Who Decides About War? What About the People?

The U.S. occupation of Afghanistan has reached its "sell-by…" date.

A majority of Americans now tell pollsters the mission was a mistake. Ninety-eight members of the House – including liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans – have cosponsored Massachusetts Congressman Jim McGovern's resolution asking the Pentagon to develop an exit strategy.

Unfortunately, the generals who run wars, and the defense contractors who profit from them, want to keep U.S. troops on the ground in that distant land. And President Obama is under pressure to surge tens of thousands of additional U.S. troops into "the graveyard of empires."

The people have wisely turned against an occupation that has cost the United States too many lives and too many hundreds of billions of dollars while only making a bad situation worse for the Afghan people -- especially, according to feminists in Kabul, women.

Unfortunately, the people do not have the power to end wars that they know have gone awry.

So it falls to Congress to demand an exit strategy.

We'll explore the efforts to do that on Friday night in Manhattan, when Nation editor Katrina vanden Heuvel and I join Congressman McGovern for a forum and film screening with filmmaker Robert Greenwald, director of Rethink Afghanistan.

Ramping up support for McGovern's resolution is Job 1 in the struggle to bring the troops home and cede responsibility for Afghanistan to the people who live there – perhaps with an assist from an international entity, such as the United Nations, that can offer peacekeeping and development aid.

The deeper questions raised by the Afghan imbroglio will be explored Friday and Saturday in Washington, where the "Who Decides About War?" conference on war powers, law and democracy is being held at the Georgetown Law School.

The conference is a project of Ben Manski and the Liberty Tree Foundation -- a think tank that actually thinks about new ways to address fundamental issues -- and the "Bring the Guard Home! It's the Law" campaign. With backing from the National Lawyers Guild at Georgetown Law School, Veterans for Peace, Military Families Speak Out, Democrats.com, the Institute for Policy Studies, After Downing Street, CODEPINK-Women for Peace, Iraq Veterans Against the War, the National Coalition for Nonviolent Resistance, Peace Action USA and Progressive Democrats of America, the "Who Decides About War?" call notes, correctly, that, "The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have revived and deepened longstanding questions about how and by whom war and peace should be decided under our Constitution and in faith with our democratic aspirations."

Manski and his colleagues are asking core questions:

• How can our democracy set in place consistent and durable criteria for considering when or if to use military force, within a broad range of scenarios that might--or might not--challenge national security or threaten world peace?

• Are our political institutions sufficiently robust to maintain and apply "consistent and durable" criteria in the face of the unforeseeable circumstances that typically precede the consideration of using military force?

• What is the proper composition, structure, and role of military forces in a modern democracy? Do the U.S. Armed Forces, as currently organized, best serve democracy? How should we respond to the increased reliance of the United States on Private Military Companies?

• When state National Guard units are called into federal military service, should states have a clear and defined role in evaluating whether that call up is proper and in accordance with the law?

• What is the proper balance of forces between the Guard and rest of the Armed Forces? Does the concept of the all-volunteer army need to be revisited, and if so, what are the options for the future?

• How should the decision about going to war be made, serving national security and honoring the constitutional system of checks and balances?

• Has the War Powers Act served its intended purposes, and how should it be updated or replaced?

• What should be the role of Congress in authorizing the use of military force, within a broad range of scenarios that might--or might not--challenge national security or threaten world peace? If the United States commences the use of military force, is there a role for Congress beyond its initial authorization of force and later appropriations in support of the military action? May an authorization for use of military force be conditional, and if so, should the conditions be enforceable? What mode of enforcement should be available?

• Should the scope of the President's Article 2 powers as commander-in-chief be more clearly defined, and if so, how can that clarity be achieved, given that every war is unique and the role of the commander-in-chief hard to define in advance?

The most thought-provoking of the questions may well be this one: "What can we learn from the history of the 1930s-era campaign for a War Referendum Amendment, together with the 1970s-era People Power Over War Amendment, both of which would have established a deliberative national referendum process on war?"

The answer, for those of us who take democracy seriously, is: "A lot!"

First off, we should recognize that, in the relatively recent past there was serious debate in the United States about how the people could be brought into the process of what the founders referred to as "chaining the dogs of war."

The drafters of the Constitution intended to make it impossible for a president to lead the country into war without an explicit declaration from Congress and periodic reviews by the House and Senate to determine whether an international entanglement should continue.

Unfortunately, as America developed what historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. described to as an "imperial presidency," and as commanders-in-chief began to use their bully pulpits and the full force of modern media to promote their wars of whim – and the endless occupations that are their byproducts – constitutional checks and balances decayed.

As long ago as 1914, when then Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan and Wisconsin Senator Robert M. La Follette were agitating to keep the U.S. out of the European conflict that would become World War I, they began to talk of creating a new check and balance that rested the power to declare most wars in the people.

La Follette's proposal to amend the Constitution to require "a popular referendum before declaring war" would, by 1924, have platform support from both the senator's independent progressive movement and the Democratic Party. It would eventually spawn a formal amendment sponsored in the 1930s by Indiana Congressman Louis Ludlow, which read in Part:

"Except in the event of an invasion of the United States or its Territorial possessions and attack upon its citizens residing therein, the authority of Congress to declare war shall not become effective until confirmed by a majority of all votes cast thereon in a Nation-wide referendum. Congress, when it deems a national crisis to exist, may by concurrent resolution refer the question of war or peace to the citizens of the States, the question to be voted on being, Shall the United States declare war on ________?"

Backed by close to 200 House members, the amendment was, according to a Gallup Poll conducted in 1936, supported by 75 percent of all Americans.

A slightly different amendment, backed by a dozen senators, would have given voters authority to declare or reject war except in the case of "attack by armed forces, actual or immediately threatened…"

Wisconsin Senator Robert M. La Follette Jr. told the Senate in 1939 that the amendment was needed to break the cycle where presidents "lay the groundwork for war" and then at an opportune moment asked Congress "to rubber stamp a declaration of war…"

The idea of giving the people power over war-making was renewed in the 1970s by members of Congress who wanted to prevent future Vietnams. The undeclared Iraq War has inspired dozens of local referendum and town hall meeting votes calling for immediate withdrawal.

And, now, Manski and his compatriots have raised the issue anew – along with Liberty Tree's wise suggestion that states be given greater authority over National Guard deployments to warzones. America has so broken faith with its founding traditions – especially George Washington's encouragement call on the country to avoid entangling alliances – that proposals to check and balance imperial presidents are dismissed as unrealistic. And the idea of resting the power to declare wars with the people who must fight and pay for them are ridiculed.

But if America is ever going to renew its small "r" republican traditions, let alone realize its small "d" democratic potential, it is hard to imagine a better place to begin than with the question: "Who Decides About War?"

Comments (126)

1. Internet voting for/against war? This would solve the problem IF participants hat to pass a single digit addition test AND counting on fingers is not allowed.

   Posted by winyahn at 10/02/2009 @ 07:19am

2. No need to go to one extreme from the other, Mr Nichols.

   A call for a "popular referendum" on war is no better than the War Powers Act and those like our own Larry/antisoc who feel a President has the right to start a war, anytime, anyplace...and demand Congressional support regardless of a Constitutional authority granted them to "declare war".

   It would be unwieldy and likely show no difference than use of the representational democracy we have now. ((Anybody think that a vote for war by "the people" is going to different than a vote for war by Congresspeople who want to keep their jobs the next election cycle????))

   My solution would be scrap the War Powers Act. It was an obvious move by Congress to abdicate their authority to declare war and blunt criticism and again ELECTORAL accountability...and foster it on the President. As well as a power grab by those who are of an authoritarian bent and want more and more power invested in the Executive.

   Posted by Mask at 10/02/2009 @ 07:27am

3. • How can our democracy set in place consistent and durable criteria for considering when or if to use military force, within a broad range of scenarios that might--or might not--challenge national security or threaten world peace?

   --If by "our democracy" you mean "we the people," i.e., the voters, we can't.

   • Are our political institutions sufficiently robust to maintain and apply "consistent and durable" criteria in the face of the unforeseeable circumstances that typically precede the consideration of using military force?

   --The two major American political parties are "consistent and durable," but that's about it.

   • What is the proper composition, structure, and role of military forces in a modern democracy? Do the U.S. Armed Forces, as currently organized, best serve democracy? How should we respond to the increased reliance of the United States on Private Military Companies?

   --whatever is needed. depends on how they're used. outlaw it. war will only become less appetizing if the children of rich and upper middle-class people have just as much a chance of serving (draft perhaps?) and if the war is funded by those children's parents (via higher taxes)

   • When state National Guard units are called into federal military service, should states have a clear and defined role in evaluating whether that call up is proper and in accordance with the law?

   --no. there's a chain of command for a reason.

   Posted by urmygyro at 10/02/2009 @ 07:47am

4. "How do we change the way America goes to war?"

   maybe you could adopt the iranian model.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 10/02/2009 @ 07:49am

5. The needs and powers of the U.S. Empire go unchallenged. Witness the seamless transition from Bush to Obama. Hardly a ripple of change. Drone bombs rain down on Pakistan illegally. The illegal occupation of Afghanistan continues. The military budget continues its endless expansion, even as the deficits mount. The Empire still occupies South Korea, Japan, Iraq and Hawaii. The Empire goes on.

   Posted by philbq at 10/02/2009 @ 07:55am

6. • What is the proper balance of forces between the Guard and rest of the Armed Forces? Does the concept of the all-volunteer army need to be revisited, and if so, what are the options for the future?

   --don't know the proper balance; but I don't see a problem with a large reserve army rather than a large active army. perhaps it does. draft and higher taxes are decent options.

   • How should the decision about going to war be made, serving national security and honoring the constitutional system of checks and balances?

   --the constitution is clear about who can "declare" war....sadly that body, who is suppose to keep the president in check, authorized the last one to do all sorts of things on his own.

   • Has the War Powers Act served its intended purposes, and how should it be updated or replaced?

   --don't know.

   • What should be the role of Congress in authorizing the use of military force, within a broad range of scenarios that might--or might not--challenge national security or threaten world peace? If the United States commences the use of military force, is there a role for Congress beyond its initial authorization of force and later appropriations in support of the military action? May an authorization for use of military force be conditional, and if so, should the conditions be enforceable? What mode of enforcement should be available?

