August 7, 2015

Blahblahblah. I don't care. A rose by any other name still smells like a rose.

If Governor O'Malley publicly disavows his signing and support for the Hyde Park Declaration, and publicly disavows DLC/Third Way/New Democrat Centrism, I'll take him seriously. Otherwise, meh. It's just talk. His record as governor is

Long experience shows that DLC/ThirdWay/New Democrat Centrists will do or say anything to get elected, and then, when elected, make little or no attempt to actually do what they said they were going to do when campaigning.

Third Way/DLC/New Democrat Centrists have all but destroyed the Democratic party. Because of DLC/ThirdWay/New Democrat Centrists, in a few short years we went from having huge majorities in both Houses, and in the White House, to getting slaughtered in elections by Republicans, who now have huge majorities in both Houses ans a good shot at putting another one of their puppet clowns in the WH.

We have rampant economic inequality, and Americans have had to take to the streets several times because police are allowed to kill and incarcerate them with impunity. Banksters who destroyed the economy have not been prosecuted, and our President is fervently promoting a Trade Deal that will guarantee serfdom for American workers. Labor is in the worst shape since the New Deal, and wages are stagnant. Privatization is increasing year by year.

Why? Because Americans continue to elect DLC/Third Way/New Democrat politicians who make little or no attempt to solve the problems that need to be addressed because when all is said and done, their loyalty lies with corporations and oligarchs, and the 99% gets lip service and trickle on economic spew down our backs while being told it's only rain, nothing to worry about. Business worshiping centrist Democrats, along with republicans, have allowed wealthy private interests to exploit workers and fuck up our country and planet just about beyond repair.

So when Governor O'Malley disavows publicly disavows DLC/ThirdWay/NewDemocrat centirsm, I'll start believing he actually might be real.

Read:

August 5, 2015

DLC's PNAC Document - Hillary Clinton On America's Strategy

From the Council on Foreign Relations' publication.

BY HILLARY CLINTON | NOVEMBER 2011

From SwampRat in 2008: Does Hillary Clinton support the neoconservative manifesto the Project for the New American Century?

Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-23-08 02:26 PM
Original message
Does Hillary Clinton support the neoconservative manifesto the Project for the New American Century?

Before you vote for Hillary Clinton, please consider the following:

Research Questions:

Does Hillary Clinton support the neoconservative manifesto the Project for the New American Century (PNAC)?

Will electing her to be the President of the United States not only enable the destruction of the Democratic Party, but will it also damage the U.S. Government for generations, if not forever, thus transforming it into a permanent police state or empire?

Data:

1. Hillary Clinton is a team leader of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC).

2. Hillary Clinton praised the work of DLC and Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) founders, specifically with regard to their work in transforming the Democratic Party in the manner in which they proscribed (see below).

3-5. The founders of the DLC and PPI are members of or ideologically associated with PNAC; These DLC founders want to transform the Democratic Party, making it compatible with neo-liberalism/neo-conservatism.

________________

1. Hillary Clinton is a DLC team leader:

The DLC Leadership Team
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=137

________________

2. Hillary Clinton praises the work of Will Marshall and Al From, among others:


DLC | Speech | July 26, 2005
Remarks of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to the 2005 DLC National Conversation

(snip)

"So I would like to start by thanking Al From and Will Marshall, Bruce Reed, and all of the people at the DLC and the PPI, not only for the rich legacy of your ideas, which have helped to transform our party and reinvigorate our country, but for your determination to stay focused on the future, laying the groundwork for the next great era of Democratic leadership."

(snip)

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=137&subid=900111&co...

