Pushing Democrats in an Antiwar Direction

There are plenty of anti-war Democrats running in today's primary elections in states across the country. There are even a few anti-war Republicans -- most notably Rhode Island Senator Lincoln Chafee. But few have done a better job than John Sarbanes, a frontrunner for an open U.S. House seat representing Maryland's 3rd District, of articulating the position that the opposition party should be taking with regard to George Bush's war.

While he asserts that, "It is long overdue for the Bush Administration to provide Congress and the American people with a concrete plan for bringing our troops home," Sarbanes pulls no punches with regard to his own party.

"The Democratic leadership in Congress must take action immediately – that means today – by petitioning the President to deliver to the appropriate committees in Congress within thirty days two proposed disengagement plans for Iraq: one that would bring our troops home within six months; the other that would bring them home within twelve months," says Sarbanes, a lawyer who is the son of retiring U.S. Senator Paul Sarbanes. "In making this request, Democrats should make it clear that they will use all substantive and procedural leverage available to them to force delivery of the plans, including resisting the President's budget priorities. As long as the Pentagon and the Defense Department resist providing concrete scenarios for disengaging our troops, it is impossible to evaluate the risks and benefits of any particular course of action. The Bush Administration must get its head out of the Iraqi sand and offer the American people a meaningful plan for bringing our troops home."

Bluntly rejecting the charge that supporters of a withdrawal timeline want to "cut-and-run," Sarbanes argues that a timeline is essential to getting the Iraqis to stand up so that Americans can stand down. "Setting a timetable for disengagement of our troops will send a clear message to the members of the Iraqi parliament, and will force them to make the compromises necessary to govern, and that they must do so quickly," argues Sarbanes.

"That requirement is inherent in our request that the Bush Administration deliver a six-month and twelve-month disengagement proposal," he adds. "In the past three years, there have been three elections in Iraq. Despite this fact, the Iraqis have yet to create a functional government. Although the Iraqis elected a parliament in January, the various ethnic groups within the parliament will have to make many difficult compromises in order to establish a stable government that is responsive to the needs of the Iraqi people. Their recent selection of a prime minister is a positive development, although we cannot overlook the fact that it took the parliament over four months to accomplish this task. The Iraqi parliament must exhibit a greater sense of urgency in standing up an effective government. Iraqi officials are less likely to do so if they believe that U.S. troops are going to remain in Iraq in large numbers for the foreseeable future."

Sarbanes is not the only anti-war contender in the race to replace U.S. Representative Ben Cardin, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for Maryland's open Senate seat. For instance, another leading contender, state Senator Paula Hollinger calls the war "a catastrophic failure" and promises to "hold the Bush administration accountable for its actions." Complaining that, "in spite of the incompetence of the Bush administration, Congress continues to defer to the White House on the war," Hollinger pledges to call "for hearings to investigate the abuses of power perpetrated by the Bush administration and for the firing of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld."

It is his determination to light a fire under own party that distinguishes Sarbanes. This year is likely to produce a number of new Democratic members of the House, and many of them will promise to challenge President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. But anyone who has watched Congress over the past five years understands that, before the Bush administration can be held accountable, the Democrats have to decide to operate as an opposition party. Only when Democrats have the wisdom and the courage to articulate a clear anti-war position will they begin to steer the debate in Washington. Sarbanes gets credit for recognizing this.

Keep an eye on how he does today if you want a sense of whether a Democratic takeover of the House this fall will lead to a genuine course correction -- for the party and the country.

Keep an eye, as well, on some of the many other races where anti-war messages are in play. Some of the most interesting of these include:

* The Maryland Senate race, where former NAACP executive director Kweisi Mfume has been far more aggressive in his opposition to the war than Cardin. Mfume's focus on the cost of the war is especially noteworthy. "The billions of dollars being spent to wage this war continue to distort our priorities and drain our economy of much needed resources," the former congressman argues. "We don't ever seem to have the money that we need when it comes to driving down the cost of health care or driving up the quality of our public schools, because we are throwing so much of it into this war."

* Maryland's 4th Congressional District, where veteran activist Donna Edwards has come on strong at the close of her Democratic primary challenge to complacent incumbent Albert Wynn. With fresh endorsements from the Washington Post, the major newspaper in the district, and the region's Teamsters, Edwards is clearly credible. And she is closing with a strong anti-war message in a race against a Democrat who she blisters for "casting his lot with Bush and the Republicans on such critical issues as Iraq..."

