Many words these days about Doubleduh and denial. But what about the Left's denial?
We've now wasted two+ years and not a whisper of a viable third party. The Greens? Fuggedaboudit. Libertarian? I don't think so.
In this vacuum, there seems to be no choice left to the Left but to to cheer the possibility that the Democratic Party will regain a congressional majority in a few weeks. Speaker Pelosi? Just sends shivers up my spine.
May I recommend "America's 'other' War Party" by Mike Whitney at Information Clearing House. Excerpt:
The giddiness among Democrats about their prospects for a sweep in both Houses of Representatives has reached a level of absolute euphoria. But what exactly are the voters are hoping for?
A speedy exit from Iraq?
John Walsh posted a great article on counterpunch.org; “Election 2006: The Fix is already In”, which outlines the grim facts about “candidate selection” in the Democratic Party. The Democratic leadership has no intention of extracting us from the bloody mess in Babylon and they have methodically rooted-out the bothersome antiwar-types from their pool of potential candidates. As Walsh points out, nearly 8 out of every 10 Democrats (78%) want an immediate or partial withdrawal of troops from Iraq. That, of course, makes no difference to the DLC-powerbrokers who have thrown their bucks behind candidates who are completely divorced from the convictions of the party faithful.
As Walsh says:
“64% of the Democratic candidates in the 45 closely contested House Congressional races OPPOSE a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. Note carefully: not only do these Democratic worthies oppose the Murtha or McGovern bills for rapid withdrawal or defunding the war; they oppose as much as a timetable….The position of these Dem candidates is indistinguishable from that of George W. Bush”.
Prediction: The Democrats will never get us out of Iraq nor will they repeal the Patriot Act or the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (which allows Bush to imprison American citizens without charges and torture them according to his own discretion)
The party has been co-opted by a pro-business, liberty-slashing, war-mongering clique of free traders who simply feel they can put a better face on imperial politics.
No argument there; but for anyone with a trace of a conscience, the prospect of voting for a party that may slaughter another half-million or so Iraqis presents some basic ethical problems. Is it too sanctimonious to suggest that the war in Iraq is MORALLY EVIL, and that any policy or party that supports the conflict must be flatly rejected?
Ahhh yes; time to don the body-armor and protective headgear that one needs whenever they make disparaging remarks about the Democratic Party. It’s never healthy to take aim at the emasculated phonies who run America’s “other” war party.
Regrettably, the Democratic Party is only slightly different from the GOP. That’s not pessimism; it’s realism. We need to be clear about the magnitude of the task in front of us if we expect to have any hope of restoring our personal liberties and ending the butchery in Iraq.
Despite the dramatic shift-away from the Republican Party, Bush and Co. must have something up their sleeves for the mid-terms. After all, the Eisenhower carrier group is steaming towards the Gulf for a possible confrontation with Iran; so the fur could fly at any minute.
It seems improbable that Bush would allow a takeover in the House and Senate knowing that unpleasant investigations into 9-11, war crimes, and executive abuses of power could quickly follow.
So, what’s he up to?
Who knows? But we do know that the present occupants of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. are high-stakes gamblers who are bound to roll-the-dice to keep their chestnuts out of the bonfire.
Something is bound to snap, and fairly soon, too. Bush and Cheney didn’t assemble all the levers of tyrannical rule (including the repeal of habeas corpus, due process, and the laws banning cruel and unusual punishment) just to transfer that authority to Democratic leaders in the congress. That simply won’t happen.
The Democrats are headed into the elections fairly confident that they can regain a place at the political table and have their voices heard on the conduct of the war. They have no intention of leaving Iraq. They simply want to change directions and minimize the damage to America’s long-term interests. Their strategy is probably similar to the (forthcoming) recommendations of James Baker’s “Iraq Study Group”. In fact, I’d be surprised if leaders on both sides of the aisle haven’t already collaborated on the details to make it more palatable to Bush . . .Look, uh, lemme give yuh a clue, OK? What blog/web site is most representative of the neoliberal/neoprogressive "community"? Well, dKos, right? Read this, from Kos's FAQ . . .
