The Democratic Community are sick and tired of Republicans spending so much money to win Elections. We want the Power to be given back to the people and laws passed to forbit the wealthy and powerful to control the people. We give our elected officials, "A MANDATE FOR POWER TO THE PEOPLE." Unless you are willing to give a pledge, under oath, that if we vote you into the majority, you will pass laws giving the people back the power. Unless you are willing to snatch the power away from the wealthy and powerful and give it back to the people, you won't get our vote. "This is the peoples Pledge to you."

Quite agree that the Republicans have made a mess, but since the goal is to set up permanent bases in Iraq from which the US can "project power" (Rumsfeld's words) and insure that there will be no "denial of access," I don't want them to succeed.
What I want is a firm declaration that the US will not maintain bases in Iraq, even if invited by the new regime, and, in addition, will support a nuclear weapons free zone that encompasses not just Central Asia (CANWFZ) but the entire Arabian Penninsula.

Re: They Think You're Stupid
Tom,
I say we run MY video, "BushWhacked" and share it with everyone in America. It's yours to use FOR FREE and best of all, it's free!And it's a true story too!
I’m an American Veteran (Infantry Medic) and a Songwriter opposed to Bush’s war. I’ve been sharing my new song, “BushWhacked”, across the web during the past week and to my surprise, I’ve had 32,000 downloads in 6 days. It seems there is a voracious appetite for truth in cyberspace. I hope you’ll check it out.

High res. 9.3 MB
http://www.tomsongs.com/images/Bushwhacked_0001.wmv

Low res. 4 MB
http://www.tomsongs.com/images/Bushwhacked.wmv

Song only 3.4 MB
http://www.tomsongs.com/images/BushWhacked.MP3

BushWhacked
I served my time far away from the front lines
But I’ve seen them come and I’ve seen them go
Bullets fly when politicians lie and soldiers die that’s war
Their fathers and mothers wake up crying in the middle of the night
Their hearts jump at every knock upon the door
Young Americans bleeding and dying in the middle of this fight
Still trying to figure out what the hell they’re really dying for

Bushwhacked and another soldier dies
They’ve been Bushwhacked
By a whitehouse war built on whitehouse lies
Bushwhacked
And by the time we realize we’ve all been Bushwhacked
Another roadside bomb another soldier dies

If you close your eyes force yourself to look inside
Read between the whitehouse lies that we’ve all been fed
In the name of humanity they peddled our democracy
Claim they’re trying to set Iraqis free
So far we’ve freed a hundred thousand dead
And their fathers and mothers wake up crying in the middle of the night
Their hearts jump with every knock upon the door
Soldiers and civilians bleeding and dying in the middle of this fight
Still trying to figure out what they’re really dying for
They’ve been Bushwhacked and another soldier dies
They’ve been Bushwhacked
By a whitehouse war built on whitehouse lies
Bushwhacked
And by the time we realize we’ve all been Bushwhacked
Another roadside bomb another soldier dies
Bushwhacked and another soldier dies
They’ve been Bushwhacked
By a whitehouse war built on whitehouse lies
Bushwhacked
And we’re gonna lose a thousand more
Yeah we’ve been Bushwhacked
Maybe George should fight his own bullshit war

WOW THe RNC are getting special treatment from the media. The rupublicans can continue to cause mess after mess and the media gives them a pass.

The democrats say one thing wrong and the media has it on hour after hour after hour.

The RNC playbook is to keep the DNC confused and seperated and hopefully we can get and not trust each other. Then they will never come together.

Joe LIEberBush is the president of this philosophy. I don't mind Joe having his belief I ming him lecturing other DEMS that don't follow his belief publicly. Knowing BUSH/MEDIA will use him as the mouth to keep us down.

NO donations from me to the DNC until they come up with a biting TV ad that rebukes the lies of conservatives.

