proof that he was right. The Democrats can't agree on exactly how to end this disaster in Iraq, so the Republicans are able to paint them as a fractious bunch without an agenda and paint Bush as a principled leader who won't follow polls. And the war goes on, with ten Marines dying from a single bomb and that silly girl at Camp Lejeune saying the only way to make sense of their deaths is to stay the course.

But there is no course. That's the point. And our political system, with one party following its crazed leader blindly and the other divided between hawks, semi-hawks, and doves can't extricate us from this treadmill to oblivion. Bush says, "I follow my generals' advice," but he doesn't mean General Shinseki, he means generals who tell him things are going well. How many generals have died out there?

In order to stop this madness we need an uprising of citizens who check their party affiliation at the door. We must not allow partisan bickering to determine our course of action. At this point, pulling out en masse will leave Iraq in a civil war; that wouldn't be good. But to stay indefinitely guarantees the insurgency (or whatever we want to call Iraqi patriots fighting for their homeland) will intensify. It has not gotten better, and it will not get better as long as we're there. Starting a pullout now is the least of the evils. When the last soldier should leave will depend on the course of events."

Democratic leaders need to wake up from their denial about the true nature of this war, which has been from its' inception nothing more than an elaborate and deadly money-laundering scheme. No principles are at stake in our continued presence in Iraq. The only principle at stake vis-a-vis this war is how soon we the people realize that this war is illegal, immoral, and unjust and how fast we act to completely withdraw our forces from and cease all hostilities against Iraq. Half-measures, as the one proposed by Murtha, have the strategic advantage of appearing to offer a measure of "stability" and "commitment" to "the mission". Therefore, the Murtha plan may be more advantageous in the near term by virtue of being able to attract sufficient opposition of varying stripes to achieve the desired objective of withdrawl. But we mustn't stop there. This war has been and will contine to be a travesty of justice for as long as our forces are in Iraq. Not because the soldiers could not fulfill their mission, but because the mission was always a glorified criminal enterprise organized by thugs whose sole purpose was to transfer vast sums of wealth from the American people to the pockets of military contractors. Mission Accomplished!

I totally agree! The only thing if we don't have an overwhelming majority in 06 and 08 to account for the voting machine errors, we'll be singing the same tune! The idiot's verse of stay the course would see our 5 yr old grandchildren in Iraq. I heard this all came about because Saddam had leased 90% of their oil to France and Russia. Does anyone know if that is a fact? I can't remember where I read it.

Can anyone say "George Bush Democrats?

Lieberman and Hillary lead the pack of those kind, which, it would seem, and according to Senator Byrd when he spoke out against the war from the beginning, they have abrocated their duty to oppose the president and keep him in line.

Sorry guys . . .

I am no bra burner, but it really bugs me when it's

Bush, Lieberman, Murtha (last names)
and "Hillary"

I am not thrilled with Senator Clinton at this point either, but at least "she" should get the same last name billing as every other Senator. At least Barbara Boxer gets a first and last name.

sigh . . .what sucks about everything, THE biggest thing, is that I was under the illusion that maybe we had come farther than this. When even the Opposition uses "Hillary" instead of calling "her" like every other male senator namewise.

I live in such caveman times now. Its depressing.

Mugzi,

You're right that the French and Russians had tied up the majority of the oil developing contracts...it's out there somewhere.

On Hardball a congressman said we will be in Iraq for 25 years as we have in Germany, Korea, and Japan.

We are occupiers. That is our heritage the congressman said.

When the 14 permanent bases are complete we will "withdraw". What that means is that the MSM will stop talking about Iraq ... except to say we have "withdrawn troops".

The oil will be carved up between the "coalition of the willing" and Iraq will continue to degenerate or remain as is ... a rape victim for some 5 decades now.

What a great, intelligent thread. That's what I like about BB. You are all a class act.

Mugzi --- I'm not saying the grassroots Dems should split and give it all to the neocons. I'm just saying they should recognize the fact that corporate Dems are accessories to crime, indeed right in the midst of it. They should refuse to give them any more slack because they are "Democrats". They should declare their independence, but they can vote for whomever they please. The fiction that there is a community of interest between enablers of the military-industrial complex and big oil and grassroots progressive Democrats needs to be shattered. (How to shatter it - that's the question, I guess, but it has to be done, IMO.)

