Does Anyone Really Think The Dems Will Stop Imperialism??

[BayCityProgressive]

We are still in full march towards neverending war. I really thought after the last elections something would change but it won't. Most of the Dems domestic agenda will be vetoed as will any weak resolutions on Iraq.Dems have not even mentioned getting out of Afghanistan and many have publicly supported threatening Iran. The Dems say that they will pass a resolution if need be to stop any attack on Iran but I don't buy this. Many Dems in congress still support the invasion of Iraq and support keeping options open on Iran. Bush will launch airstrikes on Iran which he can do for 90 days without congress being able to do anything. After 90 days the Dems will cave and do nothing because we will be "at war". They have also said and done little to stop the escalating tensions with Syria and North Korea or Venezuela. We are on a one way ticket to hell and I just have this sick sinking feeling that there is no getting out of it. I feel like we are the Social Democrats in Nazi Germany...

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

1. So far, it doesn't look like they have the 'nads to stop ANYTHING.

They're still soft balling "non-binding resolutions" and little else.

[liberal N proud]

2. I don't think they can!

I think that the 2006 election was too little too late.

[EFerrari]

3. But consider this: while beltway politicians have their own culture,

it's our job to anchor the left.

The party does what parties do: it tries to survive and to aggregate power.

It's the people's job to remind them why they are in power and what to do with that power.

[leomcgarrysghost]

4. It's worth a try

and if it don't work, go Green.

[Bitwit1234]

5. Instead of mediaspewing they should pass the law.

Or resolution or whatever they need to deny bush the right to bomb, invade, or do anything except sanction Iran. THAT SHOULD COME FIRST TO STOP THIS MANIAC FROM DOING SO.

He thinks he can bomb Iran and everybody will run to him and kiss his ass again and he will be the WAR PRESIDENT...They have to pass it NOW..RIGHT NOW...NOT AFTER THE MONSTER GETS STARTED..Look how hard it is to get out of Iraq.

[BayCityProgressive]

6. they will run to him and kiss his ass

He will make it look like their fault, strike and then ask permission and everyone will throw praise on our glorious leader so that they can be "electable" in 08. It will happen, I just know it. The media won't be on our side either, Clinton deregulated that!

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. They aleady did

both leaderships warned bush, in the procedural way of doing things you tart with a stern warning

Step one has been done


By the way, you will HAVE TO WATCH C-SPAN for this news... CNN somehow missed the memo, they were really concenred about dead blondes

[On the Road]

7. I Think it Depends on Who Becomes President

Based on their statements, Clinton and Edwards IMO are the most likely to continue the current policies, followed by Clark. Obama, Richardson, and Gore would be less likely to do so.

It's not only a matter of supporting imperialism. Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter acquiesced in a form of US hegemony, but it was less frequent, less violent, and more likely to lead to regional peace and stability. The last four Republican presidents have engage in reckless and unnecessary wars destabilizing covert actions.

It makes a huge difference who is president.

[BayCityProgressive]

8. We don't have that kind of time

This war will start before the next elections and the Dems have an abysmal record on stopping this stuff. I agree both parties support the hegemony at least with the Dems in we can pressure them so it isn't QUITE as bad. I don't think we will get that chance though. Bush has been m,aking it easier to claim martial law too. Every year he passes laws making it easier. I think we will attack Iran and I hope to god he doesn't have something staged here or we may have el presidente for life.

[blues90]

9. No we don't have that kind of time left

I agree , we are at the edge of the cliff now and the dems are scattered . None binding resolutions that can't even be debated now they want to take away bushs war powers act . Well good luck on that one .

I have the feeling the more they push the issues trying to stop bush the sooner bush will do this horrid attack being cornered .

I also don't buy the dems who voted for this war did not know bush wanted to be a war president , this was well before the attack on Iraq , how could they not know he was intent on attacking .

[John Q. Citizen]

10. .The dems will fight attacking Iran and they will get Repo help. Whether they can

get 60 votes in the Senate is another matter. They will pass it in the house.

The house may cut off funding all by themselves by not passing appropriations legislation. While it doesn't stop the president from attacking Iran, it does stop him from funding it.

Or the house could move to impeach. That wouldn't stop bush from bombing Iran, but perhaps they could order him placed under arrest while he's awaiting trial. I'm not sure.

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. No they can't the president has all his powers

until they leave office at their end of their term, or they get convicted in the Senate

[BayCityProgressive]

13. They don't have the votes for either

cutting funds or impeachment. Thats a pipe dream. Even Pelosi is too weak kneed to support either and they don't have enough senate votes even if they wanted to. The Democrats did nothing to stop the full scale attack on Afghanistan and only about 1/2 the party voted against the Iraq invasion. Do you really see them stopping this? I don't. Like I said..even if they did get a majority to vote against, the president can veto. Also, I believe he can wage war for 90 days without having to go to congress. He will probably frame it to look like we are defending ourselves or God forbid there will be another attack here and that will be it.

[John Q. Citizen]

15. They don't need Senate votes not to fund. All they need is a majority in the house.

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. Not the cute centrist DLC type

they are just one side of the War Party, the other are the neocons on the other side. Essenctially both parties have neocons

You want thigns to change, ELECT progressives

Good luck, they are not well funded, for the most part... and the imperial media will not give them the time of day