There are some times when you will want to delete a diary. To do so, click on the 'Edit Diary' link next to the diary title. Down at the bottom of the edit screen, there are a set of buttons and a checkbox labelled 'Confirm Deletion'. Select the checkbox, and then click the 'Delete' button. If you don't select the checkbox, the 'Delete' button won't work; this is to protect against accidental deletion.
When should diaries be deleted? If there are two (or more) near-identical diaries on the same subject, people will request that all but one be deleted. This often happens when a news story breaks, and several diaries are posted consisting of a link to the story and a few quotes from the AP wire. Please consider deletion if your diary isn't the first diary to break the news. Front-page posters will sometimes delete diaries if there are too many covering exactly the same content. Additionally, sometimes diary authors just have second thoughts about posting a particular diary. Don't delete a diary just because a discussion in the comments has gone off in some direction you don't like.
Controversial Diary Topics
Diaries on certain topics are likely to generate angry responses. Most of these topics fall under the general heading of "conspiracy theories", i.e. "JFK was killed by Martians". The rule for posting such diaries is "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". The more extreme the claim, the higher the burden of proof that commenters will demand. If you can't provide evidence to back up your claim, it is best not to post the diary. This guideline also applies to recommending extraordinary-claims diaries. If a diary makes an extreme claim with little or no evidence to back up that claim, it shouldn't be recommended, no matter what that claim is.
Some people have been confused by the above discussion. Let me make it perfectly plain. Diaries advancing 'Conspiracy Theories' are subject to ridicule and derision from the community at the very least. Repeat offenders can and will be banned.
Here is what kos has to say-
The conspiracists by kos
Fri Jul 08, 2005
Today I did something I've never done before (not even during the Fraudster mess), and wish I'd never had to do.
I made a mass banning of people perpetuating a series of bizarre, off-the-wall, unsupported and frankly embarassing conspiracy theories.
I have a high tolerance level for material I deem appropriate for this site, but one thing I REFUSE to allow is bullshit conspiracy theories. You know the ones -- Bush and Blair conspired to bomb London in order to take the heat off their respective political problems. I can't imagine what fucking world these people live in, but it sure ain't the Reality Based Community.
So I banned these people, and those that have been recommending diaries like it. And I will continue to do so until the purge is complete, and make no mistake -- this is a purge.
This is a reality-based community. Those who wish to live outside it should find a new home. This isn't it.
Update: I've been reinstating some of the banned accounts as they email me. Some people wondered why there wasn't any warning. There have been warnings from others -- repeated pleadings for people to ground themselves in reality.
It's telling that I have NEVER done something like this before. Because this has been an extreme situation. This isn't about disagreeing with what people are saying. If that was the case, everyone would've been banned by now. The myth of the "echo chamber" is just that. A myth.
But as for warnings, well, this has been my warning. I wanted it clear that I was serious, and I think that has come through. I am reinstating those who ask to be reinstated. But the message has been sent.
But, what about Freedom of Speech?
Doesn't the First Amendment give me the right to talk about whatever I want here?
No. Daily Kos is owned by kos. The servers are his. He pays the bandwidth charges. He makes the rules; we are here as his guests. If he decides tomorrow that anyone not posting in iambic pentameter will be banned, your options are either to brush up on your poetry skills or find/start another forum.
Controversial 9/11 Diaries
DailyKos accepts that the 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by agents of Al-Qaeda. It is forbidden to write diaries that:
1. refer to claims that American, British, Israeli, or any government assisted in the attacks
2. refer to claims that the airplanes that crashed into the WTC and Pentagon were not the cause of the damage to those buildings or their subsequent collapse
Authoring or recommending these diaries may result in banning from Daily Kos.I remember Ronnie Reagan asserting, "I paid for this microphone", and I see no difference between this and Kos's tone and The Doublefuh-Cheney Gang giving us the perpetual finger, do you?
[Go right to Part 2]
Categories: elections, Democrats, betrayal, Iraq, fascism
Before you leave, please visit the P! Amazon Store and vote in the lastest P!oll