Soul Rebel --- I won't spend more time criticising Nader. Just a little explanation. I also supported him in previous elections. (Being in California, of course, it was much easier to do than in some other states.) I supported and voted for Cobb in 2004 because I thought it was important to advance Green values within the context of the Green Party. David worked hard for a long time to get the nomination - all the while Nader saying he hadn't made a decision. Then, at the last minute Nader says he wants the nomination (and expected it to be handed to him on a platter.) I think the Green Party did the right thing in sticking with Cobb.

I think Nader should have gotten into the fray and actively supported Cobb, regardless of the fact that they didn't agree on tactics. (Cobb did believe, of course, that the Busheviks were a special case.) Cobb is every bit as enlightened and progressive as Nader - more so, in my opinion.

The repugs would like nothing better than to hear disgruntled dems splitting off into other parties. Will it work in 06 and 08? I don't know. I just know I don't want a moment longer of repugs in power, their devestation on all fronts is hurting the country at all levels.

I voted as a liberal independent from '96 on (my first election was '92 and I supported Clinton, but I was pretty politically naive at the time), and Nader got my vote in '96 and 2000. I don't regret that 2000 vote. I wish Gore had provided me with more to support at the time. As I said, he's become far more the candidate I would have liked to see since he left front and center politics. But I look back on the ineptness that surrounded the Democrats during the '04 campaign and I honestly regret my vote for Kerry - it's kind of a twisted fuck thing too, because if he had won, I probably wouldn't regret it. As it is the Democrats (with Diebold and the deviance of the GOP in Ohio and all the other sick-ass anti-democratic things that they had to contend with, I know this) still made a pig's ear out of things. I never thought that Kerry was the best candidate - but I got behind him because I was scared shitless of four more years of Bush. That was worthy motivation at the time I believed, but I look back on it and I am conflicted because I think (and I only say this for myself, I make no inference to what was going on in other people's hearts and minds) - I think I voted like a big pussy (sorry, no offense meant, it's a nasty word but it covers what I mean.) After the election and my disgust with the Democrats handling of the election - and each other really - I thought the lack of support for Boxer's charge of election mishandling was appalling - I officially joined the Green party. I know that the Green's are somewhat fractured with the whole Nader/Camejo vs. Cobb factions, and I'm not really sure what is at the root of that because my local county Green party is almost nonexistent (I might be the only one) and I exist vicariously through the Seattle Greens, although I'm too far away to really be of any help with forwarding Green candidates there. But as a party philosophy (ten key points) the Democrats really need to recognize the validity of the message that the Green party is forwarding.

I'm not saying that Nader doesn't have shortcomings - there is no perfect candidate. And he has said some things that I thought have been occasionally detrimental to the movement he is attempting to grow. But he has kept solidly "on-message" about the major issues - education, environment, workers rights, trade policies - for years. And his message is good. What he has said about the lack of difference between Democrats and Republicans has been true in many instances - certainly not in all, but I see the similarities betwen the two as being the major barrier to what we all here (the four of us that are knocking this thing about, at least) would see as necessary societal progress.

Nader's statements about "fearing freedom" may have been misplaced, I will admit this. But imagine the level of frustration that he is dealing with when he has all but painted the perfect picture (this is my perspective only) of where we are as a nation, why we got here, what it will take to undo the damage that has been done, and what direction we should take. If everybody who actually thought Nader was right back in 2000 actually voted for him, we may have got that 5% we needed to have a real third party candidate in the national debates. That was a huge issue for me in '00 - Nader needed to get in the debate, he'd fucking wipe the floor with both Gore and Bush. As it was (and this is the running joke) Gore agreed with Bush more than he disagreed with him. And I like Gore. I really do. I think he is a good man with a good heart and has put forth great legislation for the environment. But I still don't think he was a great candidate. I think he could run as a effective Green now, because he seems to have developed more of a progressive compass. Maybe that's what needs to happen. Nader, Cobb, Gore, Camejo all put their differences aside and their heads together they would be a force to be reckoned with, and I KNOW they could come to some consensus about party priorities if they worked at it a bit. And if they all put their energies behind Jon Stewart, well ladies and gentlemen we ahve a winner. Wow - that was a great thought...who has their numbers, I'm a dialin'!

