Apparently it’s made up of a significant fraction of the third and fourth columns.
You know, the Constitution lets Congress call any military commander to testify at any time. Apparently a non-trivial number of them think that Petraeus is full of shit and have the data to back it up. Yet, somehow, the only significant voices on Capitol Hill this week are the two guys with the longest history of substance-free cheerleading. Way to go Dems.
After the 04 election it felt like the right thing to me to leave the party and register independent. Every day now the Dems justify my choice. And as an added bonus, I get much less junk mail at election time!
I just wish more of the country would reject political parties, but I realize that’s lala land.
Politicians will give up parties right before athletes give up sporting teams, but well after workers give up unions. There’s a reason ducks fly in flocks and wolves hunt in packs. And there’s a reason pols and activists join parties. Nothing ever gets done in any governmental system without a large number of people pushing for it at the same time.
Maybe at the end of the week Petraeus will tell the Dems what he can accept.
Never been a registered Republican, never been a registered Democrat. See absolutely no reason to change that.
One, Matthews on Hardball points out today that John Warner, a Republican, flayed Petraeus by asking him whether the Iraq war makes America safer. Petraeus’ answer: I don’t know. Seriously, that was his answer. The greate commander doesn’t know if his war is making us safer.
Two, saying things “I reject the parties” is just bloggorhea at its worst. Look, you have a party out there that has sold its soul to religious lunatics and neocon warmongers. The only instrument you have for abating their power is the opposition party right now.
If you don’t want Republicans to keep this shit up, what you need to be doing is going door to door for Dem candidates, putting signs in front yards, registering voters and driving people to the polls on election day.
Standing off to the side and pretending that you are above all this is about as useful as Naderism right now. I think it’s stupid and totally selfish. Party stuff is beneath you? Great, because with a few more Dem votes in 2000 or 2004, maybe we wouldn’t be in this mess.
Right it’s not about politics as usual. It’s about irradiating the Republican cancer that threatens to destroy this country.
amend: “Right now it’s not about …. “
I can just see it–Democrats call other generals to rebutt Petraeus, and the White House blocks it, citing executive privilege because the President is the Commander in Chief. Think they’d try it?
“You know, the Constitution lets Congress call any military commander to testify at any time. Apparently a non-trivial number of them think that Petraeus is full of shit and have the data to back it up”
Dying for “the data.”
I’d be surprised if they didn’t.
Yeah, but it’s not his war, it’s Bush’s and the 28%ers. Petreaus’ comment here was, I think, quite political in its way, distancing himself from them. Yesterday, he even distanced himself from the idea of the surge by noting it was General Casey who had asked for all the additional troops.
I’ll take his comment and throw it in the face of the right wingers championing Petraeus – even he can’t see if the war is helping. how the fuck can they maintain that it is?
With a band of right-wing screaming banshees? Doesn’t have to be true, it just has to appeal to the “messes”. ;)
‘Mess Appeal’ – I like that – and just stole it. Seriously, I’ll bet Bush is furious with Petraeus for some of the things he said the last 2 days, including yesterday’s “We can’t kill ourselves out of Iraq”, which probably broke Michelle’s heart. His points about reconciliation were also telling – I’ll bet some of the 28ers are a little peeved with the General right about now.
Steal away ;)
What’s your point? I gathered nothing from the post.
He then finished by saying, “And this report will never, ever, ever see the light of day, and if it ever does, Fallon is canned one hour later”
What’s your point? I gathered nothing from the post.
Nobody here thought you would
Ah, yeah. Actually, the post-2006 Dems have pretty much demolished that assertion. They’ve done essentially NOTHING to stop the war. Far, far worse is that they’ve done less than nothing to head off an epochal, 1914-style strategic catastrophe vis-a-vis Iran. In fact, by saying, 97-zip, that they’d never dream of looking over Bush & Cheney’s shoulders while they craft their Iran schemes, the Democratic-led Senate may have made such a catastrophe MORE LIKELY.
I think it’s quite likely that, for their own reasons, the fucking Dems are every bit as intent to keep the Iraq disaster spinning along as Bush is. Bush simply wants to dump the problem and the blame on his successor — it’s what the miserable little shitstain does with his life. But the Dems think they’re being clever: They want an easy target to run against, and a botched war is a dream come true.
In the short term, it might well work, and the Jackass might pull off a 1932-style rout. But they’ll have won a poison chalice, because it’s quite likely that very ugly things will follow an American defeat — if nothing else, it’s Southwest Asia. Causes, chronologies, backstories mean nothing in American politics. All that matters is, who’s in office when the bad stuff happens. The Dems will have set themselves up beautifully for catching ALL the blame….
…Which, in a way, they will have richly earned, by abdicating their responsibilities, and NOT ending Bush’s war while Bush is still in office. And they CAN end it. All their whining (“We don’t have the votes!”) is disgraceful, beneath contempt.
I’ve been a registered Dem since 1976. I’m going to vote in the primary for a challenger to the local U.S. Congress seat, and for Kucinich. And then I’m dropping my party affiliation. Nader was wrong in the particular case of Bush v. Gore, but in general, Nader was right.