   -- "should the conditions be enforceable?"Congress has the power of the purse, the president the power of the sword...clearly you can't be arguing that congress somehow physically enforces limitations or conditions it puts on an authorization it gives the president; so you must mean taking funding back. as we've seen congress bumble through health care this year, they are equally to be distrusted as the president, if not more.

   Posted by urmygyro at 10/02/2009 @ 07:55am

7. • Should the scope of the President's Article 2 powers as commander-in-chief be more clearly defined, and if so, how can that clarity be achieved, given that every war is unique and the role of the commander-in-chief hard to define in advance?

   --no, they shouldn't be more clearly defined....because the answer to the second part of your question is "they can't be achieved"

   Posted by urmygyro at 10/02/2009 @ 07:56am

8. The intent of the War Powers Act was to try to limit unconstitutional presidential wars (Korea,Vietnam). But Congress does not have the balls to enforce it. They defer to the Empire. And nothing happens. They should go to the Supreme Court and have the war declared illegal. But they do not want to oppose the Empire. So the Act has been useless because Congress refuses to use it. The Empire of the United Snakes is all-powerful.

   Posted by philbq at 10/02/2009 @ 08:07am

9. philbq--any suggestions? or is your stance that the toothpaste is out of the tube (and has been for a long time)?

   Posted by urmygyro at 10/02/2009 @ 08:10am

10. It's really weird to read Big John going all `constitutional' on us! It's like he's assumed Anti's identity w/a LEFTward tilt to avoiding wars at all cost while trying to sound there are indeed, Good Wars.

    Morning folks! Up early in Page, AZ....even before breakfast is served in the lobby....MOnument Valley today!

    For folks back east, if you ever get to Southern Utah's nat'l parks and monuments, be sure to rent a 4-wheel drive....the unpaved, moderately rugged trails are numerous and highly recommended.

    Your HAPPY Guide!

    Posted by Happy at 10/02/2009 @ 08:11am

11. The real core of Nichol's argument is the socialist demand for "pure" or direct democracy rather than representative govt derived from having a constitutional republic.

    you cannot rationally choose just one issue facing a nation and I believe that Nichols knows that very well before even posting this.

    It is just another "dipping your feet into the water" attempt to test the progress in brainwashing the citizenry into abandoning the constitutional republic.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 08:22am

12. "How do we change the way America goes to war?"

    maybe you could adopt the iranian model.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/02/2009 @ 07:49am

    Fund terrorists?

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 08:23am

13. Problem with a draft is that it historically has not kept us out of any war. Our biggest, bloodiest wars were all fought with draft armies.

    The few wars or incidents we've had with a volunteer force are generally over very quickly, or not very bloody compared to our past wars.

    If public sentiment is behind going to war, it won't matter if you have a draft or volunteer army. We were in Vietnam for years with a draft army.

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/02/2009 @ 08:26am

14. Problem with a draft is that it historically has not kept us out of any war. Our biggest, bloodiest wars were all fought with draft armies.

    The few wars or incidents we've had with a volunteer force are generally over very quickly, or not very bloody compared to our past wars.

    If public sentiment is behind going to war, it won't matter if you have a draft or volunteer army. We were in Vietnam for years with a draft army.

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/02/2009 @ 08:26am

15. The real core of Nichol's argument is the socialist demand for "pure" or direct democracy rather than representative govt derived from having a constitutional republic. you cannot rationally choose just one issue facing a nation and I believe that Nichols knows that very well before even posting this. It is just another "dipping your feet into the water" attempt to test the progress in brainwashing the citizenry into abandoning the constitutional republic. Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 08:22am | ignore this person | warn this person

    --well, Larry, our constitutional republic decided that a federal income tax was good; and used the process as created by the founding founders to enact the 16th amendment.

    ...yet you still rail against this...so surely you can appreciate people being dissatisfied with how things are run, even if they are run constitutionally

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/02/2009 @ 08:28am

16. Gosh Larry...I am shocked that you fear the will of the people so much, and like the idea of governmental elites (supporting the Empire) making unconstitutional wars.

    Posted by philbq at 10/02/2009 @ 08:28am

17. Problem with a draft is that it historically has not kept us out of any war. Our biggest, bloodiest wars were all fought with draft armies. The few wars or incidents we've had with a volunteer force are generally over very quickly, or not very bloody compared to our past wars. If public sentiment is behind going to war, it won't matter if you have a draft or volunteer army. We were in Vietnam for years with a draft army. Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/02/2009 @ 08:26am | ignore this person | warn this person

    --and upper middle class and rich people found ways to avoid wars in the past...so point taken. it pays to have money, it's a "get out of ____ free card" in so many situations.

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/02/2009 @ 08:29am

18. ""How do we change the way America goes to war?" maybe you could adopt the iranian model."

    Frosty, Iran went to war when Iraq attacked them. Otherwise, they have not been to war since the 19th century. Then, it was against imperial Russia and Britain incursions into traditional Persian territory. Such a defensive model does not seem to suit America.

    Posted by Tatra at 10/02/2009 @ 08:36am

19. Taking a quick glance at TN's blog posts' headlines of these past 6~7 days, and the business headlines this morning, particularly w/another 263k jobs lost, more than the 175k `expected' by economists.....9.8% UNemployment, nice job, Magic!

    NOT a single article by TN about the economy.......

    Stock market?

    Dollar at 89 Yen, gold over $1,000.....

    Afghan War may not be `popular'....

    Water level low in Lake Powell.....

    Vegas sucking big time....UE over 13.5%....

    Tourisms-dependent regions w/closed up shops everywhere.....

    Boat rentals at prices of 1999.....

    You folks get the picture why DC & Congress are worse than lizard turd?

    Posted by Happy at 10/02/2009 @ 08:39am

20. Urmygyro, middle class and rich kids do go to war. As officers. It is a consequence of college education.

    Every platoon in Vietnam had a platoon leader. A 1st or 2nd lieutenant. Every infantry company had artillery spotters, also lieutenants. They were all college-educated. Same with every fighter and bomber pilot, and most helicopter pilots.

    And officers in those positions tend to have a higher death rate than the soldiers they lead.

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/02/2009 @ 08:56am

21. Urmygyro, middle class and rich kids do go to war. As officers. It is a consequence of college education.

    Every platoon in Vietnam had a platoon leader. A 1st or 2nd lieutenant. Every infantry company had artillery spotters, also lieutenants. They were all college-educated. Same with every fighter and bomber pilot, and most helicopter pilots.

    And officers in those positions tend to have a higher death rate than the soldiers they lead.

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/02/2009 @ 08:56am

22. Urmygyro, middle class and rich kids do go to war. As officers. It is a consequence of college education. Every platoon in Vietnam had a platoon leader. A 1st or 2nd lieutenant. Every infantry company had artillery spotters, also lieutenants. They were all college-educated. Same with every fighter and bomber pilot, and most helicopter pilots. And officers in those positions tend to have a higher death rate than the soldiers they lead. Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/02/2009 @ 08:56am | ignore this person | warn this person

    --you're not really trying to argue that there are more rich kids who served in wars than middle class or poor, are you? if so, I want a citation to stats to back up your claim.

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/02/2009 @ 09:00am

23. --well, Larry, our constitutional republic decided that a federal income tax was good; and used the process as created by the founding founders to enact the 16th amendment.

    ...yet you still rail against this...so surely you can appreciate people being dissatisfied with how things are run, even if they are run constitutionally

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/02/2009 @ 08:28am

    I call for the repeal of the 16th amendment which is also part of our constitutional process.

    We did that by passing the 21st amendment to repeal the 18th amendment (alcohol).

    Secondly, read what they proposed and it has no relationship to our current tax law.

    It was stated that few people would be affected by it

    <By 1913, 36 States had ratified the 16th Amendment to the Constitution. In October, Congress passed a new income tax law with rates beginning at 1 percent and rising to 7 percent for taxpayers with income in excess of $500,000. Less than 1 percent of the population paid income tax at the time.>

    http://tinyurl.com/2emtt8

    the 1% rate began for incomes over $3000 (63,069 in 2009 dollars) and 7% for excess of 500k ($10,511,500.00 in 2009)

    Does that look anything like today's tax rates and who pays?

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 09:24am

24. They should go to the Supreme Court

    I don't think they'll find much succor there.

    the empire mindset dies hard, holding sway even after the facts on the ground have changed.

    Posted by emile duBois at 10/02/2009 @ 09:31am

25. Does that look anything like today's tax rates and who pays?

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 09:24am | ignore this person | warn this person

    --you're talking about how it's been practically applied. the amendment doesn't say the rates cannot go above 7% of income and no more 1% of the population in any given will pay federal income taxes.

    for someone who often claims to respect the text of the constitution you sure do bring in outside information whenever it suits you.

    but good for you fighting the income tax...good luck.

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/02/2009 @ 09:32am

26. the empire mindset dies hard, holding sway even after the facts on the ground have changed.

    Posted by emile duBois at 10/02/2009 @ 09:31am | ignore this person | warn this person

    replace "empire mindset" with your name and apply it to the roman polanski thread...

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/02/2009 @ 09:45am

27. No, not saying that. But saying the rich and middle class do not go to war is painting with too broad a brush. They do.

    And if you have a problem with rich kids getting out of the draft during Vietnam, it sounds like your complaints should be directed at LBJ, father of The Great Society.

    I'm opposed to a draft army precisely because it is unfair. Some people get drafted, others don't. For whatever reason. And you simply cannot draft entire generations. A military that size would be rediculously expensive. And besides that, I suspect large armies are an enticement towards finding them a war to fight.

    Military service should be a choice, not a letter in the mail telling you to pack your bags and get ready for a bad haircut.

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/02/2009 @ 09:45am

28. No, not saying that. But saying the rich and middle class do not go to war is painting with too broad a brush. They do.

    And if you have a problem with rich kids getting out of the draft during Vietnam, it sounds like your complaints should be directed at LBJ, father of The Great Society.

    I'm opposed to a draft army precisely because it is unfair. Some people get drafted, others don't. For whatever reason. And you simply cannot draft entire generations. A military that size would be rediculously expensive. And besides that, I suspect large armies are an enticement towards finding them a war to fight.

    Military service should be a choice, not a letter in the mail telling you to pack your bags and get ready for a bad haircut.

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/02/2009 @ 09:45am

29. --you're talking about how it's been practically applied. the amendment doesn't say the rates cannot go above 7% of income and no more 1% of the population in any given will pay federal income taxes.

    for someone who often claims to respect the text of the constitution you sure do bring in outside information whenever it suits you.

    but good for you fighting the income tax...good luck.