* Minnesota's 5th Congressional District, where Democrat Olav Martin Sabo is retiring. Several of the candidates in the crowded Democratic primary have articulated anti-war positions. Of the frontrunners, the most aggressive is state Representative Keith Ellison, who says, "I am calling for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. I opposed the war before it began; I was against this war once it started and I am the only candidate calling for an immediate withdrawal of troops."

* Arizona's 8th Congressional District, where Republican incumbent Jim Kolbe is stepping down. The Democratic field is crowded and Jeff Latas lacks the funding and the name recognition of several of the other candidates. But the retired Air Force fighter pilot is a compelling contender. The recipient of the Distinguished Flying Cross for Heroism, four Air Medals, four Meritorious Service Medals, and nine Aerial Achievement Medals, and the father of an Iraq War vet, Latas says:

The Army sent my 19-year-old son to boot camp for three months, and then to truck driver school for two months, and then declared him fully trained to risk his life for Iraq. Yet in 3 years, they have trained only one out of 15 battalions of Iraqi soldiers to defend their own country. Something isn't right about that. It is time for us to leave Iraq to the Iraqi people.

* Insisting on separation of powers and the responsibility of Congress for declarations of war. Congress must never again give the President blanket authority to go to do what he deems necessary and then be required to allocate funds to support troops that the President has sent to war.

Latas is one of a number of candidates in today's primaries who are endorsed by Progressive Democrats of America, the party's most energetic anti-war pressure group. Others include: Arizona congressional candidates Herb Paine and Mike Caccioppoli and incumbent Raul Grijalva, a PDA advisory board member; New York congressional candidates John Hall and Chris Owens; and Rhode Island U.S. Senate candidate Carl Sheeler. Maryland candidates Mfume and Edwards are also backed by PDA. While many of these contenders face tough races, none has taken on a more daunting task than PDA-endorsed candidate Jonathan Tasini.

Tasini's opponent in today's New York Democratic Senate primary, Hillary Clinton, has all the advantages of incumbency, celebrity and her vaunted fund-raising prowess. All Tasini has is his position on the war. "My position is a responsible one," says Tasini, "the troops must be brought home now. It is the best solution for our country and for Iraq. I reject the myths that have been promoted against proponents of withdrawal." Locked out of the debates and afforded scant coverage by the media, Tasini has still been a factor in forcing Clinton to moderate what had been a militantly pro-war stance. No matter what vote he gets today, his candidacy will has played a role in moving the Democratic Party toward the opposition position that it must assert if it is to gain the upper hand in this year's political debate and the Congress that will be chosen in November.

Comments (67)

1. First a side-note....Don't you know that more than anybody (even Clinton Admin folks on Sunday) that last night's "Path to 9/11" drove guys like PLUNGER, RESE, SAL, etc. nutty....for showing actual Al Queda hijackers being responsible for the 9/11 attacks...

   and not "Mossad agents with thermite planting charges"! (hehe)

   On topic-----again with Tasini, Mr Nichols?

   Why don't you ask the REAL question about him...."Why has Move On not supported Jonathan Tasini the same way they supported Ned Lamont?"

   Answer.....well, it's not a "pretty" answer....because "Move On" was established for Bill Clinton and is run by fans of the Clintons.

   Despite all the "purity" and "growing anti-war activism" and "resurgence of progressives"...SOME things don't transcend politics and connections.

   Posted by Mask at 09/12/2006 @ 06:59am

2. MASK:

   Apparently you did not see the disclaimer that ABC was compelled to run frequently during their DRAMATIZATION.

   That pretty much says it all.

   Prove that Bin Laden exists.

   Prove that ANYONE with an Arab name was on ANY flight manifest that day.

   Provide links to prove it.

   Posted by plunger at 09/12/2006 @ 07:11am

3. Posted by PLUNGER 09/12/2006 @ 07:11am

   PLUNGER, like I asked the poster "SAL" yesterday...

   What EXACTLY is the difference between what you believe and the basis for it (and denial of all facts against it)....

   and a fundamentalist Christian who believes in "creationism"?

   Posted by Mask at 09/12/2006 @ 07:30am

4. Mask:

   I specifically demanded that you provide facts.

   Prove the existence of Bin Laden.

   Prove that ANY ARAB was aboard ANY aircraft involved in 9/11.

   Provide any link to prove any of this fantasy.

   Stop deflecting...answer these questions.

   Posted by plunger at 09/12/2006 @ 07:46am

5. no sane person is pro-war

   Posted by Will C. at 09/12/2006 @ 08:35am

6. PLUNGER...."prove that evolution happened"...hmmm?

   (BTW, to the rest, YES, I believe in evolution...making a point about the "true believers" of ANY nuttiness!)