You are right Coward was a poor choice of words, I would have prefered they use Traitor. And used a ad depecting Bennidict Arnold hanging from a tree behind Kennedy Pelosi and Kerry instead of a white flag. However I agree we should re deploy out of Iraq...To Iran and Syria would be my move. Just forget about New York and the towers and the war on terror and pretend it never happened? How about a strategy to win instead of one to loose? 2000 dead? I saw that in Marines only on one beach in one landing on the Philipines. How about one naval battle that lasted 3 hours with 13,000 dead? Did anyone say what a mess Roosevelt got us into? How about we put the blame where it belongs. On the radical Islamifacists who so stated they want and intend to rule the world. Clinton made the exact same WMD arguments and launched a few cruise missles. Every nations inteligence gave the same conclusion, Sadam had WMD was a threat and had connections to AlQueda and we know he used chemicals in the past. We never found Emila Erhart or her plane, does that mean they never existed? This is all revisionist history from mr McMahon it does not stand up to any close inspection. If you want to argue reality and the truth thats fine. Bush made his share of mistakes. But this is attacking a war effort By Americas finest young men and half a country for purely selfish political self interests. Shame on you. The Republicans finaly got the backbone to defend themselves and Bush ended his "new tone" in Washington and the Democrats go spastic. This wont win any elections boys, Its childish. The Dems are devoid of any electable leadership positions. When we do draw down forces from Iraq the dems will claim they forced it from the administration and look even worse. We need a new Party to form from the ashes of the democrats and leave the crazys like Dean Behind. Lieberman gets my vote. Maybe him and Jeb should make a run in 08.

I believe Osam Bin Lauden and his copycats have made it clear that they will continue to target the West as long as we maintain permanent bases on what they consider holy lands. Why do the neocons insist on doing things that put us all at risk?

The democrats say one thing wrong and the media has it on hour after hour after hour.

Posted by Sleeping_Donkey on December 9, 2005 at 06:14 PM

When is it wrong to tell the truth?

I don't believe the American public want our troops over in Iraq anymore. And more importantly, they no longer believe they ever NEEDED to be sent over there.

The Iraq elections are next week. The Iraqis, not Congress or the President, will determine when when our troops leave. Expect the leaders of this new Islamic theocracy to present us with a timetable....probably at the UN. The Arab League met last week, and all the members agreed they would back such a timetable.

Bush has lost control of "his" war. No matter what the "Plan for Victory" public relations plan stipulates, there can be no military victory. If we do not make a strategic retreat to another Arab country (I believe Murtha called it a redeployment?), we will be thrown out.

Our troops deserve a more dignified way out of this mess. If they don't get it, heads are going to roll.

Oh, and expect the Iraqis to sue us for the real cost of rebuilding their country after we "shocked and aweded" it using bogus intelligence as an excuse to invade. It's going to cost us hundreds of billions of dollars. And if they don't get it, they will blackmail us with threats to help Bin Lauden... fight us over there in our country instead of at home in their country.

This is the true cost of allowing a President to run amuck without any checks or balances in Congress. I hope this country has learned it's lesson and elects new members to Congress next year...ones who will challenge Bush with legislation that curbs this administration's blatent abuse of power.

We don't need any more incompetent, dillusional chief executives staging wars in the future that don't need to be fought.

We need a counter video that Bush staying the course is not the winning strategy, which also emphasizes the cost--$300B + $100B more, 2000+ troops dead, 16,000 injured, no WMD long protracted insurgency and civil war. Then show generals who advocate better strategy.

Unite around supporting our troops. Unite around the idea that we need a good defense as well as a good offense. "Hunting down the terrorists whereever they hide." ?!?! That's the Bush adm. WHOLE strategy right now. Americans are too smart for that, and as the 9/11 Commission report card showed, NEED better. Democrats need to lead in areas of the big picture where there is need for action and leadership. If the War on Terrorism is anything like the War on Drugs, winning in Iraq is not gonna be the end to the world's problem with terrorism.

The Bush administration has shown itself more than capable of putting its foot in its mouth, mismanaging things, showing its incompetence, being contempuous of world opinion, having complete tunnelvision when it comes to Iraq, thinking that victory in Iraq will solve the entire terrorism problem, etc. Rupublicans are distancing themselves from him, so that come election time it's gonna be about the person running for office, not who's in the executive branch. Democrats are gonna have to show that given the opportunity, their candidates will do a better job than the Republicans.
The war is Bush's responsability as president, a job he will be doing for three more years. It's HIS responsability to do HIS job, not democrats. If we had a democratic commander-in-chief, then Democrats would be responsable for having a well-thought out plan of action.
It is Democrat's responsability to make sure people are doing their job's well. Democrats do need to learn how to better state a position and the reasons for it in a way that it can be communicated through the media and NOT used against them by the RNC. Give sound reasons why a position is good or necessary. Also, beat the RNC at their own games. Their record in the Congress hasn't been anything to write home about. They don't take the pres. of Rumsfeld or anyone to task for turning Iraq into a debacle. If it was managed properly, wouldn't an Iraqi army be in place BY NOW, three years later, and our troops would be coming home. Murtha's plan was/is doable, if only the Bush administration hadn't mismanaged things so badly. And yes, calling people on their mistakes is important so they don't repeat those mistakes. It's called learning, and doing a better job next time.
Regarding Congress, Democrats will be given the chance to follow policies that are more sound and better for Americans, I believe. Right now, make a difference in areas where you can, press for legislation that Americans need, like better Homeland security measures. The president's accountable for his actions, but so are members of Congress, on both sides of the aisle. If Republicans block your legislation, it's gonna be on their shoulders come election time and come the time when Americans wonder who would be a better choice for Americans in the legislative branch. Press for policies and legislation that America needs. It won't be for lack of work on your part if it doesn't pass, and you can point to the inaction on the part of Republicans. But you have to believe, stand for, HOPE for, DO something, because that's what the job requires.
Continue to support our troops and make sure they have the equipment they need. Make sure they're getting the medical care they need. As Democrats you can listen to academics, intellectuals, and others who have a realistic sense of what Iraq will end up as. Straight talk with the American people and make your opinions and policies based on the facts, AND DO YOUR JOBS WELL, and THAT will be a clear distinction from what the president is doing.