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/02/2009 @ 09:32am

    I didn't claim that the amendment sets those rates. I'm stating the historical fact on how they passed the amendment.

    They claimed that few people would pay it and that the tax would be very low.

    They lied.

    This is always what happens when Congress appropriates more power. It's never temporary and it always increases.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 09:57am

30. cc: "No, not saying that. But saying the rich and middle class do not go to war is painting with too broad a brush. They do."

    --of course you're not saying that; because you'd be wrong. vietnam isn't the only war the rich have bought their way out of.

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/02/2009 @ 09:59am

31. I didn't claim that the amendment sets those rates. I'm stating the historical fact on how they passed the amendment.

    They claimed that few people would pay it and that the tax would be very low.

    They lied.

    This is always what happens when Congress appropriates more power. It's never temporary and it always increases.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 09:57am | ignore this person | warn this person

    --so, from a practical standpoint, you actually seem to agree with the idea of congress not giving an authorization for use of military force to a president without there being limitations and checks on that given power...because the president will, of course, increase what power was given to him.

    --who lied about income tax? also, the states enact an amendment...congress couldn't unilaterally do so.

    and, from a practical standpoint, as you yourself argued, if the power "always increases" then the states approving the amendment knew it had a chance to become bigger; it's part of the consideration in voting for the amendment. surely no one voting for it assumed it would merely remain small forever, right?

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/02/2009 @ 10:04am

32. My solution would be scrap the War Powers Act. It was an obvious move by Congress to abdicate their authority to declare war and blunt criticism and again ELECTORAL accountability...and foster it on the President. As well as a power grab by those who are of an authoritarian bent and want more and more power invested in the Executive.

    Posted by Mask at 10/02/2009 @ 07:27am

    Kudos!

    I sense you are ready to join the ranks of the Conspiracy Theorists here Maskie.

    'Little by Little - Everything Changes'

    Robert Plant............

    Posted by OneVote at 10/02/2009 @ 10:11am

33. >>>But if America is ever going to renew its small "r" republican traditions, let alone realize its small "d" democratic potential, it is hard to imagine a better place to begin than with the question: "Who Decides About War?"<<<

    Finally, JOHN NICHOLS, you are asking the RIGHT questions!

    I wish I could attend the forum personally, and will follow the results.

    Progressives have been put into a reflexive anti-war position since Vietnam, and rightfully so given the wildly exaggerated "domino theory" and other rationales provide my the military-industrial-complex ("MIC").

    The MIC profits while everyone else suffers, and that story has reached its climax and now must taper off into an ending we can all live with.

    Rwanda?

    I know many progressives who felt that Rwanda was a case where US military (or international) involvement would be consistent with our progressive ideals. The wholesale slaughter of innocent people because of race, ethnicity, or religion is offensive to us all, and we should be able to reach consensus on this issue.

    Kosovo?

    There was much debate in the progressive community about that operation, but I think history is proving Clinton right on that one, in that ethnic/religious cleansing was clearly Hitleresque, and intervention did end the conflict.

    You are correct in pointing out that we can't predict all of the future hotspots, but we can articulate a set of "progressive" principles that should inform Congress and the president as to when to engage military force around the world.

    Posted by Metteyya at 10/02/2009 @ 10:18am

34. Sorry I'm a little late, this is related to Public Option:

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/kausfiles/

    Mickey Kaus says Congress' Ego say full steam ahead, but Congress' Id says slow down so we don't get killed in 2010 election. And the Id is winning. Then he cites public opinion polls.

    http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/healthplan.php

    This tracks public opinion polls on Pres Obama's Health plan. From Jan to Oct, opposition went from 15% to 50%. Support went from 47% down to 40% (in Aug) and back up to 45%.

    You can tell youself the comforting lie that those opposed are victims of Republican lies. Or you can be honest with yourself and realize that I have been telling you the truth.

    80% are satisifed with their own coverage and they want congress to "do something" about the 20% without insurance. "Do something" means something no too expensive and something that doesn't interfere with what the 80% already have.

    There is no support for an expensive overhaul of the system. Nichol's claim that Congress it going agianst public opinion is a cannard.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/02/2009 @ 10:18am

35. good points. I would add that in Rwanda's case, its neighbors did not support outside military intervention, as much as they deplored the events there.

    Posted by emile duBois at 10/02/2009 @ 10:45am

36. Notice this?

    "This is always what happens when Congress appropriates more power. It's never temporary and it always increases."---Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 09:57am

    Yet watch Larry TURN ON A DIME and argue FOR the War Powers Act and even expanding its tenets to "appropriate more power" to the Executive Branch!

    Posted by Mask at 10/02/2009 @ 10:52am

37. 'It is all part of a new Defense Department plan to goose public support called "America Supports You" which spotlights what Americans are doing all across the land to back the military and encourages others to join. It is a successor program to an earlier official project "Send Your Thanks to the US Military" campaign that began in May 2002............

    "Support our troops" is a stealth and deceptive slogan. It's the slogan du jour of demagogues and those that deny that it's the duty of Americans to question their government especially when it is lying to them. It's a way of depoliticizing the war and personalizing a crusade. The Defense Department, military recruiters, veterans groups and right-wing media outlets use this patriotically correct mantra shamelessly in a change the subject maneuver for sympathy, and to bait critics and bolster misguided patriotism......

    Exerpts Published on Monday, August 15, 2005 by CommonDreams.org What's the Best Way to 'Support Our Troops'? by Danny Schechter

    We should definitely hold Congress accountable for the wars. Support Our Troops votes are really Support Our War votes.

    The supplemental war appropriations scam is just beyond comprehension.

    This is war without end.

    This is the Neoconservative vision triumphant.

    Posted by OneVote at 10/02/2009 @ 11:21am

38. So when was the last time the US legally declared war?

    1942. Against Romania.

    Think of all the US invasions since then (more than you've got fingers & toes), and not a single one did the US bother to declare.

    Declare? Shmeclare. Who's to stop US? Not when we're No.1.

    Posted by sloper at 10/02/2009 @ 11:21am

39. The wars waged by US and it's allies are orchestrated by the war mongers in the government, who are the agents of the powerful corporations and military industries, that makes money and living out of deadly destruction, looting and plundering of the third world countries.They are so powerful, they influence the people by the media, controlled by them.We saw that in the Iraq.They used the world WMD effectively to invade Iraq.Who benefited by the war in Iraq? Only oil companies, private armies like Black water, and companies like Haliburton , on which the US vice president has a major share.At what cost? By spending hundreds of billions, killing over 1 million Iraqis,over 4000 of death of soldier's and injuring thousands of civilians and soldiers.And still the mayhem is going on there. A whole Nation has been destroyed, both physically and mentally.All in the name of Democracy.

    Posted by Dastu11 at 10/02/2009 @ 11:22am

40. Yet watch Larry TURN ON A DIME and argue FOR the War Powers Act and even expanding its tenets to "appropriate more power" to the Executive Branch!

    Posted by Mask at 10/02/2009 @ 10:52am | ignore this person | warn this person

    Larry is a totalitarian, not a libertarian. One G-d for all, One Ruler for all.

    Posted by OneVote at 10/02/2009 @ 11:26am

41. both puppet regimes show that the empire does not give a shit about democracy.

    Posted by emile duBois at 10/02/2009 @ 11:27am

42. Posted by Dastu11 at 10/02/2009 @ 11:22am | ignore this person | warn this person

    It is an Orwellian nightmare. Fiction to Fact.

    Posted by OneVote at 10/02/2009 @ 11:29am

43. Posted by OneVote at 10/02/2009 @ 11:26am

    I prefer "partisan authoritarian". Basically happy to have a Congress...as long as they rubber stamp everything the Leader wants.

    Until the Congress and Leader are of the party he opposes...then he flips again and becomes "strict Constructionalist" who wants few powers in the hands of Government.

    An interesting, if un-wanted, scenario would be if Congress gets back in Republican hands under Obama....to see Larry flip AGAIN to love of the Legislature, demanding "oversight and brake-pedaling" of the Executive.

    Posted by Mask at 10/02/2009 @ 12:28pm

44. I am obviously a BIG fan of small "d" democracy, and like NICHOLS idea of a national referendum for "certain" kind of war authorizations. These would be the Rwandas and Kosovos that do not directly affect US national security.

    The danger, however, is that this may subject the serious long-term planning necessary to achieve worthwhile objectives in these conflicts to the "POLITICS OF THE MOMENT" as Obama is fond of saying, and we all know this kind of politics can be swayed either way by concerted mainstream media attention.

    What kind of checks would you propose, JOHN NICHOLS, on the "politics of the moment" phenomena to ensure that commitment decisions have a fair chance of producing desired outcomes? A once-a-year referendum... two years?

    Clearly we can't do a month-to-month thing or it would be impossible to execute ANY plan.

    Posted by Metteyya at 10/02/2009 @ 12:28pm

45. Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 08:22am

    The real core of his comments is about having a discussion about having an objective criteria for engaging in war or police actions. This is applicable in both a democracy and a constitutional republic.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 08:23am

    We'd call it funding privateers, "contractors" or bounty hunters; offer them letters of marquis and money; and give it a nice name that would likely use the adjective "Freedom" somewhere.

    It's the other guys who'd call them terrorists. And hey, we do this already. When the other guys do the same thing, we call them terrorists. See?

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/02/2009 @ 08:26am

    It's worth noting that draftees comprised 65% of deaths whereas volunteers 35%. Source below.

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/02/2009 @ 08:56am

    2007, Total Enlisted: 1,140,466

    2007, Total Commissioned Officer: 206,085

    That's a ratio of 5.5 to 1.

    Since you are talking about Vietnam, it is also useful to note that officer deaths due to hostile action is ~10% and their percentage of the total force was ~15%. We can infer that the enlisted man must be dying the other ~90% of the time and that officers had a much smaller risk of dying from hostile action.

    http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos249.htm http://books.google.com/books? id=cx2gmuOr3E8C&pg=RA1-PA137&lpg=RA1-PA137

    Posted by srjenkins at 10/02/2009 @ 12:56pm

46. Notice this?

    "This is always what happens when Congress appropriates more power. It's never temporary and it always increases."---Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 09:57am

    Yet watch Larry TURN ON A DIME and argue FOR the War Powers Act and even expanding its tenets to "appropriate more power" to the Executive Branch!