________________


The co-founder of the DLC is a member of PNAC: Will Marshall

3. Will Marshall:
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1295

(snip)

With Al From, in 1985 Marshall cofounded the DLC, an important bastion of center-right Democrats that was once chaired by Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT). In 1989, Marshall founded the PPI, a think tank that is affiliated with the DLC. Both organizations are sometimes described as neoconservative for their foreign policy positions. In an analysis of the two groups' stance on the Israeli offensive against Hezbollah in summer 2006, Tom Barry wrote: "In practice, though, DLC/PPI positions differ little from that of the Bush administration. As Israel rained bombs down on Lebanon, the DLC's New Dem Dispatch echoed the neoconservative camp in its plea for the Bush administration to avoid the supposed shame of appeasement in the Middle East. Adopting the same line taken by the Bush administration and the Israeli government, the newsletter recommended that the war be taken to Tehran and Damascus, which 'have become clear threats to regional and world peace, and must be isolated and sanctioned, not appeased.'"

(snip)

Marshall was one of 15 analysts who co-wrote the PPI's October 2003 foreign policy blueprint, "Progressive Internationalism: A Democratic National Security Strategy." Using language that closely mirrors that of the neoconservative-led Project for the New American Century (PNAC), the PPI hailed the "tough-minded internationalism" of past Democratic presidents such as Harry Truman. Like PNAC, which in its founding statement warned of grave present dangers confronting America, the PPI strategy declared that, "Today America is threatened once again" and is in need of assertive individuals committed to strong leadership. The authors' observation that, "like the Cold War, the struggle we face today is likely to last not years but decades," echoes both neoconservative and Bush administration national security assessments. As the "Progressive Internationalism" authors explain, the PPI endorsed the invasion of Iraq "because the previous policy of containment was failing, because Saddam posed a grave danger to America as well as to his own brutalized people, and because his blatant defiance of more than a decade's worth of UN Security Council resolutions was undermining both collective security and international law."

(snip)

Although Marshall calls himself a "centrist," he has associated himself with neoconservative organizations and their radical foreign policy agendas. At the onset of the Iraq invasion, Marshall signed statements issued by the Project for the New American Century calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein, advocating that NATO help "secure and destroy all of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction," and arguing that the invasion "can contribute decisively to the democratization of the Middle East."

Marshall's credentials as a liberal hawk have been well established by his affinity for other PNAC-associated groups, including the U.S. Committee on NATO and the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. Marshall served on the board of directors of the U.S. Committee on NATO alongside such leading neoconservative figures as Robert Kagan, Richard Perle, Randy Scheunemann, Paul Wolfowitz, Stephen Hadley, Peter Rodman, Jeffrey Gedmin, Gary Schmitt, and the committee's founder and president Bruce Jackson. At the request of the Bush administration, Jackson also formed the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, which, with former DLC chairman Joseph Lieberman serving as co-chair with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), aimed to build bipartisan support for the liberation, occupation, and democratization of Iraq. Marshall, together with former Democratic Sen. Robert Kerrey of Nebraska (who coauthored "Progressive Internationalism&quot , represented the liberal hawk wing of the Democratic Party on the committee's neocon-dominated advisory board. Other advisers included James Woolsey, Eliot Cohen, Newt Gingrich, William Kristol, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Joshua Muravchik, Chris Williams, and Richard Perle.

On February 25, 2003, Marshall joined an array of neoconservatives marshaled by the Social Democrats/USA (SD/USA)—a wellspring of neoconservative strategy—to sign a letter to Bush calling for the invasion of Iraq. Marshall and others asked the president to "act alone if that proves necessary" and then, as a follow-up to a military-induced regime change in Iraq, to implement a democratization plan. The SD/USA letter urged the president to commit his administration to "maintaining substantial U.S. military forces in Iraq for as long as may be required to ensure a stable, representative regime is in place and functioning." Others signing the SD/USA letter included Jackson, Kagan, Woolsey, Hillel Fradkin, Rachelle Horowitz, Penn Kemble, Nina Shea, Michael Novak, Clifford May, and Ben Wattenberg.