Just to make this one point clearer: if the Bush administration hadn't mismanaged Iraq so badly, not putting enough troops in there in the beginning, etc., etc., Murtha's idea of withdrawing American troops would be a realistic reality because they probably would have already gotten the job done of getting an Iraq security force up and running. And after next week's elections some sort of pull out could have happened. That's probably what the history books will show.

Let’s not distract ourselves from Roves latest diversion- the issue is the Iraq War, not whether you have a Christmas tree or holiday bush!

The notion that we are engaged in a War on Terrorism is absurd. Terrorism is a strategy utilized by fragmented groups that have no other recourse. Our actual enemy, post 9/11 is was and is Islamic religious fundamentalism. We shouldn't delude or deceive ourselves and others otherwise.

Given that Iraq was a secular government and opposed to religious fundamentalism Bush's attack has destabilized the country, which now teeters; on the brink of civil war. The rush to war for illegitimate reasons has actually increased American enemy who resent our imperialistic approach and heightened the likelihood of an eventual fundamentalist takeover.

And like in Vietnam, we can stay or spend enough to create or force democracy there. Murtha perception is right on!

Some might admire Bush's determination; I don't. His conceptualization, tactics have all been discredited. Merely staying the course will only prolong everybody's suffering. I say we should accept Bush's refusal to change course and instead look to develop strategies to have him and Cheney forced out.

I am sick and tired of Democrats coming out of the closet and opposing the illegal war. It was illegal when we went, it was illegal when Saddam Husein was deposed and it is still illegal now. People who gave President Shrub the power to go to war without a decleration from congress should all be removed, even if now they see that they made the wrong choice. I marched against the war, I urged our elected officials not to give blanket power to the office of the President. However they did. As a member of the working class, I am tired of some lame ass inteligencia writing me the same form E-mails asking me for money. It is TIME FOR THE DEMOCRATS TO SAY THEY REPRESENT THE WORKING CLASS OR SHUT THE FUCK UP SO WE CANH START TO FEND FOR OURSELVES

The war is NOT illegal. And as Democrats continue to push that crap, we will find ourselves more and more in the minority in Washington, D.C.

So, when we lose seats next year because Howard Dean and Harry Reid cannot shut their mouths without uttering diarrhea, you can all look at yourselves and ask why the American people keep putting the Republicans in control of things.

"instead look to develop strategies to have him and Cheney forced out."

Forced out of where?

Why do you have to sound as delusional as the nuts who keep marching against this war?

How come when Bill Clinton bucked the UN and bombed Serbia, he was cheered? I supported what he did. Was that illegal, too?

Until we shake this party off from its mortal coil of delusional people with their "illegal war" or "impeach Bush" crap, we will lose, and lose, and lose.

And I am tired of it.

I am not sending one thin dime to the DNC or to any Democratic organization until Howard Dean resigns.

He is making me rethink about leaving the party and becoming an Independent.

I agree with Frederic, this backstepping is embarrassing.

Actually, 2/3 of the Democratic Congress opoosed giving Bush the authority to start a war. More than 1/2 of the Democratic Senators voted against giving Bush that authority. Given the evidence that the primary reason for going to war, weapons of mass destruction, is false and was in fact doctored up, I have no problem with Democrats who voted to give Bush the authority regretting that decision. I also have no problem with Democrats insisting on a real exit strategy - Bush has none at all. He may be getting pushed now to bring some troops home but that never was his intention. We all know that Bush wants to establish bases in Iraq and widen the war to Syria and Iran. Who is kidding who? It's all there on the PNAC web site to see.