   Posted by Mask at 09/12/2006 @ 09:06am

7. no sane person is pro-war

   Posted by WILL C. 09/12/2006 @ 08:35am

   Agreed. But obviously unless you are a total pacifist, most would support wars like the American Civil War or World War-II, true?

   Posted by Mask at 09/12/2006 @ 09:07am

8. Agreed. But obviously unless you are a total pacifist, most would support wars like the American Civil War or World War-II, true?

   Posted by MASK 09/12/2006 @ 09:07am

   Sane people fight wars. We also like to declare them. Or at the very least act as a member of some internationally recognized coalition. This shows the world that we aren't... you know... crazy

   Posted by Will C. at 09/12/2006 @ 09:15am

9. And since you brought up the civil war, remember that the pro war folks who fired the fired shots in that bit of treason, produced the spawn of prowar folks who can't let go of their current quagmire.

   Who ever said crazy wasn't hereditary

   Posted by Will C. at 09/12/2006 @ 09:15am

10. .

    MASK:

    Your silence is deafening.

    Where is the proof of your conspiracy theory? You know, the one about the 19 Muslims and the guy named Bin Laden?

    Where is your evidence?

    Educate us.

    Why aren't you answering these direct questions?

    Prove that Bin Laden exists.

    Prove that there were ANY Arabs on the 9/11 flights.

    Provide a link to the flight manifests.

    What's the problem?

    .

    .

    Posted by plunger at 09/12/2006 @ 09:22am

11. Posted by WILL C. 09/12/2006 @ 09:15am

    I assume that swipe was at....Southerners?

    Hmm.....okay, so does that accusation get applied to the last three DEMOCRATIC Presidents (throw in Missouri and you get 4, less JFK)?

    Posted by Mask at 09/12/2006 @ 09:31am

12. Posted by PLUNGER 09/12/2006 @ 09:22am

    PLUGNER....prove that the world is round!

    "Pictures off some GOVERNMENT (NASA) web-site?!?! ....HA!..We all know those Moon landings were fake!!!"

    Posted by Mask at 09/12/2006 @ 09:34am

13. The Nation's position as the primary purveyor of Democrat Party Pundicrap is safe once again. Characterizing meally-mouthed half-hearted democrats like Sarbanes as somehow "antiwar" does a phenominal disservice to real antiwar candidates who oppose the Iraq Bloodbath with more than useless bullshit six-month-or-maybe-twelve-or-whenever-you-get-around-to-it pretty please nonbinding resolutions.

    Stumping for these lame empty suits is as cringeworthy to read as it must be embarrasing to write. Declaring victory before a single vote is cast is even lamer, if that's even possible. I know we can't expect The Nation to take a principled stand on anything, but could it at least shut the hell up and keep it's democrat ABB brown-nose out of the movement? Sure, there are real antiwar candidates running in november who aren't part of the Other War Party. But you'll never read about them in the DNC's propaganda magazine-of-choice.

    OTOH, at least it's good to see The Nation gearing up to pimp "Bombs Away" Hillary. You can see that slime all over this article. 'Boy, that Tasini guy sure scared her! Why, he's sure to "moderate" her prowar, procorporate, antienvironment triangulating waffling any day now! You bet! So vote Hillary in '08!' That's exactly the kind of thing we like to see in the nation's foremost faux-liberal democrat android fave-rave pwogwessive policy rag.

    Posted by AlanSmithee at 09/12/2006 @ 09:53am

14. George Bushs stupidity is costing America's security, why doesnt Afghanistan have a government yet George Bush? Why is Afghanistan not secure, George Bush, why is the Taliban not defeated George Bush, what are you doing sending Americans to die in Iraq George Bush? When are you going to accept Donald Rumsfelds resignation? Why is our military being defeated in Afghanistan George Bush?

    Posted by conshame at 09/12/2006 @ 10:13am

15. One of the stupidest Americans, the Bush family buys the presidency for their underachieving, cokehead, alcoholic, draft-dodging-and-Vietnam-war-supporting adopted son. That idiot stands up there and tells Americans we dont need an investigation. It would distract our intelligence agencies. I have secret information that says we have to send Americans to be killed in Iraq. Now, because of George Bushs stupdity, the mission of having stability in Afghanistan is lost. America's goals have been thwarted in Afghanistan because of George Bushs stupidity. WHAT A DISGRACE!