(snip)

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1295

________________


http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1463

4. Democratic Leadership Council

(snip)

The DLC was established in the wake of President Ronald Reagan's 1984 landslide victory, in which he won 49 states, over Democrat Walter Mondale. During the Democratic convention in San Francisco, Mondale had successfully beat back a challenge from Gary Hart, who predicted that unless the Democratic Party adopted a new image it would be decisively defeated. Mondale proved unable to respond effectively to charges from the Republican right and neoconservative Democrats that the Democratic Party was the party of progressives-which Jeane Kirkpatrick variously labeled as the "San Francisco Democrats" and the "blame America first" Democrats-who were out of touch with mainstream America. As Dan Balz and Ronald Brownstein concluded in their book Storming the Gates, "Mondale's landslide defeat exposed as a dead end the vision of regaining the White House by mobilizing an army of the disaffected with a message of unreconstructed liberalism."

Pondering the Mondale defeat, a gathering coalition of Southern Democrats and northern neoliberals expressed concerns that the Democratic Party faced extinction, particularly in the South and West, if the party continued to rely on its New Deal message of government intervention and kept catering to traditional constituencies of labor, minorities, and anti-war progressives. In 1985, Al From, an aide to Rep. Gillis Long (D-LA), took the lead in formulating a new messaging strategy for the party's centrists, neoliberals, and conservatives. Will Marshall, at that time Long's policy analyst and speechwriter, worked closely with From to establish the DLC and then became its first policy director.

In his "Saving the Democratic Party" memo of January 1985, From advocated the formation of a "governing council" that would draft a "blueprint" for reforming the party. According to From, the new leadership should aim to create distance from "the new bosses"-organized labor, feminists, and other progressive constituency groups-that were keeping the party from modernizing. From's memo sparked the formation of the Democratic Leadership Council in early 1985. According to Balz and Brownstein, "Within a few weeks, it counted 75 members, primarily governors and members of Congress, most of them from the Sunbelt, and almost all of them white; liberal critics instantly dubbed the group 'the white male caucus.'"
(snip)

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1463

________________


http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1534.html

5. Progressive Policy Institute

"Don't look now, but neoconservatism is making a comeback-and not among the Republicans who have made it famous, but in the Democratic Party," declared writer Jacob Heilbrunn in a May 28, 2006 op-ed for the Los Angeles Times. In "Neocons in the Democratic Party," Heilbrunn argued that a new generation of Democratic "pundits and young national security experts" are trying to revive the Cold War precepts of President Harry S. Truman and apply them to the war on terror. "The fledgling neocons of the left are based at places such as the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), whose president, Will Marshall, has just released a volume of doctrine called With All Our Might: A Progressive Strategy for Defeating Jihadism and Defending Liberty . Their political champions include Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman and such likely presidential candidates as former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner and Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, who is chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC)."

(snip)

PPI, founded in 1989 by Marshall and Al From, is a project of the Third Way Foundation, a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization. As the think tank for the Democratic Leadership Council, the PPI says its mission "arises from the belief that America is ill-served by an obsolete left-right debate that is out of step with the powerful forces reshaping our society and economy." PPI claims to advocate "a philosophy that adapts the progressive tradition in American politics to the realities of the information age and points to a 'third way' beyond the liberal impulse to defend the bureaucratic status quo and the conservative bid to simply dismantle government."

Marshall and From have long advocated for a "third way" in the political debate that consists of free-market principles that largely echo the right-wing platform, making their organization's name misleading. Indeed, one of PPI's five strategies includes "confronting global disorder by building enduring new international structures of economic and political freedom" (PPI Overview, June 1, 1998).

Marshall is president of the Third Way Foundation and of PPI, and From is the foundation's chairman. Paul Weinstein is the institute's chief operating officer. In fiscal 2004, Third Way board members included Linda Peek Schacht, Charles Alston, William Budinger, William Galston, and Susan Hothem, according to the IRS Form 990 provided at GuideStar.org. PPI staff includes Marshall, Steven Nider (expert in foreign and security studies), Michele Stockwell (education and social policy), David Kendall (health), Edward Gresser (trade), and Jan Mazurek (energy and environment). PPI senior fellows include Weinstein, Andrew Rotherham, Marshall Wittmann, and Fred Siegel. PPI operates on an annual budget approaching $3 million. Seymour Martin Lipset, a leading neoconservative political sociologist, is a former PPI board member, according to a 2002 report by Capital Research Center.