Give money to the DNC, don't give money to the DNC? Each to their own. But, that has nothing to do with whether I agree or disagree with this war.

Reid and Pelosi are the leadership of the party and I want to hear from them often. Joe-Mentum Lieberman at most speaks for Connecticut voters and himself. I don't think Reid should tell anyone to shut up BUT in fact he didn't do that - that's media / blogosphere spin. Reid simply told Joe-Mentum that his opinion was in the minority. Reid and Pelosi have correctly concluded that this war needs an exit strategy. Joe-Mentum wants to blindly follow Bush. That's his choice, it's up to Connecticut voters to send him a "message" on whether he is accurately representing their opinion.

I don't believe the American public want our troops over in Iraq anymore. And more importantly, they no longer believe they ever NEEDED to be sent over there.

***

That's exactly the point. I don't count it against a politician, of either party, if they were for the war and now are against it. To me, that means they have adjusted to reality.

This war was started based on distorted information. There was no plan at all to secure the peace. In fact, I think all that Bush is interested in is bases in Iraq and spreading the war to Syria and Iran. That is why he didn't care about securing the peace in Iraq. But to his surprise, there was more of an insurgency than he thought so we got bogged down, putting the neocons plans to "Democratize by force" the entire Middle East on hold. If Dems are now just concluding they were lied to, I say it's better now than never. They were lied to and so was the entire nation by an administration that specializes in propaganda and distortion.

Great speech by John Kerry, the man who should have be President, yesterday on Iraq:

Kerry On Iraq

Kerry has come to the right conclusion that staying in Iraq is not an option. He wants benchmarks for troop draw downs and not a precise timetable though he does think we can get 100,000 troops out by the end of 2006.

It's okay to have a debate on exact exit strategy. What isn't okay is what Lieberman is urging - namely, blind allegiance to Bush who has no exit strategy. In fact, Bush's framing of his plan as a victory strategy tells you that Bush wants to stay in Iraq permanently and launch more wars from there.

Therefore, I conclude that Lieberman is also a PNAC hawk who believes in Democratization of the MIddle East by force. I won't speculate on his motivation.

Mr. McMahon:

Why do you tell lies to those who need most to hear the truth? Why do we hold no power in the House, the Senate, or The White House?

It is because most people are not buying what you are selling. It is because Howard Dean, John Kerry, Mutha and Michael Moore do not represent me. I am fading away, without a voice, because you do not give me one. You give voice only to the fringe, the hack, the political profiteer.

You know for a fact that your description of the progress in Iraq is untrue, and I know for a fact that you know it. Yet, you tell your lies.

Why is the white flag ad effective? Because it's true. I do not want to surrender to terror, nor do the majority in our party. So why is surrender our message?

Get it right, or move aside and let someone represent us who can?

flecroy

Given that Iraq was a secular government and opposed to religious fundamentalism Bush's attack has destabilized the country, which now teeters; on the brink of civil war.

Posted by MikeSprint on December 10, 2005 at 12:22 AM

That's the situation exactly...only it has destablizied the whole region. Bush has further the cause of the fundamentalists and Bin Lauden into Egypt and Jordan. Isreal is facing a nuclear Iran with close ties to Iraq on its border. Iraq may already be in a state of civil war but that was going to happen whether we invaded or not. Our staying won't end it.

It makes you wonder what could have happened if we had waited to invade till the weapons inspectors had completed their job.

But I suppose it was just because they were coming up with evidence that contradicted Cheney's intelligence that Rumsfeld urged Bush to act in haste. The neocons didn't want to get so close to their dreams of dominating the Middle East and have to draw back and look foolish.

Funny that is exactly what happened anway. They look stupid.

It also makes you wonder what could have been accomplished if Bush hadn't called North Korea, Iran, and Iraq, an "axis of evil". What did he think he could accomplish by alienating the world community with such an inflamatory remark. He isolated us. It effectively shut us off from anything but a stalmate. This was Karen Hughes' doing...may she rot in hell for advising Bush to say it.

Those who think Murtha, Dean, Pelosi, and Kerry have big mouths should first re-examine the consequences of Bush shooting off his mouth and rashly going off on his own instead of working with the rest of the world who had cooperated with his father in the first Iraq War.

This will be lesson learned #1 in the West Point war primer from now on.