    Posted by conshame at 09/12/2006 @ 10:19am

16. In America, if your family invests Billions of dollars in the oil and defense industries, you can buy your son the presidency, just buy it for him. Even if your son is the stupidest American, did coke, drove drunk, dodged the draft, pumped and dumped a stock as CEO, you can still just buy it for him. The idiot never worked hard, the idiot never tried to develop and get an education, he just said "Forgive me Jesus" and that makes him qualified to be president.

    Then, that idiot stands up in front of everyone, said there should be a 911 Inquiry, said "We dont need an investigation". Why should we trust an idiot? "We dont need an investigation because it would distract our intelligence agencies."

    Then that idiot says he has secret intelligence, gotta kill some Americans in Iraq, and Afghanistan is LOST, because of this idiot out of Texas.

    Posted by conshame at 09/12/2006 @ 10:25am

17. Posted by CONSHAME 09/12/2006 @ 10:25am

    Feel better getting that off your chest?....good.

    Now the problem...Bush still in office until Jan. 2009 (sorry, impeachment a pipe-dream, even Pelosi poo-poo'ed it).

    Point?...only the Congress matters now. If Dems win it, Bush further hamstrung and likely forced to pull out troops before 2008. If Dems don't win it, Bush cruises to 2009 Inauguration of the Next Guy (or Gal). Now the good news...Bush OUT of office past Jan. 2009.

    Posted by Mask at 09/12/2006 @ 10:29am

18. Posted by MASK 09/12/2006 @ 10:29am | ignore this person

    Feel better getting that off your chest?....good.

    Posted by conshame at 09/12/2006 @ 10:30am

19. Hmmmm. Afghanistan is reverting back to its Taliban roots, Iraq is in a civil war (ok, be PC and call it "sectarian violence"), Iran is this close to having nuclear capability, N Korea has it and tells everyone to "piss off", and of course OBL is chasing goats in the mountains someplace....but the "war on terror" is going swimmingly. So by all means "stay the course" because to do otherwise means that you're "confused".

    Geez, do these war-mongering wing-nuts listen to themselves I wonder? Its no wonder the idea of peace (or at least some condition other than perpetual war) is starting to catch on.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 09/12/2006 @ 10:31am

20. Plunger works for George Bush

    Plunger works for George Bush

    Plunger works for George Bush

    Plunger works for George Bush

    Plunger works for George Bush

    Posted by conshame at 09/12/2006 @ 10:32am

21. We need to get to the ROOT CAUSE of terrorism: wealth.

    All of the people who attacked us, were wealthy. Osama Bin Laden, he's wealthy, he's still wealthy, wealthy enough to get a dialysis machine with no health insurance. The Taliban is making lots of heroin money in Afghanistan, and America wouldve had good leadership if the billionaire Bush family didnt buy the presidency for their adopted idiot.

    Posted by conshame at 09/12/2006 @ 10:35am

22. Posted by CONSHAME 09/12/2006 @ 10:30am

    CON, mine was six lines...yours was 14 in 3 different posts...and all of it on Bush, who is a lame-duck President whose domestic agenda has been over for a year (Social Sec reform) and whose foreign policy agenda is horribly unpopular.

    But he's not going to get impeached...and therefore any discussion of him or just blathering on about his family, drug use, or idiocy....is wasted space and merely indictative of the OBSESSIVE hatred of the man, which has no good political use, since he's never running for anything ever again (or could).

    What the heck are you going to talk about....AFTER January 20, 2009?

    Posted by Mask at 09/12/2006 @ 10:36am

23. The Anthrax terrorist was rich - had to be - to have millions of dollars worth of equipment and a place to set it up. Never caught him. But hey, give the idiot a break, look, we can afford to be insecure as a nation because of the disaster in Iraq so that an idiot can have a chance at being a war president.

    Posted by conshame at 09/12/2006 @ 10:38am

24. Well I tell you what Mask I know you dont want the subject to be "Pushing Democrats in an Anti-War Direction", but yes he will be impeached and by a near majority including most Republicans.

    Posted by conshame at 09/12/2006 @ 10:40am

25. Now, Masks job is to keep the conversation AWAY from the disaster in Iraq, so of course he will come back and say no way, there wont be revelations, those wont lead to a majority calling for his impeachment. But then, would the Congress be judged negatively for overseeing the Executive?

    No, Congress will be judged for whether Iraq is a Disaster, whether Afghanistan is a Disaster - which under this idiot they are. If the Democrats dont think they can fix those problems they better not get in there. But, in the absence of the relentless assault by the stupidity of the idiot George Bush, Afghanistan would not be the disaster it is or Iraq.