The core principles of the "third way movement" are set forth in the DLC/PPI's 1996 publication, The New Progressive Declaration: A Political Philosophy for the Information Age. As the New Democrats explain, the enduring progressive values must be adapted to the information age, which translates into policy recommendations that are very close to policies articulated by the administration of George W. Bush: uncompromising support for free market and free trade economics, a strong military with a global presence, an end to the politics of entitlement, rejection of affirmative action, and an embrace of competitive enterprise while at the same time rejecting a key role for government in development policy. Expressing the opinion of many progressive Democrats, Robert Kuttner, American Prospect editor, wrote that the political approach of the DLC amounts to "splitting the difference with a Republican administration" (American Prospect, July 7, 2002).

(snip)

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1534.html

________________

Conclusion:

You decide.

Will a vote for a PNAC-PPI-DLC candidate, not only enable the destruction of the Democratic Party, but will it also empower those who will continue to use our government, hence our good name, to commit and condone mass murder and theft on a global scale?

Should we support people who have openly stated they will reshape our democracy to conform to the mission principles of the PNAC manifesto?

Finally, will this lead to a permanent police state, governed by and for an elite ruling class, thus transforming the United States of America into an empire?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5222518

August 5, 2015

Hillary Clinton Sides with NSA over Snowden Disclosures

August 2, 2015

Never confuse non-violent attempts to prevent people from consciously, or unconsciously,

causing violence, death, and destruction, with hatred.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026919915

"We Didn't Know" is always the same lie, the same lame excuse, that is used after the body counts are done.

July 30, 2015

Meh. The same group defends the Iraq War, because Clinton promoted giving Bush

free license to wage war and commit genocide with impunity.

Clinton trusted George W. Bush, and passionately and publicly encouraged other Senators and members of Congress to grant Bush his wish to have complete use of the US Armed Forces to attack, conquer, and occupy Iraq.

This, despite frantic widespread attempts by millions of sensible people telling her don't trust Bush, don't vote to give this neocon warmonger the ability to wage war like a vindictive toddler with ADHD, in the peak throes of the terrible twos. Criminy, a blind hamster could see through that deadly maniac.

So, why should we take any group that defends Bush's holocaust of Iraq in support of a Presidential candidate who can be duped by a total loser like George W. Bush seriously? We have more productive, very serious endeavors to engage in, rather than wasting our precious time dignifying contrived illusion by paying attention to it.

All we need to do is consider the statements below, and move on, and do our best to ensure that a candidate like Hillary Clinton, who can be so easily fooled by George W. Bush, is never given the chance to exercise her tragic, disastrous inability to make wise judgments as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States ~

"If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition...I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible....

....This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction....

.....So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.

Thank you, Mr. President." - The actual words of Hillary Clinton.

A vote that puts that awesome responsibility in the hands of George W. Bush. Just so very wrong. Tragically wrong. Disastrously wrong.


When you give a 19 minute floor speech about going to war, it can not be called a mistake.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=433771

Here are the videos of Clinton's call to support Bush, and give him free rein to begin the Bush neocon war.

&feature=youtu.be

&feature=youtu.be

Text of Clinton's plea to support Bush and his war.

Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (October 10, 2002)

October 10, 2002

Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of
United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
As Delivered

Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program.

I am honored to represent nearly 19 million New Yorkers, a thoughtful democracy of voices and opinions who make themselves heard on the great issues of our day especially this one. Many have contacted my office about this resolution, both in support of and in opposition to it, and I am grateful to all who have expressed an opinion.

I also greatly respect the differing opinions within this body. The debate they engender will aid our search for a wise, effective policy. Therefore, on no account should dissent be discouraged or disparaged. It is central to our freedom and to our progress, for on more than one occasion, history has proven our great dissenters to be right.

Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people. Unfortunately, during the 1980's, while he engaged in such horrific activity, he enjoyed the support of the American government, because he had oil and was seen as a counterweight to the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran.

In 1991, Saddam Hussein invaded and occupied Kuwait, losing the support of the United States. The first President Bush assembled a global coalition, including many Arab states, and threw Saddam out after forty-three days of bombing and a hundred hours of ground operations. The U.S.-led coalition then withdrew, leaving the Kurds and the Shiites, who had risen against Saddam Hussein at our urging, to Saddam's revenge.

As a condition for ending the conflict, the United Nations imposed a number of requirements on Iraq, among them disarmament of all weapons of mass destruction, stocks used to make such weapons, and laboratories necessary to do the work. Saddam Hussein agreed, and an inspection system was set up to ensure compliance. And though he repeatedly lied, delayed, and obstructed the inspections work, the inspectors found and destroyed far more weapons of mass destruction capability than were destroyed in the Gulf War, including thousands of chemical weapons, large volumes of chemical and biological stocks, a number of missiles and warheads, a major lab equipped to produce anthrax and other bio-weapons, as well as substantial nuclear facilities.

In 1998, Saddam Hussein pressured the United Nations to lift the sanctions by threatening to stop all cooperation with the inspectors. In an attempt to resolve the situation, the UN, unwisely in my view, agreed to put limits on inspections of designated "sovereign sites" including the so-called presidential palaces, which in reality were huge compounds well suited to hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which Saddam Hussein was required by UN resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left. As a result, President Clinton, with the British and others, ordered an intensive four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets.

In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?

Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.

This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.

However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.

If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?

So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.

Others argue that we should work through the United Nations and should only resort to force if and when the United Nations Security Council approves it. This too has great appeal for different reasons. The UN deserves our support. Whenever possible we should work through it and strengthen it, for it enables the world to share the risks and burdens of global security and when it acts, it confers a legitimacy that increases the likelihood of long-term success. The UN can help lead the world into a new era of global cooperation and the United States should support that goal.

But there are problems with this approach as well. The United Nations is an organization that is still growing and maturing. It often lacks the cohesion to enforce its own mandates. And when Security Council members use the veto, on occasion, for reasons of narrow-minded interests, it cannot act. In Kosovo, the Russians did not approve NATO military action because of political, ethnic, and religious ties to the Serbs. The United States therefore could not obtain a Security Council resolution in favor of the action necessary to stop the dislocation and ethnic cleansing of more than a million Kosovar Albanians. However, most of the world was with us because there was a genuine emergency with thousands dead and a million driven from their homes. As soon as the American-led conflict was over, Russia joined the peacekeeping effort that is still underway.

In the case of Iraq, recent comments indicate that one or two Security Council members might never approve force against Saddam Hussein until he has actually used chemical, biological, or God forbid, nuclear weapons.

So, Mr. President, the question is how do we do our best to both defuse the real threat that Saddam Hussein poses to his people, to the region, including Israel, to the United States, to the world, and at the same time, work to maximize our international support and strengthen the United Nations?

While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq. I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998.

If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition.

If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.

If we try and fail to get a resolution that simply, but forcefully, calls for Saddam's compliance with unlimited inspections, those who oppose even that will be in an indefensible position. And, we will still have more support and legitimacy than if we insist now on a resolution that includes authorizing military action and other requirements giving some nations superficially legitimate reasons to oppose any Security Council action. They will say we never wanted a resolution at all and that we only support the United Nations when it does exactly what we want.

I believe international support and legitimacy are crucial. After shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable. While the military outcome is not in doubt, should we put troops on the ground, there is still the matter of Saddam Hussein's biological and chemical weapons. Today he has maximum incentive not to use them or give them away. If he did either, the world would demand his immediate removal. Once the battle is joined, however, with the outcome certain, he will have maximum incentive to use weapons of mass destruction and to give what he can't use to terrorists who can torment us with them long after he is gone. We cannot be paralyzed by this possibility, but we would be foolish to ignore it. And according to recent reports, the CIA agrees with this analysis. A world united in sharing the risk at least would make this occurrence less likely and more bearable and would be far more likely to share with us the considerable burden of rebuilding a secure and peaceful post-Saddam Iraq.