    Posted by Mask at 10/02/2009 @ 10:52am

    Mask, Mask, Mask, it must hurt to be wrong so often.

    The WPA did not expand power to the presidency. In fact every president, including Carter and Clinton argued just the opposite.

    They (all the presidents) have made the appropriate declaration that presidents have the INHERENT authority to commit the military to force in defense of the national borders and/or the national security interests of the nation.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 12:59pm

47. An interesting, if un-wanted, scenario would be if Congress gets back in Republican hands under Obama....to see Larry flip AGAIN to love of the Legislature, demanding "oversight and brake-pedaling" of the Executive.

    Posted by Mask at 10/02/2009 @ 12:28pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    I believe you are right.

    Larry's fidgeting on Congress was only after 2006 wasn't it?

    Excellent insight.

    The Chameleon.

    "Partisan Authoritarian" - copyright to you Maskie - I think.

    Didn't you nail him on "I will always support the CIC, no matter what party"...that is until Bama indicated he may be having second thoughts on Operation Enduring Freedom...

    Reminds me of Larry's idea of a joke the other day..

    'This would be a hell of alot easier if this was dictatorship, -- as long as I am dictator'

    Hmmmmm- seems to fit nicely with "Partisan Authoritarianism"

    Posted by OneVote at 10/02/2009 @ 1:11pm

48. What about the people? You mean the same people who elected George W. Bush twice? The same people who bought the lie that Iraq and 9/11 were connected? Sorry. My "faith" in American decision-making is less than secure.

    Posted by Dailyfare at 10/02/2009 @ 1:39pm

49. Larry, From toasters to medications to airlines to kids' toys to human behavior, state what government regulations you are FOR?

    Do you actually want the market to regulate itself across the following?:

    -Specifications for building materials? You'd prefer no government interference? -Purity of medications? You'd prefer no government interference? -Swallowing hazard of toys? You'd prefer no government interference? - Smoke detectors? Large building fire response systems? You'd prefer no government interference?

    Specify for once what GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS you're for, if you care to come out of your bogus negative idealism cloud.

    Oh nevermind, you don't know how.

    Posted by winyahn at 10/02/2009 @ 1:56pm

50. Didn't you nail him on "I will always support the CIC, no matter what party"...that is until Bama indicated he may be having second thoughts on Operation Enduring Freedom...

    Reminds me of Larry's idea of a joke the other day..

    'This would be a hell of alot easier if this was dictatorship, -- as long as I am dictator'

    Hmmmmm- seems to fit nicely with "Partisan Authoritarianism"

    Posted by OneVote at 10/02/2009 @ 1:11pm

    I still support Obama as CIC. I have stated so on a number of occasions and have voiced nothing negative against him on today either.

    I believe in the end he will make the right decision about continuing the fight in Afghanistan.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 2:13pm

51. The real core of Nichol's argument is the socialist demand for "pure" or direct democracy rather than representative govt derived from having a constitutional republic.

    you cannot rationally choose just one issue facing a nation and I believe that Nichols knows that very well before even posting this.

    It is just another "dipping your feet into the water" attempt to test the progress in brainwashing the citizenry into abandoning the constitutional republic.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 08:22am

    Wait wait wait. You are saying the direct DEMOCRACY is socialism? The demand for PURE DEMOCRACY is socialist. Wow.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/02/2009 @ 2:17pm

52. The problem with Congress and the President on war is this once the President has taken our troops to war it is impossible for Congress to cut funding if they want to keep their jobs. Anyone who votes against continued funding during a military operation will be accused of hating the troops and wanting them to die. There is no war no matter how unpopular it is that Congress will ever deauthorize the funds for because the system is set up so that Congress in actuality has no authority over the President which is I would argue exactly what Larry wants.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/02/2009 @ 2:19pm

53. Larry, From toasters to medications to airlines to kids' toys to human behavior, state what government regulations you are FOR?

    Do you actually want the market to regulate itself across the following?:

    -Specifications for building materials? You'd prefer no government interference? -Purity of medications? You'd prefer no government interference? -Swallowing hazard of toys? You'd prefer no government interference? - Smoke detectors? Large building fire response systems? You'd prefer no government interference?

    Specify for once what GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS you're for, if you care to come out of your bogus negative idealism cloud.

    Oh nevermind, you don't know how.

    Posted by winyahn at 10/02/2009 @ 1:56pm

    The Fed has the right to regulate financial institutions regarding money, securities, and bonds.

    The States have the right to regulate all other issues.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 2:20pm

54. I think that if the power of Congress to fund wars was completely taken away and the President was given a blank check for any war they want to fight Larry might celebrate. In act I think if Congress was disbanded altogether Larry would celebrate.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/02/2009 @ 2:24pm

55. Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 12:59pm

    Larry, I like you...but you are a hypocrite.

    You talk about the income tax and rail against "Congress appropriating more power and it never ends"...

    but want the President to completely ignore a "strict Constructionalist" view of the Congressional power to declare war...and start any war, anytime, and demand TOTAL support for it.

    You distrust democratic institutions...and want a "powerful leader with no accountability (except an election that might be years off)" who can plunge the nation into war at a whim.

    And yes...it can, by your own standard, be a "whim", can't it? Nutter "General Jack Ripper" (I'm on a "Strangelove" tear) President decides to invade Australia or Brazil "just for kicks"....by your own view....he can do it and suffer the consequences of the electorate later...can't he?

    Posted by Mask at 10/02/2009 @ 2:41pm

56. "In act I think if Congress was disbanded altogether Larry would celebrate."----Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/02/2009 @ 2:24pm

    Partially ideological, but I think also partially his atavistic religious view....

    I think Larry likes the ideas of "kings". Both a "King of Kings" who rules the Universe AND a "divine right of kings king" ruling nation-states, with no "mob-controlled Senate/Parliament/etc." interfering.

    Which of course completely conflicts with his "strict Constructionalist" view of the US Constitution...which, wary of the monarchy, invested most power in Congress, not the President.

    Posted by Mask at 10/02/2009 @ 2:45pm

57. I'm thinking he got you there, antisocialist.

    I believe the core of Nichol's argument is the belief that direct voting on whether or not to go to war would lead to fewer wars.

    I'm not convinced. Patton was right. All real Americans love a good fight. We may differ on what a "good fight" is (meals on wheels, Darfur, Somalia, Kosovo vs. 1991 Gulf War or Iraq War), but we've gone to war under Democrats and Republicans. And we'll continue to do so.

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/02/2009 @ 2:47pm

58. I'm thinking he got you there, antisocialist.

    I believe the core of Nichol's argument is the belief that direct voting on whether or not to go to war would lead to fewer wars.

    I'm not convinced. Patton was right. All real Americans love a good fight. We may differ on what a "good fight" is (meals on wheels, Darfur, Somalia, Kosovo vs. 1991 Gulf War or Iraq War), but we've gone to war under Democrats and Republicans. And we'll continue to do so.

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/02/2009 @ 2:47pm

59. Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 08:22am

    Okay Larry - I am going to hold you to your support for Obama as CIC - no matter what.

    No bellyaching - no surrender crap -

    I'll expect you come to attention and salute when Bama says - "Larry, we are coming home. Time to get out."

    I'll expect you to respond "Yes, Sir"!

    If I am wrong, I will be glad to admit it.

    Posted by OneVote at 10/02/2009 @ 2:47pm

60. Posted by Mask at 10/02/2009 @ 2:41pm

    No surprise Mask, but once again, you are misstating my views.

    I do not favor Presidents DECLARING war. But it has been the interpretation of our nation since it's founding that presidents have inherent authority to commit the military to force to defend either the nations borders or to defend our national security.

    You and others keep trying, but this has been the record since Washington and even in the Constitutional Convention debate. Nor has any SCOTUS ruled otherwise. I, along with many others, continue to hold that this IS a strict constructionist view of the authority of the CIC when it comes to war.

    I am not one to demand TOTAL support for it. I believe it's wrong to call the president a fascist, or nazi or similar name calling during war. I believe that they should not be called a liar on their war decisions unless formally proven to have lied or they admit to lying.

    I believe that Congress retains the right to cut off funding for war which is the ultimate check on a president. That certainly constitutes a legitimate lack of support for a president's decision on war.

    Any president who decides to invade another country "just for kicks" should be impeached.

    I distrust "pure" democracy just as the Founders did. It is almost as bad as totalitarianism. You continue to denigrate my adherence to our Constitutional Republic. You dislike our form of govt. We are not a democracy, we are a republic.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 3:30pm

61. BTW Mask, care to cite a single war that was initiated by one of our presidents on a "whim"?

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 3:32pm

62. I distrust "pure" democracy just as the Founders did. It is almost as bad as totalitarianism. You continue to denigrate my adherence to our Constitutional Republic. You dislike our form of govt. We are not a democracy, we are a republic.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 3:30pm

    I actually never said I disagreed with the Republic. I actually am flabbergasted that you called a pure DEMOCRACY socialism.

    "I believe that Congress retains the right to cut off funding for war which is the ultimate check on a president. That certainly constitutes a legitimate lack of support for a president's decision on war. "

    Would you have been for Congress cutting off funding of the war when the nation decided that 70% of them no longer wanted to be in Iraq. Wouldn't it have been representative if they had then cut off funding for the war.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/02/2009 @ 3:53pm

63. I distrust "pure" democracy just as the Founders did. It is almost as bad as totalitarianism. You continue to denigrate my adherence to our Constitutional Republic. You dislike our form of govt. We are not a democracy, we are a republic.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 3:30pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    I agree with you on this point you made. There are many problems with direct democracy, the first being that the public can easily be persuaded by momentary emotions and effective rhetoric. And reliance upon Congress to balance the Executive is tenuous at best.

    No the most effective tool (for use by those opposed to war) for ending wars, is CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE. This is the only REAL power available to balance government misconduct -- a growing movement of disobedience. When it comes to the issue of war, there are two parties: the war party and the peace party. The war party is the party of order and the peace party, to be effective, must be the party of movement.

    So we must certainly march and we may have to be disobedient.

    OBAMA. HEY! HEY! HOW MANY KIDS HAVE YOU KILLED TODAY?