    Posted by conshame at 09/12/2006 @ 10:44am

26. actually, war is a normal way for a society to waste its surplus. it's just that, in this day and age, it would help to have a REASON other than just waste.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/12/2006 @ 11:16am

27. But if we just elect democrats everything will be wonderful!!! They'll stop the war and make free money fall from the sky and happy frou-frou elves will go door to door distributing candy and toys! Sure they will! Prove they won't!

    Posted by Typical dumbass democrat pundit wannabe:

    Posted by AlanSmithee at 09/12/2006 @ 11:51am

28. Mr. Nichols,

    I realize that the thrust of your comment was in the direction of forcing democrats to focus on the most pressing issue of the day and become a true opposition party. It is a valid point.

    But here in Maryland there is another choice. I will reject both the repubs and the dems in the race for Paul Sarbane's senate seat, and cast my vote for Unity Party candidate Kevin Zeese. Zeese is the first candidate to be endorsed by not just two, but three recognized political parties. And he has been unequivocally against the war in Iraq from day one. In addition, he espouses many other progressive ideas that would serve to make this state, or even the nation, a better and more representative place for its citizens.

    I will also preemptively reject the naysayers of any political stripe who would advance the notion that a vote for a third-party candidate would act as a spoiler in the cause of electing a "lesser of the two evils" candidate.

    I have come to believe the notion that the only wasted vote is a vote for someone you don't believe in.

    Posted by drhammer at 09/12/2006 @ 12:17pm

29. Posted by CONSHAME 09/12/2006 @ 10:44am

    Do you actually read?

    I noted that if Dems win the House, Bush would likely be pushed to a "Murtha Plan".

    Frankly NONE of what you wrote had anything to do with that...just another endless screed on "idiot silver-spooner fascist cowboy man-child" (whatever) and his family and the rest of the Bush-obsessed vitriole.

    The guy is going to remain President until January 20, 2009....Congress can restrict him, even force him to curtail things in Iraq, Gitmo, the Patriot Act, NSA, etc.

    But focusing your energy on HIM, personally, and not the election this November shows a monomania that is going to need some SERIOUS therapy post-2009!

    Posted by Mask at 09/12/2006 @ 12:26pm

30. i think obsessing on bin laden is more serious than obsessing on bush.

    ok, kill bin laden. go ahead. then what?

    Posted by darladoon at 09/12/2006 @ 12:30pm

31. ALANSMITHEE

    Totally off-topic here, but

    Did I see your name and comment in a grassroots-movie-reviewer-style commercial break on AMC?

    Posted by drhammer at 09/12/2006 @ 12:33pm

32. Another great DARLA quote

    "i think obsessing on bin laden is more serious than obsessing on bush."---Posted by DARLADOON 09/12/2006 @ 12:30am

    Ergo "i think obsessing on bush is LESS serious than obsessing on bin laden."....no?

    Fine....as long as Bin Laden becomes totally powerless on January 20, 2009.....great!

    Posted by Mask at 09/12/2006 @ 12:42pm

33. Posted by ALANSMITHEE 09/12/2006 @ 11:51am

    Quite a set of pom-poms you wave. Although I imagine that leotard rides up a bit....

    Posted by DRHAMMER 09/12/2006 @ 12:33am

    that's because his moniker is the standard by which "B" grade bullshit is measured - so very appropriate I guess. From http://alansmithee.5u.com/alansmithee.html

    " Most "Smithee" films flirt with mediocrity at best, if not down right awfulness...Yes, Alan Smithee isn't just a pseudonym. It's a force as inevitable as the next Joe Eszterhas movie. It's a power more pervasive than the William Morris Agency. It moves through the film industry faster than Roseanne Barr through a buffet and just as thoroughly! There is no escape from The Invisible Hand of Alan Smithee because it is built into the very foundation of movie making. It is a personification of the process by which the worst, the absolute most bottom-of-the-barrel movies are made."

    Posted by leftofcenter at 09/12/2006 @ 1:10pm

34. Posted by DRHAMMER 09/12/2006 @ 12:33am | ignore this person

    Nope. Possibly in the credits, though.

    Now you've mentioned a 3rd party candidate no doubt the regular democrat androids here have put you on ignore. Personally I've come to agress with Eugene Debs: "I'd rather vote for something I want and not get it than vote for something I want and get it."

    Posted by AlanSmithee at 09/12/2006 @ 1:14pm

35. Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 09/12/2006 @ 1:10pm

    Visited the site.

    Thanks for the cinematic education.

    Posted by drhammer at 09/12/2006 @ 1:17pm

36. "Now you've mentioned a 3rd party candidate no doubt the regular democrat androids here have put you on ignore."