And to those of you who consider Murtha's remarks as heresy...military redeloyents have been used by the smartest of the world's miliary men. Julius Ceasar, Napolean, and Hannibal to name a few had no problem using them. Why can't Bush?

END THE NO-BID CONTRACTS, & END THE WAR!!

I heard about this early in the morning Just Once on NPR, then it was pulled.
So with a little help, I found it! Is this for Real?

If any Dem.'s need money can I suggest:
(This should pretty well verify that the Repug.'s, and this administration don't have a plan! Otherwise why would they be willing to spend 1 Billion of our tax dollars to buy one?)

IRAQ: Strategic City Stabilization Initiative (SCSI)

General Information

Document Type: Grants Notice
Funding Opportunity Number: RFA 267-06-001
Posted Date: Nov 30, 2005
Original Due Date for Applications: Jan 31, 2006
The Request for Application will be issued after December 16, 2005
Current Due Date for Applications: Jan 31, 2006
The Request for Application will be issued after December 16, 2005
Archive Date: Mar 02, 2006
Funding Instrument Type: Cooperative Agreement

Category of Funding Activity: Regional Development

Expected Number of Awards: Not Available.
Estimated Total Program Funding: $1,020,000,000.00
Award Ceiling: $1,320,000,000.00
Award Floor: $1,020,000,000.00
CFDA Number: 98.001 -- USAID Foreign Assistance for Programs Overseas

Cost Sharing or Matching Requirement: No

Eligible Applicants
Unrestricted (i.e., open to any type of entity above), subject to any clarification in text field entitled "Additional Information on Eligibility"
Agency Name
Agency for International Development, Overseas Missions, Iraq (CPA) USAID-Baghdad
Description
The United States Agency for International Development is seeking applications for an Assistance Agreement from qualified sources to design and implement a social and economic stabilization program impacting ten Strategic Cities, identified by the United States Government as critical to the defeat of the Insurgency in Iraq. The number of Strategic Cities may expand or contract over time. USAID plans to provide approximately $1,020,000,000 over two years to meet the objectives of the Program. An additional option year may be considered amounting to $300 million at the discretion of USAID. Funds are not yet available for this program.
Link to Full Announcement
IRAQ: Strategic City Stabilization Initiative (SCSI)
If you have difficulty accessing the full announcement electronically, please contact:
Feurtado, Yvette, Contracting Officer, Phone 962-6-590-6477, Fax 962-6-590-6333, Email yfeurtado@usaid.gov Feurtado, Yvette
Top of Form 1
Bottom of Form 1 Top of Form 2
Bottom of Form 2

It's pretty simple folks, Follow the Money!

Who's getting it? Contractors, Halibuton and Co.
Who else? Artile from Feb. 24th 05, Pres. uncle profits from sale of military contractor's stock, AP Matt Kelley
Who else? Obviously, Tax-Cuts for Wealthy
Faith-based millions, going to Fundamentalist Churches! Little brother Neil Bush and the Moonies! Think that might be why Churches back Bush for Pres. in 04? You don't hear of or see recruiters in Churches do you, yet they receive our tax dollars!

Who else? The Media! Bush and his administration has spent millions, of our dollars putting out propaganda (according to GAO) and other stupid commercials at our expense. Remember all the ads for Social Security privitization? Now for this Medicare Drug program? Totally non-informative, but it cost us tax payers big bucks for PR firms to produce, and bought this admin. good will because the networks made money off it!

END THE NO-BID CONTRACTS, here and in Iraq! Set an end date on them, open them up for International Bidding!

Write YOUR representatives, don't raise the spending ceiling again! Get the deficeit, and spending under control! Make the weathy and religous who put Bush in office pay for his excesive spending! Repeal the Tax-Cuts for the Rich!

Hi All,

This is my first comment. Tom McMahon's e-mails have been coming to my inbox for some time now, alongside those from Tom Hughes, Jim Dean, et alia. I'd become resigned that the only interaction my party wished with me was to be on the receiving end of ponderous public relations style political rhetoric, and then to push the "contributions" link, the only one provided. Well, this one was so outrageous it forced me to find out how to reply.

I've been pretty much focused on researching population nutrition for some time now, but have been noticing the general media perception, probably reflecting that of U.S. voters, that the Democratic Party has nothing much to say about what to do in Iraq.

That seems to be so, if the extent of our message is, "It's been nearly three years since we went into Iraq, and things are getting worse, not better." Let's see if Tom can tell us, when pressed, what "things" he means, beyond body counts and militias? If that is it, we are being led by the nose around our opponent's paddock.