President Bush's speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier. Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.

Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.

This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction.

And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation. I want this President, or any future President, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war. Secondly, I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and for our support for the President's efforts to wage America's war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. And thirdly, I want the men and women in our Armed Forces to know that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq, our country will stand resolutely behind them.

My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.

Over eleven years have passed since the UN called on Saddam Hussein to rid himself of weapons of mass destruction as a condition of returning to the world community. Time and time again he has frustrated and denied these conditions. This matter cannot be left hanging forever with consequences we would all live to regret. War can yet be avoided, but our responsibility to global security and to the integrity of United Nations resolutions protecting it cannot. I urge the President to spare no effort to secure a clear, unambiguous demand by the United Nations for unlimited inspections.

And finally, on another personal note, I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year's terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am.

So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.

Thank you, Mr. President.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2667891

Yes, Thank you, Mr. President, and thank you Senator Clinton, for the horror of holocaust you brought upon the sovereign peoples of Iraq, the shame you brought upon the United States, and the eternal wars you have brought into being as a consequence of your actions.

July 29, 2015

They are no worse than ruthless capitalist exploiters who destroy the land and all life

that lives on the land that they destroy without remorse.

They are all ignorant. In general, it is not a priority for the primary extant culture in the US to teach children about the sanctity of all life, or to respect all life.

Indeed, the current primary society occupying the land known as the United States was founded on unfettered, wanton, conscienceless destruction and contamination of the entire planet. A primary imperialist capitalist ideal, commonly known in US Judeo-Christian culture as "progress", is the idea that killing and destroying anything and everything that exists in the natural world for profit is noble, good, commendable, and for the greater good of all humankind.

So when just one more asshole kills a lion for pleasure, he's simply reflecting ancient values of modern Judeo-Christian cultures.

I believe this institutionalized cultural belief may stem in great part from an ancient, long standing grifter-capitalist imperialist interpretation of this biblical verse:

Genesis 1:26 - Then God said, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

July 28, 2015

Some Democrats are supporting a candidate who exercises this type of poor judgment,

who makes deadly serious mistakes that result in costly, unjustifiable destructive wars, and the tragic, unnecessary deaths and cripplings and maimings of hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

The crushing heartbreak and sorrow of innocent loving mothers and fathers who lost their children to the consequences of this "mistake". The crushing heartbreak and sorrow of innocent orphaned children, whose mothers and fathers were brutally slaughtered as a consequence of "mistakes".

They're dead, and their families and friends who still survive, some of them physically maimed for life, will live for the rest of their lives with the horror, pain, and heartbreak that is the result of this "mistake" every single day for the rest of their lives.

A candidate who believed in George W. Bush and Bush's call to war for Wall St. profits and profiteers in a defense industry billions of dollars profit bonanza of blood, torture, and wanton destruction.

A candidate who believed in George W. Bush, and Bush's call to war, despite the constant, visible, vocal, desperate pleas and warnings of millions of liberal progressives, most notably the opposition of the Democratic Progressive Left in the US Congress.

The deaths of hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of people under these circumstances is not a mere "mistake".

It's a holocaust. (Definition of holocaust: destruction or slaughter on a mass scale, especially caused by fire or nuclear war).

And some Democrats actually want to put someone who exercised such poor judgment, who made such a tragic mistake, in the White House. Some Democrats actually want to elect someone with such poor judgment, someone who made the tragic mistake of believing in George W. Bush. Someone who believed George W. Bush's reasons for going to war and voted to give Bush unfettered license to begin his legacy, his murderous war on the innocent people of Iraq.

And as a result of this "mistake", we now have eternal wars for profit, and radical groups such as ISIS, raging out of control in the Middle East.

Some Democrats actually want to elect this person who made such a tragic mistake to the position of Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States. It's unfathomable.