    Posted by ALANSMITHEE 09/12/2006 @ 1:14pm

    Not to put too fine a point on it, but Zeese is a 3rd, 4th, and 5th party candidate.

    Would that qualify me for double-secret ignore?

    Posted by drhammer at 09/12/2006 @ 1:24pm

37. Uhh Ohh!!!!!!!

    One of the red meat blathering points on Clinton was "our embassies were attacked and Bill did nothing....thank God for Bush who takes action"

    Now our embassy in Syria has been attacked.....what will "the decider" do next? Invade Canada?

    Posted by freedomplease at 09/12/2006 @ 1:30pm

38. After we blow Canada into smithereens I wonder if we'll create a civil war between Quebec and Ontario?

    Oh who cares....they've got oil sands!

    Posted by freedomplease at 09/12/2006 @ 1:38pm

39. Would that qualify me for double-secret ignore?

    Posted by DRHAMMER 09/12/2006 @ 1:24pm | ignore this person

    You've probably made them seize up in apoplexy. (You can tell the dem android chorus here is upset when they start making fun of your name.) They're firing off nastly little missives to The Notion blogmeister demanding you be banned.

    Posted by AlanSmithee at 09/12/2006 @ 1:44pm

40. Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 09/12/2006 @ 1:38pm

    No,no, no....we can't attack Canada.

    Half the "American" actors, comedians, singers, and anchor-men come from there!

    Posted by Mask at 09/12/2006 @ 2:10pm

41. Mask,

    Well Bush has GOT to do something!

    Or else he becomes the appeaser that Clinton was!

    I say screw those left wing "Starbucks" liberals and lets go get the oil reserves up North.....it's easier to defend ourselves if we control Canada than trying to secure the 4,000mile long border.....just try building a fence in lake Michigan!!!

    Posted by freedomplease at 09/12/2006 @ 2:15pm

42. Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 09/12/2006 @ 2:15pm

    As I said on PETER ROTHBERG's thread....we wouldn't stand a chance.

    My God, man...they have "Captain Kirk", "Austin Powers", even "God" on their side! (explanations available for those who need one...hehe)

    Posted by Mask at 09/12/2006 @ 2:31pm

43. OK GWB will have to invade Mexico then instead. There's oil down there too. The advantage of Mexico over Canada is that Haliburton can get a cheaper workforce for the so called "rebuilding". The problem is, though, it's going to take some pretty nifty diplomacy to get two sections of Mexico to agree to wage a civil war.....we can't leave a country stable!

    Posted by freedomplease at 09/12/2006 @ 2:37pm

44. Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 09/12/2006 @ 2:37pm

    Not really. Ever hear of Chiapas and the "Zapatista Army of National Liberation"?

    Posted by Mask at 09/12/2006 @ 2:40pm

45. Personally I've come to agress with Eugene Debs: "I'd rather vote for something I want and not get it than vote for something I want and get it."

    Posted by ALANSMITHEE 09/12/2006 @ 1:14pm

    . . . . . . . huh? What's that called-- principled self-denial?

    Posted by fromredbird at 09/12/2006 @ 2:50pm

46. Mask,

    Nope, but I guess we could open up 2000 Taco Bell's and create a conflict between Burrito lovers versus Enchilada lovers!

    Posted by freedomplease at 09/12/2006 @ 2:50pm

47. Uhh Ohh!!!!!!!

    One of the red meat blathering points on Clinton was "our embassies were attacked and Bill did nothing....thank God for Bush who takes action"

    Now our embassy in Syria has been attacked.....what will "the decider" do next? Invade Canada?

    Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 09/12/2006 @ 1:30pm

    Osama can run but he can't hide. Or . . . something like that.

    Posted by fromredbird at 09/12/2006 @ 2:53pm

48. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 09/12/2006 @ 2:50pm

    The quote is actually "I'd rather vote for something I want and not get it than vote for something I don't want and get it."

    Posted by drhammer at 09/12/2006 @ 2:53pm

49. Rio,

    Which country that had nothing to do with the terrorist attack on our embassy in Syria should we invade, in your opinion?

    Obviously, we HAVE to take action given that Clinton's inaction to repeated attacks on American targets (notably Embassies) is what caused 9/11 right?

    Posted by freedomplease at 09/12/2006 @ 2:54pm

50. Rio,

    Actually, given the hundreds (or is it thousands) of terrorist attacks on American targets since 9/11/2001 shouldn't we have invaded every country in the world now except for the UK and the Falkland Islands?