We ARE the ones who are stupid, if just as our opponents might wish, we focus on details of the need meet social violence with force. Is policing the extent of the Democratic Agenda? Is the rule of the billy-club all that is needed to ensure democracy will prevail?

We must climb back out of the egg and into the chicken if democracy is to have any chance, "over there." The most Democratic countries are those where the majority of the population are well educated, adequately fed, healthy, and active.

Those are basic human rights that need support by social services if people don't have them. That is what political parties that believe in democracy stand for. Parties that stand for ignorance don't.

So how come not one Democrat uttered one peep as Republican advisors goaded the transitional government into removing practically every social guarantee from the Transitional Law and replacing it with "Insurance?" Should we have been surprised, when that is exactly the Republican domestic agenda?

The Democratic Party has not questioned the extent of the true franchise in Iraq, beyond mentioning "intimidation." The existence of 200 newspapers is no sign that democracy is breaking out in Iraq, mot when the majority of adults are illiterate! I have a sneaking suspicion Republicans have a hand in keeping that so; and the franchise baldly controlled.

I'm sure you know that Iraq was in a humanitarian crisis during the Oil-for-Food Program. Did you
know that the food distribution remains at practically the same inadequate level as under the former regime? Roughly a quarter of children remain stunted.

Let me cut to the chase. If these problems are rapidly addressed over the next six months, the probability of peace will increase substantially. Every one of them could be addressed in the next six months.

Apparently, the constitution is still amendable. Democrats should campaign strenuously for human rights guarantees to be emplaced in the Iraqui constitution. Not just gender and religion, but the whole hog! How else are the Iraqis going to learn their government is not a puppet? So long as it keeps spouting the White House line it will be a Puppet!

Did you know only ~10 percent of Iraqis graduate from high school? How about some kind of U.S. funded "Guns for Books" program for those young militia? Smacks too much of unemployment compensation to entice Young Republicans, but cutting education is the older ones' choice of mustard!

Need more be said about the food distribution, or health, since it is Republicans who wish to insure all Americans can not have social guarantees? Let's get some eyes on that government and make sure that we are not handing over to Iraq a regime that uses food as a weapon, an oligarchic rather than democratic government.

One final point. Almost one-quarter of Iraqis work in Agriculture. The Republicans charged into Iraq promising to totally dismantle the Iraqi government programs providing support for small farmers and replace them with a market regime. Did you know that what prompted the 1957 revolution in Iraq was the condition of agricultural labor? Iraq is the Fertile Crescent; and that system maintains policies as old Hammurabi. The Republicans favor agrobusiness. No wonder the new government is seen as their puppet!

No problem with our troops, just the regime they are supporting. Sound familiar? That's the real Vietnam analogy.

Want to Win? Get the Republicans out of Iraq! Then We shall have Victory!

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/

bush lied and thousands died

look at the pictures that BUSH'S war has caused, look at the pictures he doesn't want you to see

there was no imminent threat from Iraq

there was a better way to to handle the issues of WMD, the weapons inspectors were doing just fine

i think of all those fine soldiers, marines and sailors who have died in Iraq over a lie, if not for that lie they would all still be here

how many sons and daughters
sisters and brothers
mothers and fathers
friends and loved ones

how many soon to be fathers

how many men who are no longer here and their children who will never be born - the grandchildren that will now never be born

what if they were still here, what great accomplishments would they have made, inventions, medical advancements etc

i am weary and tired of this war

i know, i am just rambling, enough is enough!

I wanted to see the comments on the republican blog, but there was none to be found.

What is the rnc afraid of? Do they think Democrats might pose as "good", regressive republicans and urge the other bretheren to leave the flock? Are they afraid their message would no longer be controlled? Do they think that the regressive imposters might actually be successful at forcing Ken Mehlman to resign? Do they want the public to know how many of their own is turning against this war?

There is a stinch over there and it smells like fear. CHICKENHAWKS! CHICKENHAWKS! CHICKENHAWKS!

I believe the Democrats should use the fact that the Republicans raise more money to their advantage. America is ready to trust the Democratic Party as the party of the people but we do not realize it.