    FYI:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience

    http://books.google.com/books?id=3IatJjn- tNEC&dq=civil+disobedience& printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=Iq4v6YdAlc& sig=TqFURQrdOliMPJVPe-6aCvuLVts&hl=en& ei=u2bGSrPWDIKY8AbjgtU5& sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result& resnum=10#v=onepage&q=&f=false

    http://books.google.com /books?id=osUfBz7Mi6wC&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22& dq=mayday+demonstrations+against+the+vietnam+war& source=bl&ots=J5J92xGWGK& sig=FXt3jhkdB_5zVygWtiEKpyBLnpY&hl=en& ei=BWfGStmaAYio8AbLoeA7& sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result& resnum=4#v=onepage&q=&f=false

    and more recently,

    http://www.internationalist.org /ilwumaydaystrike0805.html

    Posted by shadowknows at 10/02/2009 @ 3:54pm

64. I distrust "pure" democracy just as the Founders did. It is almost as bad as totalitarianism.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 3:30pm

    Really? Can you give us an example of a pure democracy and its failiings so we can compare?

    So in a pure democracy, you may have a majority imposing its will over a minority.

    But in a totalitarian regime, you may have a minority imposing its will over the majority.

    And, I believe that an authoritarian government that promotes fundamental Christian values is totalitarian. That is what pisses you off about Muslim theocracy isn't it?

    "The governmental techniques of a totalitarian regime are necessarily Authoritarian. But a totalitarian regime does much more. It attempts to mold the private life, soul, and morals of citizens to a dominant ideology."

    Wikipedia

    I am having trouble with the "almost as bad" part of your argument. Giving the majority what they want at expense of the minority is "almost as bad" as giving the minority what they want at the expense of the majority?

    Posted by OneVote at 10/02/2009 @ 4:01pm

65. from Antiwar.com:

    "But Gen. McChrystal still persists in seeking his 45,000 additional troops and all indications are he will eventually get them. He appears irked by the delays in approving the massive commitment, again noting that the war 'will not remain winnable indefinitely.'"

    Quite. And, as DC's Ivy League inebriates--i.e., drunk on Power--prescind from both the reasonable and the sane in setting "policy," 45,000 it shall be--as if by fiat.

    Further, as at the time of the Tet Offensive, when Milhous established 500,000 troops on the ground in Viet Nam, Obama has a substantial margin of political and "moral" safety without suffering compunction for his own "rambunctious" behaviour regarding life and limb--the life and limb of others, of course.

    And, barring the utility of Milhous' buffer of half a million personnel in South Viet Nam, there is lying to fall back upon. To wit:

    The French colonial incursion into [Viet Nam]...met with defeat at Dien Bien Phu in 1954, and US engagement resumed imperial aggression--but not before the Geneva Accords mandating a free election had been quashed by US/Diem militaristic aggression. The "they" who asked us to be there amounted to elitist (read: financially viable) land-owning beneficiaries of French patronage, politically connected to the corrupt puppet state.

    We'll always find a "they" who, we will claim, want us to be there--the "there" now occurring somewhere along the Durand Line...

    <a href="http://www.empireglassdarkly.wordpress.com/">Empire: through a glass, darkly</a>

    Posted by Stonewhite at 10/02/2009 @ 4:01pm

66. I actually never said I disagreed with the Republic. I actually am flabbergasted that you called a pure DEMOCRACY socialism.

    "I believe that Congress retains the right to cut off funding for war which is the ultimate check on a president. That certainly constitutes a legitimate lack of support for a president's decision on war. "

    Would you have been for Congress cutting off funding of the war when the nation decided that 70% of them no longer wanted to be in Iraq. Wouldn't it have been representative if they had then cut off funding for the war.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/02/2009 @ 3:53pm

    Two really poorly thought responses on your part.

    I never said that pure democracy is socialism.

    I said that pure democracy is NEARLY AS BAD AS TOTALITARIANISM.

    I'm having to capitalize since it seems that you have grown fond of misstating me.

    <Direct democracy was very much opposed by the framers of the United States Constitution and some signers of the Declaration of Independence. They saw a danger in majorities forcing their will on minorities, notably manifested in what Madison referred to as the "leveling impulse" of democracy to restrict the wealth and power of economic and social elites in favor of the public at large>

    <Alexander Hamilton said, "That a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity..."..>

    There are no countries with a pure direct democracy.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 5:01pm

67. I distrust "pure" democracy just as the Founders did. It is almost as bad as totalitarianism.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 3:30pm

    PS:

    You had no problem with California Prop. 8 though.

    That was 'pure' democracy wasn't it?

    Posted by OneVote at 10/02/2009 @ 5:03pm

68. "I believe that Congress retains the right to cut off funding for war which is the ultimate check on a president. That certainly constitutes a legitimate lack of support for a president's decision on war. "

    Would you have been for Congress cutting off funding of the war when the nation decided that 70% of them no longer wanted to be in Iraq. Wouldn't it have been representative if they had then cut off funding for the war.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/02/2009 @ 3:53pm

    I've tried to correct this misconception numerous times with you, Mask, and some others.

    I am careful with my words to state what I see as the constitutional rule. Just because I see an action that is within that which the constitution permits doesn't necessary equate to agreeing with the action.

    So in this example, it would have been constitutional, it would have been representative. But that doesn't mean I would agree with their action.

    Nor would I protest it, except via the ballot box.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 5:04pm

69. PS:

    You had no problem with California Prop. 8 though.

    That was 'pure' democracy wasn't it?

    Posted by OneVote at 10/02/2009 @ 5:03pm

    There is a major difference between the US constitution and what is written into state constitutions.

    State constitutions where they have constitutionally incorporated referendums or initiatives are not affecting the nation. They cannot affect foreign policy, treaties, decisions of war and peace, and trade, the issues that rest solely with the nation.

    <Constitutional amendment initiative is the most powerful citizen-initiated, direct democracy governance component. It is a constitutionally-defined petition process of "proposed constitutional law," which, if successful, results in its provisions being written directly into the state's constitution.>

    So we see that the primary difference is that we had in prop 8 a response to the judiciary trying to overturn constitutional law and the citizenry responding to this unconstitutional move by a non legislative branch of state govt.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 5:11pm

70. There are no countries with a pure direct democracy.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 5:01pm

    Ah...so aside from limited rights of pure democracy such as state referendum (which you apparently support regarding gay marriage), there are NO countries which have a pure democracy from top to bottom.

    So, you really can't say whether pure democracy is almost as bad as totalitarianism based on empirical evidence right?

    But you do trust that "aristocratic" founders of our Constitution had it right. Obviously, they were trying to protect their "minority" interest weren't they?

    Maybe we should give pure democracy a try - like on the war?

    The Republic sees to be heading in the wrong direction and on a downward spiral. Your aristocrats don't seem to be doing such a good job.

    Posted by OneVote at 10/02/2009 @ 5:24pm

71. Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 5:01pm

    "The real core of Nichol's argument is the socialist demand for "pure" or direct democracy rather than representative govt derived from having a constitutional republic. "

    You claimed that only socialist demand pure democracy. You didn't only equate it with totalitarianism you claimed it as some sort of socialist mainstay.

    Maybe you should go back an read your posts before responding.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/02/2009 @ 5:40pm

72. So we see that the primary difference is that we had in prop 8 a response to the judiciary trying to overturn constitutional law and the citizenry responding to this unconstitutional move by a non legislative branch of state govt.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 5:11pm

    Boy are you just plain flat out WRONG.

    Prior to Prop 8, the California Supremes (most of whom are conservatives) ruled, as is in their power, that under the California Constitution, with the clause that all people are to be treated equally under the law, that the civil marriages in the state were inherently UNEQUAL to homosexuals, because they could not get married under the eyes of the law. Marriage in California is a CIVIL right, and the Supreme Court ruled accordingly, thus providing the right to marry to everyone in the state, as the California Constitution demanded.

    The far right wingnuts (like yourself) decided that marriage should be religious (not civil), and wrote Prop 8 to explicitly DENY rights to people that had been given them by the California Supreme Court. Essentially, under Prop 8, rights were taken away from a minority by the majority. Prop 8 itself is unconstitutional, but the Supremes couldn't rule that way because the rights of the minority could not take precedence over the screwed up California Proposition-based style of governance. Ask ANY lawyer and they would agree.

    That, my friend, is the definition of tyranny, which you so obviously support whenever you get the chance. You call this "pure democracy" (which you say exists nowhere in the world).

    Yesterday, you had the temerity to call me a bigot and a liar, sir. I hope you have some shame, for you are certainly the bigot here.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/02/2009 @ 7:02pm

73. You claimed that only socialist demand pure democracy. You didn't only equate it with totalitarianism you claimed it as some sort of socialist mainstay.

    Maybe you should go back an read your posts before responding.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/02/2009 @ 5:40pm

    I stand corrected. I did make that statement.

    So now do you also think that the founders were just as wrong as me to claim that pure democracy is totalitarian?

    <Alexander Fraser Tytler, in his "The Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic", stated that "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.>

    Our nation was founded as a Constitutionally limited Republic. The Founding Fathers were concerned with Liberty and Rights, not democracy.

    Volume II of De Tocqueville's Democracy in America is about the dangers of a democracy vs the strength of a Republic

    John Adams said, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

    Chief Justice John Marshall observed,

    "Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos."

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 7:13pm

74. The far right wingnuts (like yourself) decided that marriage should be religious (not civil), and wrote Prop 8 to explicitly DENY rights to people that had been given them by the California Supreme Court. Essentially, under Prop 8, rights were taken away from a minority by the majority. Prop 8 itself is unconstitutional, but the Supremes couldn't rule that way because the rights of the minority could not take precedence over the screwed up California Proposition-based style of governance. Ask ANY lawyer and they would agree.

    That, my friend, is the definition of tyranny, which you so obviously support whenever you get the chance. You call this "pure democracy" (which you say exists nowhere in the world).

    Yesterday, you had the temerity to call me a bigot and a liar, sir. I hope you have some shame, for you are certainly the bigot here.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/02/2009 @ 7:02pm

    Again, you are wrong. Courts CANNOT establish or grant rights.

    That is an usurption of constitutional law.

    Prop 8 was not unconstitutional because IT WAS A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

    If I use your logic than, the 16 amendment granting the power to tax income is unconstitutional? How about the 13th amendment abolishing slavery? think there was division in the country?

    BTW, while we say marriage is and always has been a religious term, I repeat again that nothing prevents states from changing all civil union contracts between consenting individuals to civil unions or comparable term rather than the religious term of marriage.

