The abductions and beheadings were used to counter balance Abu Garib and as an excuse for the US Fallujih attacks. For me the timing and the character of those events were just too perfect to have not been orchistrated.
I wonder if the poll results will line up on those counter events as well.
I am not at all as optimistic as you are about the torture issue tipping the US population against the war to the point where the public will impress their will on the Bush administration against its policies.
Further, I do not see the political cost impacting Bush, or AG nominee Gonzales from getting whatever they want at the moment. Rumsfield is taking the brunt of the criticism, but I don't yet see a forced exit for Rumsfield.
I have hoped that things would work out differently than they did in the struggle to end the Vietnam intervention, (it took about 5 years) but unfortunately now I believe with the corporate mass media under even more strict control and the constant propaganda about it as thick as tar, I don't see movment as you hope for until the pain of the American people from battle field deaths and injuries and the un-ending assignments moves the public en mass against the war.
This includes the very possible spreading of hostilities to Iran and Syria, which as we all know is the neo-con agenda.
I also believe the continuing leaks by the intelligence agencies about Bush administration complicity in the approval and formulation of the abuse policy will be ineffective in bringing the end any closer.
Also, there are elements in the intelligence agencies that will stage abductions or even 9/11 type events to get the public back on the side of blind, deaf and dumb vengence against our allegid enemies, rather than mobilize support against it.
The Bush administration got support from the mass media on every lie and justification they put forward for the war, WMD, catching Saddam will end the violence in Iraq, the elections and democracy will change the situation on the ground, etc, etc.
And it worked for them on 9/11, (9/11 commission whitewash included) no doubt if they need to do a new taylor made 9/11 event, it will be executed to meet their need for public support, it will be contextually appropriate and formualted to regenerate and bolster support for the Bush policies.
Your afraid that if Democrats appear obstuctionist they have something left to lose.
You are wrong they have nothing left to lose, especially with the corporate media. Trying to please the biased corporate media is a totally losing stratagy.
Not appearing obstructionist and issuing mealy mouthed nuanced messages is exactly the Democrats problem, and this problem originates in their own self issued statements AND TONE, it does not originate with the biased media.
Summarizing these very important points again;
This is the Bush era.
You have to speak plainly and directly.
Your remarks must be forcefull and un-ambiguous.
You have to take clear and simple stands one way or the other on the issues and stand by them.
Attempting to straddle the fence isn't working anymore, its interpreted as weakness.
If you have values and policy stands on the issues say simply what they are un-ambiguously and don't attempt to please all ten sides of an issue.
Further, (no disrespect intended) to you personally but you do not have the complete background to fully understand and appreciate the Pelosi remarks because you did not hear them made.
I did. I heard them on C-SPAN.
I have no doubt that a fair estimation of those remarks would reflect the tone of an intent for increased concilliation in the face of the apparent 2004 election results by Pelosi.
In fact I'll go further to say that none of her positions were new, but the tone and the intent of that new tone were her main intent. The main thing that was new that she wanted to convey in the press conference was the new tone of concilliation.
Don't believe me look it up on C-SPAN yourself.
Also, my friend, I am compelled to say, (please) get a backbone yourself. Stop bitching about my characterizations of your words.
You seem to have the same problem all these crappy so called Democratic leaders have, you can't take a punch and you can't stand up for yourself in a fight, a couple of exchanges back and forth and your running away from the fight, just like John Kerry did in Ohio and Florida after saying for months, "Every vote must count and every vote will be counted", but we needed the Green Party to take the initiatvie on that failed Kerry promise.
Im sorry, I do not want to be disrespectful but you do not appear to have what it takes to point the way out of this mess the Democrats have got themselved into. What I mean exacly by this is that your repition of the consensus viewpoint is exactly what is wrong with the Democratic party.
But don't worry about it, the Democrats are not going to take my advice or anything like it which has been said now for years, by it must have been said by millions of dissatisifed people like myself but still not heard by the Democratic Party establishment.
So, I am saying this again to THEM, If anyone truely wants to help the Democrats, stop whinning, stop running away from the fights that are INEVITABLY going to come your way. No one wants to have a converstion, or be lead by a mealy mouth compromising whinner (admittedly my characterization of their behaviour).
All the GOP and Bush have to do is raise the specter of a tough stand and the Democrats issue conpromising nuanced remarks and then run away.
This isn't a winning message, its just more opportunistic position mongering.
She needs to say that the Democratic Party is 100% opposed to Social Security reform that will compromise the interests of the majority of Americans who need and rely on the program.
I listened to the press session where these remarks were made, or where nearly the same position statements as you have presented were made by Speaker Pelosi.