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2005-12-11T081511Z_01_FOR129694_RTRUKOC_0_UK-NUCLEAR-IRAN-ISRAEL.xml

i bet bush/CHENEY are behind this

Israel won't rule out strike on Iran nuclear sites
Sun Dec 11, 2005

INTREPID LIBERAL JOURNAL
www.intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com

REPUBLOCRAT JOE LIEBERMAN
December 10, 2005

I respect Joe Lieberman. As a Jewish American I was proud of Al Gore’s selecting him as the Democratic Vice Presidential candidate in 2000. I thought he conducted himself with dignity and grace but still delivered a good partisan punch when required. In 2004 I respected Lieberman for his authenticity and refusal to pander to Democratic Party activists over the Iraq War. I disagreed with him intensely over his views but there is something to be said for a man demonstrating that kind of strength.

Like all 100 Senators he looks in the mirror and sees someone he believes should be President. He has that singular vanity and ego that epitomize so many in public life. It would have been easy for him to be seduced by that ambition and try pandering his way to the nomination. For example, Senator John Kerry voted for the war yet tried to be the anti-war candidate at the same time. If the war had gone differently I suspect he would have been closer to Lieberman than Howard Dean. Too many Democrats have an authenticity problem in their opposition to President Bush. For five years the Democrats were spinelessly rolled on tax cuts, bankruptcy legislation and the Terry Shiavo situation because of their cowardice to say what they really believe unless the polls tell them it’s OK. Somehow, Senator Lieberman has retained his authenticity while occupying the political center and that merits more than a little respect.

Today Lieberman finds himself in the Democratic Party’s crosshairs and many of my fellow liberals consider him a traitor as the New York Times reported today. Yet I wonder if MoveOn.org’s Tom Matzzie would have demonstrated the same courage Joe Lieberman did in the 1960’s and put himself on the line for civil rights. As a young man, Joe Lieberman went to the deep south to protect the rights of blacks to vote. If you think that was an easy and safe activity for a Jewish person to do, think again. Lieberman was risking his life for a just cause. Would Tom Matzzie have done the same? I have to ask myself if I would have done the same. Ask yourselves that question.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/10/politics/10lieberman.
html?hp&ex=1134277200&en=c3cb220ec4675d69&ei=5094&partner=homepage

However, more than personal respect is required to earn support. Leadership is also about judgment and accountability. Sadly, this good man’s record in recent years is sub-par. First, it was largely through Senator Lieberman’s initiative that the bureaucratic catastrophe known as the Department of Homeland Security was created. Lieberman is the ranking Democrat on the Senate’s Government Affairs Committee. Aided and abetted by Senator Susan Collins of Maine, they rushed an ill- advised reorganization of the Federal government that has further undermined our ability to fight terrorism and respond to disaster. Senator Kennedy correctly referred to it at the time as “re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.” The Bush Administration was actually right to initially oppose the plan but flip-flopped in embracing it because it appeared to accomplish something on the surface. Indeed, President Bush hypocritically exploited the creation of Homeland Security as a wedge to defeat Democrats in the 2002 mid-term elections. As we have seen in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, our response infrastructure has become even less coordinated. The one component of national disaster recovery that used to work well – FEMA – was neutered by the creation of this Department. As Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton recently reported in their independent commission’s final report, both the President and Congress have largely failed to make us safer four years after 9/11. As the ranking Democratic member of the Senate Government Affairs Committee, doesn’t that fall under Senator Lieberman’s bailiwick?

http://www.9-11pdp.org/press/2005-12-05_report.pdf

I also find Lieberman’s assertions troubling that we shouldn’t question the President’s credibility regarding the Iraq War. We have more than enough evidence to at least be suspicious that the Bush Administration misled the country in a war of choice. Lieberman’s position that questioning Bush only will undermine his credibility at our “peril” because he has three years left in his term is flat wrong. The fact that Bush has so much time left in his Presidency demands that he be held accountable. As we have already seen, an unchallenged Bush without proper oversight has put this country in tremendous peril. Already we’re seeing some positive results from a more aggressive Democratic posture: Bush has responded to Congressman Murtha and is listening to the Pentagon more about exiting Iraq; Secretary of State Rice retreated somewhat on our policy of detainees while in Europe; and the President has finally acknowledged mistakes in the early stages of the war - a necessary first step to reach a an exit strategy consensus. Does anybody believe that could have happened without the Democrats finally behaving like an opposition party? If anything the Democrats have been too supplicant.