OK, I just got back from seeing Lewis Black and he fucking killed, so I'm all fired up. Haven't seen a better stand up show ever.

Soul Rebel --- the debate issue is huge with me, too. The debate commission exemplifies the closed system comprised of the Corporate Party, MSM, etc.

You are right - Nader would have blown the whole charade apart and probably changed the course of the country. (Of course, Cobb was arrested just trying to get into the building. What a country we live in.)

JPentz #17 - You may be right, and the "Hillary" thing has jarred me a bit at times, too. But there may be another element. Hillary Clinton seems to be insincere, looking out for herself; Scott McClellan is insincere looking out for the Busheviks - hence Hillary and Scotty.

Barbara Boxer appears to be sincere - hence Sen. Boxer. Joe Lieberman doesn't hesitate or equivocate in defending the Iraq war, so he's Lieberman.

Just an idea.

JPentz #17 --- yeah, i've noticed that, too --- you are absolutely correct that men are almost universally identified by last name in most media, whereas women are usually (not always) identified primarily by the less formal, more familiar first name.

it's a pervasive habit, i think, but it seems to show up most often when the female's name is sufficiently unusual. nobody called LA governor Blanco "Kathleen", or Ann Coulter just "Ann" because it's too generic to instantly grasp, unlike Condi and Hillary.

I have been guilty of this embedded shorthand myself, without intending to imply, in any way, the lesser respect that such naming implies.

so i am making an effort to be even-handed.

generally, i don't think it is intentional for most people, just habitual. but i have noticed that FNC has a propensity for using the first-name-game with most Dems, including the men, while saving the respectful, genderless last name for their like-minded friends, women included.

makes sense, doesn't it? --- using words as a subtle tactic of denigration... as always, the words we use matter, and such specificity does make a difference. just look at the plausible deniability of everything the Bush Administration says. "I believe there are WMDs...", "I have never met Joe Wilson" (which wasn't even the question)... etc. etc.

Words DO matter. It remains important to pay close attention to exactly what they say, because that provides clues as to what they actually mean.

Thanks guys. I think the media has really perpetuated this and I think a lot of people who do this don't even realize. "Scotty" is in a class by himself and deserves that because he's an idiot. I don't think Senator Clinton is an idiot, but I am REALLY not liking and am surprised by the stance she has taken on this issue. She seems either VERY out of touch or "in" with the neocons, OR she just has thrown her common sense out the window and has very bad advisors.

I think there is a difference between Intelligence and Wisdom. Senator Clinton may be highly intelligent but she has the wisdom of the bline elite.

It's like Bush and "Harriet". And everyone has been programmed or reprogrammed. Even those that consider themselves "progressive".

Hillary Clinton angers me greatly and I've posted some audio of an interruption to her speech at Roosevelt University by people protesting her pro- stay the course stance. It was posted briefly on raw story. I think it is important to show the Dissent that is taking place every day across our country.

I don't like what the pro war stance she verbalized when speaking with Cindy Sheehan either.

Of course this is all my opinion. But I thank you progressives for taking note of this and not buying into the programming of America.

:)

Silent protest! >

Google PNAC in your car windows , if you dare!

http://oldamericancentur...index.php?showtopic=5837

GOOGLE PNAC> "OUT" THE CABAL ! http://www.cafepress.com/googlepnac

I read a lot of "progressive websites" and have never seen support for Ms. Clinton. Feingold seems to have some integrity and is possibly running in '08. MSM says Ms. Clinton is the runaway favorite for '08. Remember Howard Dean and the scream? The media decides. I won't vote for another Dem. candidate just because they are Dem. It is a matter of being accountable to myself. I would rather not vote than vote for another bought off hack. Bill Clinton gave us welfare reform, NAFTA, and 3 strikes and you're out. Was he just trying to appease hate mongers? Or was he a Repub. with a Dem. name.

Clinton was also one of the most, if not the most, laissez-faire presidents in history. His free-rein "policies" toward corporate globalization and deregulation opened the door for the power and wealth consolidation, degradation of democracy, and the really tragic response to dwindling resources - the response being a blind effort to make a killing on what's left and to shut out a rational national effort to actually deal with the problem.