I want no part in any future "mistakes", except, hopefully, in preventing them by electing a candidate who voted "nay", a candidate who was not party to the "mistake" of giving Bush a license to kill with impunity.

A "mistake"?

Really?

July 25, 2015

That's deceitful, Sid. I did not call the actions of BLM protestors that.

My comment was directed at an Original Post article.

I later explained how, if a group repeatedly over time insinuates that progressive Democrats are racist, and don't care about race issues, but does not clearly explain why they believe progressive Democrats are racist, and don't care about race issues, then they are not doing anything to help their cause, are helping to fragment the Democratic party.

I can't help it if people misunderstand and misconstrue what I say, deliberately or not deliberately. Below is exactly what I explained about the term I used. I did not receive any constructive input in response to my request for a clear explanation of what progressives need to do to help the AA community.

In this case, it is yelling at people who are not black, but who sincerely want to do everything

they can to help, but don't know what to do. Calling these people racists because you feel they are not helping you, but when they ask "What do you want me to do", they get no answer.

Getting threatened by "we're not going to vote for your candidate if you don't listen to me", and then listening, and listening, and listening, but not hearing anything specific about what how we can help.

Tell us to wrap ourselves in a flag on the courthouse steps and burn ourselves. Go out in the street and protest ask us to join you. Ask us to donate to the charity of your choice, just clearly let us know what you want us to do.

We're not elected officials. we don't have their power to elicit change. We try to nominate the candidates we feel will do the most to help, but they almost never get nominated. Instead vanilla corporate candidates get elected and do nothing to help. This is not the fault of Progressive Democrats, it is the fault of the people who elect the candidates who don't try to fix the problems.

When people say, "hey, what you are doing doesn't seem to be working for you, maybe try something different, try voting for the people who appear to be the ones who are most likely to help you, they get told "don't tell me how to vote".

It's like being a mouse in a maze, a catch 22, an unsolvable puzzle. And it makes me want to give up. I want to help, but obviously don't know how. I ask how can I help, but get no clear answer.

I understand African Americans are angry, You have every fucking reason to be. Non AA progressives are angry too, but people not directly by a problem can only understand and feel it to a fraction of what the oppressed people feel.

But we don't understand why African Americans are blaming us, yelling at us, threatening us, for being responsible for these conditions. Our candidates almost get nominated, so we vote for the same people you do, in the hope that at least some progress will be made.

We don't understand why you are not yelling at the republicans who are killing you and making your lives hard. We don't understand why you are not yelling at the corporatist Democrats who are not helping you. Instead, it seems you are misdirecting your anger at us.

This is causing me to want to just give up, I want to help, and try to help, and get yelled at and threatened for doing so. This makes me resigned to a fractured voting block, and a republican government. Which would be horrible for all of us.

So, please, please, if you wouldn't mind, tell me, right here and now, simply, and clearly, in plain simple language, exactly and specifically what you want non- African Americans to do to help the black community.

I work with people who can't help themselves, and who cannot speak. I do the best I can to to determine from their methods of communication what they need me to to do help them.

So please to tell me. Plain and simple.

I'm listening. But I'm really stupid. So I need you to please make it it clear, simple. and specific.

Thank you.
--------------------------------------------
Again, I cannot help it if people misconstrue, or misunderstand, deliberately or not deliberately, the meaning of what I say. Third Way type posters deliberately misconstruing facts and posts by progressive DUers is a fact of life on DU, and most everyone here knows it.

Your statement about me calling the actions of BLM protestors that is something I did not say, and this is just another clear example of certain posters deliberately misconstruing what DU progressives post.

Personal attacks, smear jobs, strawmen, never answering questions directly, those are tactics repeatedly employed by Third Way type posters here, who, not coincidentally, are also all Hillary Clinton supporters.

So there you have it, Sid.

Carry on.