    I have bigotry towards no one and neither have I a need for shame.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 7:26pm

75. I stand corrected. I did make that statement.

    So now do you also think that the founders were just as wrong as me to claim that pure democracy is totalitarian?

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 7:13p

    Absolutely, I don't think rule by the mob is a very good idea. If that was the case I would probably still be a second class citizen.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/02/2009 @ 7:32pm

76. Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 7:26pm

    Well the biggest problem is DOMA. If that had never been enacted I don't think there would be nearly as much hoopla over marriage. The problem is right now the federal government does not recognize marriage between two gay people. Which causes a huge strain for gay people in many senses one being financially.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/03/your-money/03money.html?_r=1&hp

    Here is an interesting article in the New York Times about it. If you care to read.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/02/2009 @ 7:37pm

77. <Alexander Fraser Tytler, in his "The Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic", stated that "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.>

    Our nation was founded as a Constitutionally limited Republic. The Founding Fathers were concerned with Liberty and Rights, not democracy.

    Volume II of De Tocqueville's Democracy in America is about the dangers of a democracy vs the strength of a Republic

    John Adams said, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

    Chief Justice John Marshall observed,

    "Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos."

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 7:13pm

    Larry - Tytler is really funny. Your Republic is $13 trillion in debt, with unfunded future liabilities of $60 trillion. Please.

    Perhaps the majority of voters would like a pay as you go system?

    De Toqueville was AN ARISTOCRAT, and he wrote of the vantage point of transition of monarchy to rule by the aristocracy. He was very much concerned about preserving privilege for aristocrats, while giving some rights to angry mob with pitchforks. His ideas are compromise - not ideal, though he has lots of flowery language.

    Posted by OneVote at 10/02/2009 @ 7:40pm

78. Well the biggest problem is DOMA. If that had never been enacted I don't think there would be nearly as much hoopla over marriage. The problem is right now the federal government does not recognize marriage between two gay people. Which causes a huge strain for gay people in many senses one being financially.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/03/your-money/03money.html?_r=1&hp

    Here is an interesting article in the New York Times about it. If you care to read.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/02/2009 @ 7:37pm

    That really is meaningless in the argument because most conservatives like myself have stated that the answer to all of this is to make all contracts between consenting adults civil unions and the issue instantly goes away.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 7:58pm

79. John Adams:

    Thoughts on Government

    should be read as an articulation of the classical republican theory of mixed government. Adams contended that social classes exist in every political society, and that a good government must accept that reality. For centuries, dating back to Aristotle, a mixed regime balancing monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, or the monarch, nobles, and people was required to preserve order and liberty.[21]

    Based on what exactly? He was always predisposed to mixed government, but again, his ideas were premised on preservation of aristocratic privilege at a time of transition from feudalism to the industrial revolution.

    John Marshall was Federalist who identified with commercial interests. He was no Jeffersonian Democrat.

    So rule by a minority guarantees individual freedoms huh?

    Until you elect a corrupt congress and president.

    All the high language of these gentleman express as an ideal, not reality.

    Posted by OneVote at 10/02/2009 @ 7:58pm

80. So now do you also think that the founders were just as wrong as me to claim that pure democracy is totalitarian?

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 7:13p

    Absolutely, I don't think rule by the mob is a very good idea. If that was the case I would probably still be a second class citizen.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/02/2009 @ 7:32pm

    Your response is a contradiction, want to revisit it?

    You have just stated you disagree with the founders on direct or pure democracy which they labeled mob rule and then say that you don't think mob rule is a good idea.

    Which is precisely why they set up a republic with representational govt instead.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 8:01pm

81. Nichols is indeed a very funny fellow. According to fox polls 61% of Americans support the Afghanistan war, and here is another guy all for it, or at least thats what he said, unless he LIES?

    On March 27, following a "careful policy review," Obama proclaimed Afghanistan and Pakistan as "the central front in the war on terror," announced a "comprehensive new strategy" for the region and ordered 21,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan; increasing the number of Americans there to 68,000 by the end of this year. A month and a half later he made General Stanley McChrystal -- an advocate of pursuing a counterinsurgency campaign -- the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan. On August 17, the president declared, "This is not a war of choice; it is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al Qaeda could plot to kill more Americans."

    Those statements were true then -- and they are true today.

    We had a President befor 9-11 who wanted to fight the war off-shore like Bloviating Biden, I think his name was Clinton and we know how that turned out on 9-11-2001!

    Posted by BigPasture at 10/02/2009 @ 11:14pm

82. Fund terrorists?

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009

    As if the US or US corporations do not or never have.

    Posted by koroviev at 10/03/2009 @ 01:31am

83. >> Obama is under pressure to surge tens of thousands of additional U.S. troops into "the graveyard of empires." << Nichols.

    Nichols crams lies into sentences like a kitchen maid feeding a Strasbourg goose.

    It was candidate Obama who accused the Republicans of neglecting Afghanistan. He said it was a forgotten war, idling, relegated to a holding action. He vowed to make it the central front in the war on terror, give it the resources it needed and fight it to victory.

    Upon accessing the drivers seat in January he picked an aggressive general, ordered up 21 thousand more troops and stepped on the gas. Now with our wheels are spinning in the mud Nichols blames everyone but Obama.

    His pressure was the embarrassment for having misdiagnosed Iraq. He had called it unwinnable and that the Surge would only make it worse. With egg on his face, needing to sound tough and bold, he became a hawk on Afghanistan.

    Nichols denies that that war served no one but Obama. To make him end it it must be hung around his neck.

    Incidentally, that Afghanistan has been the graveyard of empires is a myth. It destroyed no invader, not the USSR, or Britain, the Mongols or Alexander the Great. Invaders decamped because it offered little of value. Britain alone needed to control that space to secure India's western flank against Russia. Which is why she stayed and fought three wars there, mostly with Indian troops, winning them all, although the first Anglo-Afghan war was very bloody.

    The Soviet Union US Stingers denied the Russians of control of the air. It was then, with his country breaking up at home that Gorbachev pulled out. He had bigger problems.

    We could win in Afghanistan, as we did in 20o2, with very few troops. But we don't need to.

    Posted by Pirovano at 10/03/2009 @ 08:12am

84. We could win in Afghanistan, as we did in 20o2, with very few troops. But we don't need to.

    Posted by Pirovano at 10/03/2009 @ 08:12am | ignore this person | warn this person

    Okay Hugo - let's give Loya Jirga a few stingers and get the hell out.

    Posted by OneVote at 10/03/2009 @ 10:25am

85. Get with it Pyromania,Afghanistan is a place to steer clear of. What is a win there?What is accomplished? Blow smoke about another subject. Candidate Obama made a political decision on Afghanistan that wasn't totally thought out. He had to make speeches that showed a Democrat would fight a war. Now he is faced with a crippled economy,a stretched out "tired" military,and a civilian population tired of war.

    Posted by whatozz at 10/03/2009 @ 12:12pm

86. the word Contras ring a bell?

    Posted by emile duBois at 10/03/2009 @ 2:27pm

87. The States have the right to regulate all other issues.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 2:20pm

    Your take is there should be NO **federal** regulation of WHAT that there is currently regulation of? Any of the following:

    medications, supplements, pollutants, toxins, pesticides, herbicides, engineering specs on materials?

    Just stick with federal regulations - do you claim there should be NONE related to these areas?

    What other areas? How about safety of car seats? cribs?

    Pony up Larry - be specific, name the areas currently with FEDERAL REGS that you believe to be improper.

    Posted by winyahn at 10/03/2009 @ 2:46pm

88. Look here:

    http://www.livestream.com/whodecidesaboutwarconference

    To watch this conference in action.

    Posted by brmanski at 10/03/2009 @ 2:46pm

89. Look here:

    http://www.livestream.com/whodecidesaboutwarconference

    To watch this conference in action.

    Posted by brmanski at 10/03/2009 @ 2:46pm

90. http://www.livestream.com/whodecidesaboutwarconference

    Posted by brmanski at 10/03/2009 @ 2:47pm

91. Two sentences-Santi- that is your "mantra" it is the way you want to hide.What worries me is you state all of these different things about your family tree and you are a 10th Amendment guy. You are a pro forma supporter of Lester Maddox, George Wallace, and Strom Thurmond. That negates most of what you have said. Thank you for making me re-read the Constitution today.It made me realize that with all the information you have at your disposal you have reconciled in your mind the easy way out. I am disappointed, This mob rule quote is your analysis not the one on the ground at the time. We are in a modern day Revolution, You are a supporter of King George,I hope you feel proud.

    Posted by whatozz at 10/03/2009 @ 4:24pm

92. Your response is a contradiction, want to revisit it?

    You have just stated you disagree with the founders on direct or pure democracy which they labeled mob rule and then say that you don't think mob rule is a good idea.

    Which is precisely why they set up a republic with representational govt instead.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 8:01pm

    Sorry what I mean to say was I absolutely agree with you that rule by the mob is a bad idea. If it was what we had I would be a second class citizen.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/03/2009 @ 4:26pm

93. Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 8:01pm

    I would like to ask your opinion on the REPUBLIC of South Africa circa 1961.

    lol.......ah the dangers of democracy, vis a vis The Republic.

    You suppose the founding fathers were just trying to protect their ass?

    'The Founding Fathers were concerned with Liberty and Rights, not democracy'

    Posted by antisocialist

    In other words, their selfish Liberty and Rights came first.

    Posted by OneVote at 10/03/2009 @ 5:13pm

94. It is really pretty simple. We get attacked, lots of people get killed. The American people get pissed and make their feelings felt by their pissed off Congressmen. They, in-turn, vote a resolution for the President to do whatever is necessary to obliterate the SOBs that did the evil deed. QED.

    In fact, this is the Only way it works.

    Posted by pyeatte at 10/03/2009 @ 6:29pm

95. Your take is there should be NO **federal** regulation of WHAT that there is currently regulation of? Any of the following:

    medications, supplements, pollutants, toxins, pesticides, herbicides, engineering specs on materials?

    Just stick with federal regulations - do you claim there should be NONE related to these areas?

    What other areas? How about safety of car seats? cribs?

    Pony up Larry - be specific, name the areas currently with FEDERAL REGS that you believe to be improper.

    Posted by winyahn at 10/03/2009 @ 2:46pm

    My previous response seems fairly clear; what don't you see?