    Posted by freedomplease at 09/12/2006 @ 3:00pm

51. Cuba has been in contact with al-Qaeda for over a decade [tinyurl.com]. It's too late to take action after we see mushroom clouds over New York. This will be a decisive battle in our titanic struggle against the Turrurists™ to protect Amurcans from dangerously dangerous danger.

    Posted by fromredbird at 09/12/2006 @ 3:04pm

52. FRB,

    I like it.....close and weak! We can use the sugar to make fuel.

    As Paul Wolfowitz said of our Iraq invasion....it should cost $2-3 billion tops, which Iraq (substitute Cuba) can fund out of oil revenue (substitute sugar revenue).

    Posted by freedomplease at 09/12/2006 @ 3:08pm

53. click the link.

    Posted by fromredbird at 09/12/2006 @ 3:12pm

54. FRB,

    hhhmmmm. That is a very, very strong assosciation with AQ. Gotta go in perhap's tomorrow....with the Army we have not the Amry we'd like to have. No time to waste....let's divert resources from our other two theaters.....we think they're bored of fighting us over there instead of over here, so we need a place closer that they'll be happy to fight us in without them fighting us over here!

    Posted by freedomplease at 09/12/2006 @ 3:19pm

55. The Anthrax terrorist was rich - had to be - to have millions of dollars worth of equipment and a place to set it up. Never caught him. But hey, give the idiot a break, look, we can afford to be insecure as a nation because of the disaster in Iraq so that an idiot can have a chance at being a war president.

    Posted by CONSHAME 09/12/2006 @ 10:38am

    No individual is richer than the Pentagon.

    Look no further.

    .

    Posted by plunger at 09/12/2006 @ 3:52pm

56. Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 09/12/2006 @ 1:38pm

    ..and ALANSMITHEE can make a crappy movie about it!

    Posted by leftofcenter at 09/12/2006 @ 4:54pm

57. "What EXACTLY is the difference between what you believe and the basis for it (and denial of all facts against it)....

    and a fundamentalist Christian who believes in "creationism"?

    Posted by MASK 09/12/2006 @ 07:30am

    You are, as usual doing a great job of completely spinning a web. This time, I think the fly is gonna eat you.

    Why not answer Plunger's questions? They are as legit as anything you have ever posted. Simple. You can't.

    There is no comparison to theories about 911 and christian whackjobs. Questions such as:

    - why did WTC7 free fall?

    - why was thermite found burning in the pit three weeks later

    - why the rush in cutting and exporting all the steel

    - why no structural engineering tests to determine why the towers fell (and don't dare quote the crap from Popular mechanics)

    - why no debris from fuselage, wings and engines at either Pentagon and Shanksville

    - why the secrecy about the two videos that captured the Pentagon hit, and where are the missing frames of what they released

    There are a host of other questions which have only been officially answered in the most simplistic and unbelievable way. I will continue to pose these questions until they are answered in an intelligent and scientific manner. Or, until the actual truth comes out.

    I believe in science, not fairy tales.

    You were the one to bring up Plunger and Rese. Now answer Plunger's questions.

    Posted by doumer at 09/12/2006 @ 5:24pm

58. Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 09/12/2006 @ 4:54pm

    Enjoying your war yet, demobot?

    Posted by AlanSmithee at 09/12/2006 @ 6:44pm

59. You can learn a lot about a country in five years.

    What I've learned (from 9/11, the corporate scandals, the fiasco in Iraq, Katrina, the Cheney Administration's insane economic and environmental policies and the relentless dumbing down of the corporate media -- plus the repeated electoral triumphs of the Rovian brand of "reality management") is that the United States is moving down the curve of imperial decay at an amazingly rapid clip. If anything, the speed of our descent appears to be accelerating.

    The physical symptoms -- a lost war, a derelict city, a Potemkin memorial hastily erected in a vacant lot -- aren't nearly as alarming as the moral and intellectual paralysis that seems to have taken hold of the system. The old feedback mechanisms are broken or in deep disrepair, leaving America with an opposition party that doesn't know how (or what) to oppose, a military run by uniformed yes men, intelligence czars who couldn't find their way through a garden gate with a GPS locator, TV networks that don't even pretend to cover the news unless there's a missing white woman or a suspected child rapist involved, and talk radio hosts who think nuking Mecca is the solution to all our problems in the Middle East.

    SEE COMPLETE POST [tinyurl.com]

    Posted by fromredbird at 09/12/2006 @ 7:26pm

60. Hmm.....okay, so does that accusation get applied to the last three DEMOCRATIC Presidents (throw in Missouri and you get 4, less JFK)?

    (throw in Missouri and you get 4, less JFK)?