Despite what you may think or genuinely understand the words to mean, Pelosi's tone was more compliant and concilliatory than I had ever heard her use before. And she can be very tough when she wants to be.
She gave the clear impression that despite these objections the Democratic caucuss would seriously consider any Bush proposal for Social Security reform he cared to make.
We live in a world where the Pelosi remarks will be interpreted as mealy mouthed and compromising.
We need Democratic leaders to say bluntly that Bush's remarks about the health of the social security system are FALSE. Plain and simple.
We need the Democratic leadership to say bluntly that they are going to totally oppose and fight any prosposal which has the potential to compromise the Social Security program.
They need to say they are against the Bush proposals and will fight them tooth and nail.
Everything short of this sort of very strong stand against the Bush proposales will be dismissed as more compromising and compliance with the Bush agenda.
Pelosi's remarks are weak and they are too nuanced for the American public and press.
If you had seen the press conference you would understand my characterization of the tone in which these remarks were made.
The same was true of her remarks about GOP legislation that would compromise a woman's choice.
You do not give any indication that you saw this or other recent similar press conferences, try looking them up on C-SPAN which may have them available still for viewing.
I sincerely believe you will see that these remarks were made in one of the most concilliatory tones Pelosi has ever used.
In my view this is going 180 degrees in the wrong direction.
We need the Democratic Party to fight for our interests if they are going to represent us. They are not doing this, they are still compromising and issuig the same sort of mealy mouthed half hearted statements you have presented.
In this Bush eara you have to be blunt and speak very planly and forcefully without any measure of concilliation and this is one of the huge lessons the Democrats have not learned, they go on with their concillitory and compromising ways, losing support and credibility from the public inch by inch.
In spite of all this it seems the Democrats have not learned anything.
They apparently now seem to believe a more compliant stand against Social Security "reform" and against "pro-life" legislation is justified based on the election results. Judging by minority speaker Pelosi's recent appearances.
This is 100% wrong, but this seems to be where they are now headed.
You have hit the nail directly head-on with this commentary.
I would add that I am just as disgusted with Senators like my own, Feinstein, who talks up a great storm against the Bush agenda but then votes for it anyway, just about down the line, with the exception of the judicial nominations.
She is a great Senator, and probably no one works harder at their job, but every time she votes for the Bush agenda, she puts another nail in the Democratic Party coffin.
When Bush first stole office I took the time to write every Democratic senator asking them not to support Bush in any way. I made the point that Bush had no support for his agenda, and that not supporting him was the far more patriotic thing to do.
But the Democrats took the other tactic and now four years later we see the results, nothing but a constant decline for the Democratic Party. In the minds of most people they seem to stand for nothing, have no guiding principles, are universally political opportunists, and their agenda is dead.
Yet, Jerome as you point out, in true point of fact the GOP - Bush agenda is not supported by the American people.
When is it going to sink in?
One other point, not only do we not need the compromiser "leaders" like the Dashels, and Gephardts (great guy otherwise), but also egotisical buffoons like Biden do more harm than good as well. So does Feinstein do much harm, but with some prodding she is probably re-habilitatable.
"What makes you think that after the DNC did virtually nothing, as little as possible in the face of obvious election tampering, election fraud and yet another stolen election that people are going to fall in line and vote for whichever candidate you put up in the next election?"
"What makes you think that after doing virtually nothing to stop rampant job outsourcing for more than a decade that the millions of un-employed who are deliberately ignored by the government and both political parties are going to support your party?"
"What makes you think that after voting for the Bush agenda down the line that people actually are stupid enough to continue to believe there is any real or meaningful difference between Democrats and Republicans?
11/07/04 "UUA News" -- You may wonder why anyone would try to use the word "fascism" in a serious discussion of where America is today. It sounds like cheap name-calling, or melodramatic allusion to a slew of old war movies. But I am serious. I don't mean it as name-calling at all. I mean to persuade you that the style of governing into which America has slid is most accurately described as fascism, and that the necessary implications of this fact are rightly regarded as terrifying. That's what I am about here. And even if I don't persuade you, I hope to raise the level of your thinking about who and where we are now, to add some nuance and perhaps some useful insights.
American democracy hangs by a thread in Ohio
by Bob Fitrakis, Steve Rosenfeld and Harvey Wasserman
December 15, 2004
As the whole world watches, American democracy may be hanging by a thread in Ohio.
Monday, December 13, saw a triple play that will live in electoral infamy. But every new day brings still more stunning revelations -- this time from Toledo -- of vote theft and fraud and a towering wall of resistance and sabotage against a fair recount of the votes that allegedly gave George W. Bush four more years in the White House.