    <The Fed has the right to regulate financial institutions regarding money, securities, and bonds.

    The States have the right to regulate all other issues.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 2:20pm>

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/03/2009 @ 6:41pm

96. Two sentences-Santi- that is your "mantra" it is the way you want to hide.What worries me is you state all of these different things about your family tree and you are a 10th Amendment guy. You are a pro forma supporter of Lester Maddox, George Wallace, and Strom Thurmond. That negates most of what you have said. Thank you for making me re-read the Constitution today.It made me realize that with all the information you have at your disposal you have reconciled in your mind the easy way out. I am disappointed, This mob rule quote is your analysis not the one on the ground at the time. We are in a modern day Revolution, You are a supporter of King George,I hope you feel proud.

    Posted by whatozz at 10/03/2009 @ 4:24pm

    Whatozz, your's has to rate as one of the dumber rebuttals I've seen in a while. You attribute views to me that I diametrically oppose.

    I am not a racist. I have a family of color and find your comment insidious and insulting trying to link me with racism. Do you think I hate my wife, children, and grandchildren, my mother-in-law, sisters-in-law, and all the assorted neices, nephews, and other extended family?

    You seem to hate the founders and me by extension for NOT wanting King George's rule. You evidently oppose our constitutional republic and seem to despise anyone who wishes to uphold it.

    And yes I am proud of being a passionate supporter of our constitution.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/03/2009 @ 6:47pm

97. "Whatozz, your's has to rate as one of the dumber rebuttals I've seen in a while. You attribute views to me that I diametrically oppose. "

    Kind of like when you try to attribute my views to be bigoted against the religious. Do you think I hate my grandparents, cousins, brother? Doesn't feel so good when the shoes is on the other foot.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/03/2009 @ 7:06pm

98. Kind of like when you try to attribute my views to be bigoted against the religious. Do you think I hate my grandparents, cousins, brother? Doesn't feel so good when the shoes is on the other foot.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/03/2009 @ 7:06pm

    Just curious CCC, what's with this constant desire on your part to attack me?

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/03/2009 @ 7:19pm

99. Your take is there should be NO **federal** regulation of WHAT that there is currently regulation of? Any of the following:

    medications, supplements, pollutants, toxins, pesticides, herbicides, engineering specs on materials?

    Just stick with federal regulations - do you claim there should be NONE related to these areas?

    What other areas? How about safety of car seats? cribs?

    Pony up Larry - be specific, name the areas currently with FEDERAL REGS that you believe to be improper.

    Posted by winyahn at 10/03/2009 @ 2:46pm

    My previous response seems fairly clear; what don't you see?

    <The Fed has the right to regulate financial institutions regarding money, securities, and bonds.

    The States have the right to regulate all other issues.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 2:20pm>

    OK, so you're for 50 state level regs of vacuums, vehicles, cribs, cranberries, airlines, you might be OK flying your Cesna over one state but not another. Companies trading with USA would have 50 different regs to comply with... Fascinating.

    Posted by winyahn at 10/03/2009 @ 7:59pm

100. Just curious CCC, what's with this constant desire on your part to attack me?

     Posted by antisocialist at 10/03/2009 @ 7:19pm

     I don't like people who call me bigoted. I am simply pointing to hypocrisy from someone who has repeatedly insulted me.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/03/2009 @ 9:06pm

101. Reading here, I see the analysis of what is going on in Central Asia (Afpac as military calls it) from both the conservatives and the Democrats (seems like an odd combination, don;t you think?) is that this is a WAR. And from the progressives opposed to the war that it is an OCCUPATION. But any in-depth analysis of WHO got us into this military activity and WHO has continued to encourage American involvement all of you must admit that this is not a WAR (that can be won) nor is it an OCCUPATION (which could develop democracies as happened in Europe after WWII). Rather, the facts will reveal that this is a QUAGMIRE - something we can not win in a region we cannot improve. This QUAGMIRE was designed from the very first to sink whoever is in power in Washington, D.C. (Republican or Democrat), to cause America to spend its blood and treasure to the point of breaking America, to further anti-Americanism everywhere, and to exacerbate the ideological divisions within America. The true enemies of America, active in both the Democrat and Republican parties have conducted a classic Divide and Conquer operation against America, and, thus far, they seem to be winning. It is time for every American, regardless of your ideolo9gical inclinations, to take a depth breath, set your ideologies aside, and find out who wants us there doing what we are doing. Otherwise America is simply doomed. Our economy can not possible recover. Our prestige will continue to diminish in the world. And we will tear ourselves apart arguing over whether it is a justified war or an unjustified occupation. It is instead a trick by the true devils in this world to destroy America.

     Posted by shadowknows at 10/04/2009 @ 12:48am

102. The strategy the anti-war movement needs to adopt must operate on two fronts. To simply oppose the war can at best only end this war in Afpac but since the warmongers are also waging other wars and preparing other wars a victory for the anti-war movement will only be a pyrrhic victory similar to the end of the Vietnam War. And at worst it will tear America apart. So we have a dilemma similar to that faced byAbraham Lincoln and his closest allies; how do you defeat the forces of slavery and still keep the union together. Lincoln's solution was to not only defend the union militarily but also economically and strategically. He knew that the confederacy was merely one of several surrogates across the planet of the foreign free trade oligarchy. He knew that his real enemy was not Jefferson Davis but Queen Victoria and her chiefs who were the leaders at that time of the free trade oligarchy. So Lincoln fought this evil system not only with his armies but also with his anti-free trade economic system based upon the Greenback (an honest American dollar backed up by the U.S. government not the phony FED dollars backed up by nothing that we have now). He also reached out internationally to form an alliance against the free trade oligarchy and its surrogates such as the confederacy. We must do something similar now. We need to oppose the warmongers in both the Republican and the Democratic Party. Oppose by any means necessary. But we must also expose the foreign free trade oligarchy that runs the Demo/Repo free trade policies. Lincoln opposed both the pro-slavers (obvious front) and the extreme abolitionists (the not so obvious front) who were also surrogates of the same foreign power.

     Posted by shadowknows at 10/04/2009 @ 04:54am

103. It will be easy to oppose the neocons (obvious warmongers) and it may be more difficult to oppose the Obama warmongers but we must do it nonetheless. Both the neocons/Republicans and the free trade forces within the Democratic party are both working towards the destruction of America. And they both ultimat4ely, through ideological, financial and family connections, working, both overtly and covertly, for the foreign free trade oligarchy. Free trade exploitation can not exist without wars. The greatest threat to the free trade warmongers is an awaken America that turns against war while simultaneously turning against the oligarchical free trade system that creates wars and returns to the American way of Abraham Lincoln. The largely foreign based free trade oligarchy knows this. That is why they delight in seeing America's predicament, Obama's predicament. If the anti-war movement remains simply a battle of left vs. right, they win. Just as if the struggle in the mid-19th century had remained a struggle between slaveholders and abolitionists; the Union would not have been saved. Today, we have no Lincoln in view, so it is the MOVEMENT that must play the role of Lincoln. We need to look at the situation with a worldview, not a provincial viewpoint. Our opposition to the war(s). It will not be enough to simply blame the U.S. military, or the CIA, or even Obama (and we will), but we must also expose and oppose those pulling the strings on both the left and the right. A British intelligence controlled outfit called Skull & Bones got us into the Vietnam War and it is Skull & Bones operatives in both political parties that have now got us bogged down in Afghanistan/Pakistan.

     Posted by shadowknows at 10/04/2009 @ 04:55am

104. OneVote at 10/03/2009 @ 10:25am said:

     >> let's give Loya Jirga a few stingers and get the hell out. <<

     What are you talking about?

     Obama is the one who needs a few zingers. He is responsible for this build up, and he can reverse it. The war is his. He wanted it and he can end it.

     The sting he will respond to is an anti-war movement of the sort zapped Johnson and Nixon, and tormented Bush. The left was not shy back then when the "killer of civilians" and "war criminal" was a rright winger.

     But what happens when he is a left winger? Where are the demonstrators now? Where are the desperate Cindy Sheehans and the enraged lefties whose high morals and lofty principles required them to castigate the commander in chief?

     If you want Obama to fold, that is how to proceed. He will fold quick, he is all words and mush. But you are craven hypocrites who in fact care much less about the pointless loss of lives and treasure in Afghanistan than about Obama's standing.

     If McCain were now president you would be massed on the mall shouting, " John McCain's war is an insane war". With Obama you are pretending, as in this Nichols essay, that it is not the president's fault, not his build up, that he is "under pressure" to fight.

     You know where you can shove your loya jirga you phony.

     Posted by Pirovano at 10/04/2009 @ 06:50am

105. Focusing most of our blame on our internal right-wingers for the war is a mistake. They are only cheer leaders. As are the liberals who think there is something to be gained by continuing what is going on. We need to focus our outrage on those who got us into these wars and who continue to pull the strings of both some key figures on the right and some key figures on the left to keep the war going and MORE SIGNIFICANTLY get us all so worked up and emotional that we can not rationally focus on reality. I agree we need to purge the nation of its enemies, but we need to focus on the team coaches and owners not the cheerleaders. I still say any rational investigation of current and recent past events will show that a largely FOREIGN oligarchy, principally British, Dutch, Saudi and Israeli oligarchs, have gotten America into this mess. This largely foreign oligarchy has its allies, its agents and its assets internally internally in our country, for sure, but the ideas and the original organizational impulses towards war (an especially war largely managed by the U.S. Pentagon) still reside within this largely foreign oligarchy. Only they ultimately benefit from these wars. And for those of you who prefer to call Afghanistan an occupation, it is still this same oligarchy that benefits. Who do you think controls oil and gas in Afghanistan? Who do you think benefits from the opium production? Look deeper. America is not isolated in this world and foreign intrigue has always colored our history. The rightists that deserve our ire are those DIRECTLY connected to the anti-American, warmongering foreign oligarchy. The leftists that we need to exclude from the anti-war movement are those DIRECTLY connected to the anti-American, warmongering foreign oligarchy.

     Posted by shadowknows at 10/04/2009 @ 10:52am

106. In "For Us, The Living", Heinlein describes an interesting voting system: if the nation is considering a war, the issue is put to a plebiscite.

     If the people vote to go to war, those who voted in the affirmative get drafted.

     If that number of people is insufficient, those who did not vote get drafted next.

     Then the nays.