July 21, 2015

This entire process was a well conceived, orchestrated maneuver by the Third Way. Third Way trolls

and their clueless followers have been lying their propagandizing asses on DU and other Democratic websites for months, doing whatever nasty shit was necessary to paint Bernie as a passive racist unconcerned about justice and equality for the African American Community.

All this time I'm thinking, what's the game here? This is some really filthy shit, they're up to no good with this, spreading lies and smearing a Democratic public servant, simply because they are desperate to get their 1% Third Way candidate elected.

Then Clinton skips the NN gig (do ya think maybe she might have been tipped off?), and the Democrats who attend are discussing immigration issues when #blm does their act. #blm is not there for discussion, they are their to co-opt the event, swiftboat Clinton's competition, and the thing that makes it all perfect is that any criticism of the protest will be construed as not listening to what #blm is trying to get across.

Then a truly ugly racist website, #bernieissoblack, gets posted at DU, more bullshit lies appear from the Third Way trolls, and the media has a field day dumping on Democrats.

Of course, immediately after this, Clinton performs the next step in the script, by going on facebook or whatever, (where she is immune to any criticism or interruption, of course), and engages #blm or whoever like she is miss innocent little Mother Bo Peep, so very concerned, pretending like she wouldn't sell the black community down the river in a hummingbird's heartbeat if the global banking community required her to do so in payment for dumping millions into her campaign to serve them in the White House.

I have to admit, the talent the Third Way employs to ensure that super wealthy white people maintain control of the US government and the people of the US, came up with a pretty clever, failsafe little maneuver here.

However, this whole thing has backfired for them to a great extent. It is not that I am unsympathetic to the purported goals of #blm, or am not acutely aware of the desperate state of the African American community, who have been victimized and slaughtered by imperialist white cops in this land and others for centuries. I've been beaten with batons, unjustly jailed twice. I've had cops handcuff me facedown behind my back, one cop beating me on the back with a baton while the other joyfully ground my face into the dirt. This was right after they shot at me, while I was unarmed, while running away from them. They did not know who I was. I heard the bullet whiz by my ear before I heard the gunshot. And this is not nearly all of it.

Despite the actions of the Third Way, and any agents or agency they employ, to knowingly or unknowingly do their nasty business for them in an effort to maintain and increase the control the wealthy white 1% and their botcops have over our government and our lives, I will continue to struggle to control and regulate the power of the 1% and their cops to abuse with impunity me, the black community, all other oppressed minorities, even straight white men.

From my point of view, one of the best ways for me to help achieve this goal is to elect Senator Sanders to the Presidency of the United States. His past actions and integrity prove to me that he understands my struggles and will work assiduously to address my grievances. Anybody can speak words. Words are for lies in politics.

I have always held my nose and voted for the lesser of two evils since 1992. It was a matter of conscience. I knew that any Democrat would be better than a republican, so I went to the polls to do my part to keep the fascists out of the WH.

But for the first time, there has come a point where the possible lesser of two evils has been a part of something so heinous that I cannot, in good conscience, ever vote for this person.

I could never, in good conscience, vote for anyone who would debase him or herself, for personal gain, by being part of a horrible smear/swiftboat campaign used to attempt to besmirch the reputation, and slander the integrity, of a person totally innocent of the insinuations leveled against them. I don't care if it's a homeless person, or the queen of the world, who they attempt to maliciously slander, I could never associate myself with, let alone vote to elect to the most powerful leadership position in the world, anyone who would knowingly be a part of these types of dirty deeds, either actively or passively. And I'm quite sure that I'm not the only one driven to this course of action by these unfortunate recent events.

To be clear, it is not my intention here to speak for Senator Sanders, or presume to "protect" him. A longtime democratic socialist Senator in the swamp of the conservative US Senate needs no protection from anyone or anything. I'm simply explaining why, if Hillary Clinton is nominated by the Democratic Party to be the Democratic party presidential nominee, this lifetime yellowdog Democrat won't be voting for the Democratic candidate for president for the first time in the almost five decades in which I have been eligible to vote.

Hanging out with war criminal Henry Kissinger ~