Domestically Lieberman was too willing to sell out on Social Security and ready to undermine the Democrats efforts to stand up to Bush earlier this year. He also aided and abetted the downgrading of accounting standards responsible for the Enron type scandals that have caused so much harm to the middle class. Finally, there is the bankruptcy legislation that passed earlier this year at the behest of the banking and credit card industry and at great harm to struggling families. Lieberman opted for two-faced behavior as he released a press release denouncing the new law yet supported the Republican parliamentary tactics on cloture in order to serve his contributors from the banking and credit card industry. I’ll write more about the new bankruptcy law and the Democrats complicity in its passage in a future post. For the time being let me just say that any Democrat who supported it by their votes on the floor or through parliamentary shenanigans as Lieberman did, deserves to be challenged in a primary. Lieberman is a good man. But he also appears to have lost touch with the modest working class roots that he came from.

Joe Lieberman has become what I label a “Republocrat”. A Republocrat is someone who politically seeks to benefit from the Democratic label but undermines progressive values. If I were a Connecticut resident he would not have my vote.

Let's get rid of the so called Democrats that hurt our party by causing divisions or dwelling on the few mistakes in the past?

Let them be history like many Republicans of which Newt Gingridge is one?

As we are perfectly joined together in one mind, let us realize this is Gods words for an organized, successful party?

Posted by TomSongs at December 9, 2005 05:32 PM
------------------------------

I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE DNC AND THE 2008 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE USE THIS AS THE THEME SONG



Enterprise Main Title
Available on the Broken Bow soundtrack
Lyrics by Diane Warren
Vocal by Russell Watson

Extended Version

It´s been a long road, getting from there to here.
It´s been a long time, but my time is finally near.
And I can feel the change in the wind right now. Nothing´s in my way.
And they´re not gonna hold me down no more, no they´re not gonna hold me down.

Cause I´ve got faith of the heart.
I´m going where my heart will take me.
I´ve got faith to believe. I can do anything.
I´ve got strength of the soul. And no one´s gonna bend or break me.
I can reach any star. I´ve got faith, I´ve got faith, faith of the heart.

It´s been a long night. Trying to find my way.
Been through the darkness. Now I finally have my day.
And I will see my dream come alive at last. I will touch the sky.
And they´re not gonna hold me down no more, no they´re not gonna change my mind.

Cause I´ve got faith of the heart.
I´m going where my heart will take me.
I´ve got faith to believe. I can do anything.
I´ve got strength of the soul. And no one´s gonna bend or break me.
I can reach any star. I´ve got faith, faith of the heart.

I´ve known the wind so cold, and seen the darkest days.
But now the winds I feel, are only winds of change.
I´ve been through the fire and I´ve been through the rain.
But I´ll be fine.

Cause I´ve got faith of the heart.
I´m going where my heart will take me.
I´ve got faith to believe. I can do anything.
I´ve got strength of the soul. And no one´s gonna bend or break me.
I can reach any star. I´ve got faith.

I´ve got faith of the heart.
I´m going where my heart will take me.
I´ve got strength of the soul. And no one´s gonna bend or break me.
I can reach any star. I´ve got faith, I´ve got faith, faith of the heart.

It´s been a long road.

Television Version

It´s been a long road, getting from there to here.
It´s been a long time, but my time is finally near.
And I will see my dream come alive at last. I will touch the sky.
And they´re not gonna hold me down no more, no they´re not gonna change my mind.

Cause I´ve got faith of the heart.
I´m going where my heart will take me.
I´ve got faith to believe. I can do anything.
I´ve got strength of the soul. And no one´s gonna bend or break me.
I can reach any star. I´ve got faith, I´ve got faith, faith of the heart.

I'd become resigned that the only interaction my party wished with me was to be on the receiving end of ponderous public relations style political rhetoric, and then to push the "contributions" link, the only one provided.

Gee, Recognon, I'm sorry you couldn't be bothered to actually read the emails beyond looking for a link to click. Then maybe you would have read about having a kickoff party to organize your neighbors for the 2006 campaign, or getting involved with your local party, or any of the myriad other things your party could use you to be doing other than being "on the receiving end." I'm afraid no one's figured out yet how to make taking back the government as easy a clicking on a link.

It's sure easier to bitch about things that have happened in Iraq "without a peep from the Democrats," and to say that the Democrats don't have any "ideas" if you can't be bothered to look up what what they've actually said, and just rely on what you're spoonfed.

I can agree with lots of what you say about what should be done in Iraq in the next six months, but guess what? The Democrats aren't going to be in charge of Iraq policy in the next six months. And as you've so clearly demonstrated, Democratic ideas are ignored by the media and treated with hostility by the Administration. So let's not pretend that we have to get of our ideas implemented in order to win, because that's not going to happen, and do the hard work of kicking the bastards out so we can start getting the mess cleaned up afterwards.