     Perhaps, as a modern adjustment, all war 'supplementals' could be funded by excess taxes only on the ayes and abstentions.

     Posted by snowball777 at 10/04/2009 @ 11:22am

107. You know where you can shove your loya jirga you phony.

     Posted by Pirovano at 10/04/2009 @ 06:50am | ignore this person | warn this person

     Loya Jirga will decide this ultimately, not NATO. 8 US soldiers dead today, and 1 was killed by roadside bomb just outside Kabul yesterday. Another civil war created by neocon nation builders. "Taliban" is everywhere. The US doesn't know who supports it, who doesn't.

     Posted by OneVote at 10/04/2009 @ 11:25am

108. If the people vote to go to war, those who voted in the affirmative get drafted.

     If that number of people is insufficient, those who did not vote get drafted next.

     Then the nays.

     Perhaps, as a modern adjustment, all war 'supplementals' could be funded by excess taxes only on the ayes and abstentions.

     Posted by snowball777 at 10/04/2009 @ 11:22am | ignore this person | warn this person

     How reasonable and equitable. I'll vote for that.

     Posted by OneVote at 10/04/2009 @ 11:28am

109. But we must also expose the foreign free trade oligarchy that runs the Demo/Repo free trade policies...

     Posted by shadowknows at 10/04/2009 @ 04:54am

     Many great insights. Well done.

     My take on 'exposing / marginalizing the foreign free trade oligarchy' is the only possibility of this requires the establishment of an independent 4th estate. One independent of the military industrial, now multi-national - defense - healthcare complex.

     Your message is otherwise destined to continue to be drowned out,

     Posted by winyahn at 10/04/2009 @ 11:43am

110. USA and UK launched the illegal and unwanted wars orchestrated by Zionist led Neocons and fund risers. They effectively used the 9/11 incident with the help of Zionist media.It benefited the arm manufacturers and some cronies in the Bush Government like Vice President Dick Cheney who has business interests in Haliburton. The same company was awarded with major contracts at very high rates by the Bush administration. This wars have cost more than 1 million lives so far, and the war costs jumped to hundreds of billions.And still, the chance of winning the war is remote even after 8 years.And still the same aggressors and orchestrators of these failed wars, are trying to wage another war in Iran.

     Posted by Dastu11 at 10/04/2009 @ 12:04pm

111. 'When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains, and the women come out to cut up what remains, jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains and go to your gawd like a soldier'

     Rudyard Kipling

     Posted by OneVote at 10/04/2009 @ 12:52pm

112. You know where you can shove your loya jirga you phony.

     Posted by Pirovano at 10/04/2009 @ 06:50am | ignore this person | warn this person

     It was your President Bush who attempted to vest dictatorial powers in Karzai - much like the iron-hand rule of a Saddam Hussein. Afghanistan is tribal, not nationalistic. The concept of nationalism is a "theoretical" concept of intellect, and there must be basic literacy for the "idea" to catch on.

     A sharing of power among tribal councils is a better "constitutional" model, and infinitely more realistic. If Islamic Law is part of that constitution, so be it. Tribal representatives to council will decide what is best for their respective territories. Agreements between tribal representatives will be made at council. The president or head of council will be ceremonial, and will moderate, but not dictate.

     You are pissing against the wind.

     Posted by OneVote at 10/04/2009 @ 1:05pm

113. Posted by winyahn at 10/04/2009 @ 11:43am | ignore this person | warn this person

     We do now have an independent "4th estate" its called blogging. The problem is it isn't a mass broadcast media; you have to look for the blog.

     The problem is the broadcast media which is a complete tool of the oligarchy. The only way to deal with the mass media is to manipulate it with mass demonstrations and perhaps mass civil disobedience. But mass civil disobedience with a brain unlike the anarchist demonstrations at G8 & G20 meetings. During the Vietnam War protests, I was a strong advocate of the policy "If the government doesn't shut down the war, then we will shut down the government". And we almost did in the Mayday Demostrations in Washington, D.c. and alter we drove Nixon and the Republicans out of San Diego (where they wanted to convene), and we set up the circumstances for Nixon's fall because of the Watergate breaking, and, yes, the anti-war protests did help end that war. Our analysis of the war, who was responsible, and what we must do was well thought out. That same kind of reason needs to lead the anti-war effort today. Simply lashing out at "capitalism" or the rich or military is not enough. That is just what children do. We need to be specific about what we want and WHO we are against and why.

     Posted by shadowknows at 10/04/2009 @ 1:56pm

114. A tactical retreat in the ground and heavy use of technology for rapid air strikes and communications may be the only strategy to reduce American human losses to a minimum while still trying to get Al Qaeda on the long term.

     We should be watching them like cat with mouse. This is the only way to get Al Qaeda, at least to get their head: maintain a low profile to encourage their appearance from the mountains and caves.

     The Taliban is clearly another thing. I don't know if the Taliban is comparable to the Vietcong, but in many ways it is. It is a popular movement with the insidious influence of religious fanatics. I would bet that the only way to win over them is only negotiations - let them be without an army - and a fast thrive to modernization of the country. Why is it that the US has not created a net of satellites and distributed TV's and computers? As long as the people will have a window to the outside world and culture, the transformation will begin.

     However, the gross of the forces should retire as soon as possible, because we cannot build nation, nor win a conventional war in this scenario. In Vietnam it was the forest, here the mountains, the parallel can not be overlooked and the errors should not be repeated.

     Posted by Frank42 at 10/04/2009 @ 2:51pm

115. Posted by shadowknows at 10/04/2009 @ 1:56pm |

     Agree all the way on blogging and civil disobedience, and thank you for your service on behalf of true American values not to mention South East Asians. I believe the corporate choke-hold on 4th estate, even factoring in blogging, has worsened significantly, is worsening even in the economic meltdown. The powerful know how to create/exploit a crisis. The deterioration of the 4th estate prevents any intelligent, organized protest from fomenting. "News" portals, Cronkite types, etc., now are hobbled in a variety of ways. For example, modern news archors give short shrift to true tragedy, say in Gaza, and overstuff the time/space neon echo freak out coverage with Anna Nicole Smith and Brittany's latest binge n' nipple show.

     Posted by winyahn at 10/04/2009 @ 3:50pm

116. Posted by shadowknows at 10/04/2009 @ 10:52am:

     Speaking of opium, I think you got ahold of some bad stuff.

     Posted by pyeatte at 10/04/2009 @ 4:55pm

117. The point I made was simple .You are a two sentence 10th Amendment "hider", you have hidden behind it on a large number of your posts. Guess what ,I have a memory and I recall your discussion of your family tree. I find it fascinating that you are a picker and chooser when it comes to states rights. I am just calling you ouit. You now do not want anything to do with my 3 examples of "states rights" people . That is o.k. with me ,just don't use the 10th defense anymore. The point I am making is you are on the side of the modern day "King George's". You just missed it because of the juxtaposition of yourself and the three racists. I did it because I am tired of the self righteousness of you and the conservative right. My brother -in-law was gay. He was a good guy and my son's favorite uncle. What strikes me the most about him was the conflict in both the family and community. I flat out will oppose you because of that fact. He helped me to become much more open minded.Maybe you should try it.

     Posted by whatozz at 10/04/2009 @ 4:58pm

118. Speaking of opium, I think you got ahold of some bad stuff.

     Posted by pyeatte at 10/04/2009 @ 4:55pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     If I did, then you were the dealer.

     Posted by shadowknows at 10/04/2009 @ 7:08pm

119. Posted by whatozz at 10/04/2009 @ 4:58pm

     And you still remain someone who is opposed to the US constitution. Why don't you find a country that has the rules you like?

     Posted by antisocialist at 10/04/2009 @ 7:46pm

120. Your message is otherwise destined to continue to be drowned out,

     Posted by winyahn at 10/04/2009 @ 11:43am

     The more likely reason it will be drowned out is that that is the voice of a typical nostalgic "village idiot" who is a few centuries behind the times.

     Our global world depends on what is sometimes euphemistically called free trade by the US. Despite America dragging its feet a bit on the free part, that once "free" trade skeptic, Obama, has joined the rest of the world because he at least doesn't want other nations to think he is also a village idiot.

     Obama's forte seems to be navel gazing but even one so indolent does care what the rest of the world thinks about him.

     Incidentally that I suggest is one of the things that distinguishes him from Bush W

     Posted by lrjones4 at 10/05/2009 @ 08:57am

121. George W Bush, the war-monger started this unwanted war in Afghanistan, Obama is continuing it. And who will stop it?

     Posted by Dastu11 at 10/05/2009 @ 10:44am

122. Why don't you find a country that has the rules you like?

     Posted by antisocialist at 10/04/2009 @ 7:46pm

     -lil' ditty for y-uh, Larr:

     Be sure to give our broth-uh

     A big Christian hug-uh

     grab his ass and whisp-uh "trait-uh"

     as he heads f-uh Venezuel-uh.

     Posted by winyahn at 10/05/2009 @ 10:56am

123. Why don't you find a country that has the rules you like?

     Posted by antisocialist at 10/04/2009 @ 7:46pm

     -lil' ditty for y-uh, Larr:

     Be sure to give our broth-uh

     A big Christian hug-uh

     grab his ass and whisp-uh "trait-uh"

     as he heads f-uh Venezuel-uh.

     Posted by winyahn at 10/05/2009 @ 10:56am

     Simply pointing out that if someone dislikes having a constitutional republic, they should find a country with a system of govt that agrees with them.

     Posted by antisocialist at 10/05/2009 @ 11:14am

124. How do you un-post?

     Posted by winyahn at 10/05/2009 @ 9:26pm

125. OneVote at 10/04/2009 @ 1:05pm wrote:

     >> It was your President Bush who attempted to vest dictatorial powers in Karzai - much like the iron-hand rule of a Saddam Hussein. <<

     I don't know what is crazier about that sentence, that it is a non sequitur, its claim that Karzai is the equal of the brutal Saddam, or that it insinuates Saddam was put in power by the US.

     Posted by Pirovano at 10/07/2009 @ 10:03am

126. It is better for Obama, if he stops this unwanted war in Afghanistan.He needn't feel ashamed of the withdrawal. The US people have given the mandate for a CHANGE . The opposition to the war-monger Bush has given him the Presidency of the United States.It is losing war and a troop surge will not a victory.

     Posted by Dastu11 at 10/07/2009 @ 10:40am