Three major events made December 13 a monument to electoral theft: a lawsuit filed in the morning at the Ohio State Supreme Court demanding a recount of all Ohio ballots; a Congressional hearing held in Columbus City Council chambers filled with angry, high-profile testimony of vote fraud and disenfranchisement and the illegal sabotaging of a recount; and then, at noon, a block away at the statehouse, the vote of Ohio's twenty illegitimate electors designating their choice of George W. Bush to be president.
On Tuesday, demonstrators staged the latest in a long string of protests at the statehouse. And at an evening hearing in Toledo, stunning new sworn testimony revealed that Diebold technicians have tainted official voting machines before a recount could be done, irrevocably compromising the process.
The December 13 lawsuit was filed in the presence of Rev. Jesse Jackson, who compared it to the attempts to win voting rights for African-American citizens in the era of Dr. Martin Luther King.
I agree with your comments to a degree, but here are some counter points;
the system is so powerful you have to fight it in any case so a third way has to involve one of the two-existing ways
most people are so ingrained (read propagandized) they do not have the objectivity to see what IS happening around them (in the US).
For example, we just allowed the GOP/Bush to steal another election, but the mass media is falsely telling us he got more votes, and the Democratic establishment is caving in. As is this web site, even in the face of a poll from its subscribers that the site was not devoting enough coverage to the stolen election.
Political resistance, organizational change, take overs and boycotts will work they are just not going to happen overnight.
Ever third way technique you can describe will instantly be absorbed by the first two-ways if it is a usefull technique at all, and it will instantly morph into something more useable if it is not so useful as you describe it.
During the 2004 race, I heard the comment made many times that in contrast to the GOP which has an apparently well defined set of stands on issues (in truth there are some divisions between GOP conservatives and the actual policies of GWBush) while Democrats in the minds of many do not have well defined policies.
Democrats are tolerant of diversity, and I peronsally support that but it appears that some of our problems in deciding on a DNC chair are relected in the schism beteween the clique which has dominated the democratic party and its traditional consituency groups.
I personally agree much more with the perspective of labor, minorities, environmentalists, and those groups seeking their full civil and legal rights than I do agree with the group which has taken the party to "the center".
I do not want jobs exported, no politician has the right to give away anyones job - PERIOD.
Also, I am as against the war in Iraqi as you can possibly imagine,
I am for full civil and legal rights for every citizen (against discrimination by sexual orientation),
I do not want to compromise with the GOP on any issue whasoever, to any degree at all - EVER!!!
We need to stand up for OUR beliefs and policies not compromise in a vain hope to get a few votes from people who will NEVER vote for Democrats.
There are way more of us than them in any case, we just need to prevent them from stealing elections - as they have been doing sucessfully now in 2000 and 2004.
[I would do everything legal to stop their intimidation of our voters, for example, the Ohio courts said its legal to challange voters, I would therefore mount a full scale effort to challenge THIER voters, turn about is fair play, and trying to be NICE about it is a PROVEN Loser technique, with too much at stake - I would not suppot any illegal technique, but we need to start plying hardball with them and just use whatever techniques they use against us which the courts insist in case after case, siding with the GOP say is legal. We don't need to test these issues one more time only to be told once more the court supports the GOP technique which we know they use to intimidate voters, we need to start using the technique our selves. If we had challanged 175,000 of their voters in Ohio, Kerry would be the president - elect.
We also need to pro-actively start going after their players, taking them off the chess board one by one. We all know they are thieves and liars, time to start taking them out as a proactive stratagy.]
So, my point is, selecting a DNC chair is ultimately tied up with
our stands of the issues, and
who is going to control the party
We also need to have the policy discussions at this point and my side of the party needs to make it clear we are totally, and I mean totally fed up with this decade long trend towards bastardization of what the Democratic Party should stand for.
We need to depose the "elite" democrats who supported NAFTA and who compromise with the GOP at every turn, or who attempt to bribe the GOP constituency with facile compromises, and give the Democratic Party back to people like myself who do not want a GOP-Lite version of the Democratic Party.
only now when it affects their personal power are they willing to do something.
Millions of jobs lost, record levels of forclosures bankruptcies, poverty rising for four years in a row, 100's of thousands of Iraqi killed in a war for greater oil business profits for Haliburton, close to 30,000 seriously wounded, 1100 killed US soldiers in Iraq, a set of domestic policies worthy of the 14th century christian-taliban,
and now, only when it affects THIER personal power do they discuss messing things up.