    Posted by MASK 09/12/2006 @ 09:31am

    it applies to anybody from the south or anybody who identifies with the south that became conservative and republican after the nineteen sixties

    Posted by Will C. at 09/12/2006 @ 8:41pm

61. Enjoying your war yet, demobot?

    Posted by ALANSMITHEE 09/12/2006 @ 6:44pm

    isn't the demobot the country music line dancing robot that introduces a new line dance into the habitrial matrix?

    Posted by Will C. at 09/12/2006 @ 8:53pm

62. Why not answer Plunger's questions? They are as legit as anything you have ever posted. Simple. You can't.

    There is no comparison to theories about 911 and christian whackjobs. Questions such as:

    - why did WTC7 free fall?

    - why was thermite found burning in the pit three weeks later

    - why the rush in cutting and exporting all the steel

    - why no structural engineering tests to determine why the towers fell (and don't dare quote the crap from Popular mechanics)

    - why no debris from fuselage, wings and engines at either Pentagon and Shanksville

    - why the secrecy about the two videos that captured the Pentagon hit, and where are the missing frames of what they released

    There are a host of other questions which have only been officially answered in the most simplistic and unbelievable way. I will continue to pose these questions until they are answered in an intelligent and scientific manner. Or, until the actual truth comes out.

    I believe in science, not fairy tales.

    This seems rather strange, because the argument seems to run something like this:

    There are these few aspects of 9/11 that I as a (clearly) expert on explosives and such cannot explain, ergo some other explanation than the one offered must be a better alternative.

    Sadly, this is not a good argument. First, you would have to weigh the explanatory power of both theories. Fromredbird has done a great job, on this and other threads, of showing why the claims of these theories make absolutely no sense. Second, the fact that you can't explain these things isn't all that significant, not only because you're not actually an expert who is qualified to make these kinds of evaluations, but also because there's no real need to resort to a conspiracy theory unless no other explanation will reasonably work.

    Then, you have to explain why you've found this amazing revelation that the rest of America seems completely blind to, even though it hasn't been "suppressed" or anything like that.

    The bottom line is that we don't have any rational reason to believe the kinds of conspiracy theories that people like Rese and Plunger put forth. They don't have the kind of credibility they claim, and the alternative explanations that they offer border on the absurd. Given all of that, I find it much more compelling that there are reasonable explanations for the specific phenomena that they cite, rather than saying that we've discovered some dark, ridiculously improbable conspiracy that the rest of the country has somehow been blind to all this time.

    Posted by Thrawn at 09/13/2006 @ 02:17am

63. it applies to anybody from the south or anybody who identifies with the south that became conservative and republican after the nineteen sixties

    All of it, really? I never realized that Jimmy Carter had deep, unexpressed conservative sentiments. And I thought that he was more liberal-leaning all these years...

    Posted by Thrawn at 09/13/2006 @ 02:18am

64. All of it, really? I never realized that Jimmy Carter had deep, unexpressed conservative sentiments. And I thought that he was more liberal-leaning all these years...

    Posted by THRAWN 09/13/2006 @ 02:18am

    of course you never realized it dummy. Carter didn't become conservative and or republican after the ninteen sixties. As a matter of fact... he never did.

    Thanks for stopping by

    Posted by Will C. at 09/13/2006 @ 08:58am

65. you hasters really don't have a firm grip on boolean logic do you?

    Posted by Will C. at 09/13/2006 @ 09:00am

66. of course you never realized it dummy. Carter didn't become conservative and or republican after the ninteen sixties. As a matter of fact... he never did.

    you hasters really don't have a firm grip on boolean logic do you?

    Let me requote the statement again, the one that was your attack on Southerners:

    it applies to anybody from the south or anybody who identifies with the south that became conservative and republican after the nineteen sixties

    First and foremost, unless Georgia is somehow not south, your attack would include Carter (not to mention both Clintons, assuming you include Arkansas), which is a little silly.

    Also, the second part of your sentence was kind of vague; it wasn't clear whether the clause "that became conservative and republican after the 1960s" modified "the south" or "anybody." I assumed the former (though it makes virtually no sense) since your attack was directly related to the Civil War, hence some form of "southern identity."

    Posted by Thrawn at 09/13/2006 @ 3:56pm

67. it wasn't clear whether the clause "that became conservative and republican after the 1960s" modified "the south" or "anybody."

    Posted by THRAWN 09/13/2006 @ 3:56pm

    it modifies anybody... both before and after the or.

    understand now?

    Posted by Will C. at 09/13/2006 @ 9:21pm