A Time To Act

Posted by on . 12 comments.

One of those spineless Democrats that Sac likes to rail against has an OpEd about the Middle East in today’s Washington Post. Don’t go read it. It might dislodge some kind of important misconceptions or something.

Comments

  1. sac says:
    July 28, 2006 at 1:41 pm

    That’s awesome. A former Sec. of State wrote an op-ed piece.

    This is exactly the kind of thing I’m talking about. The current crop of Democratic politicians have given us little to hang on to that an op-ed piece from a FORMER Democratic politician suddenly becomes a shining example of Democratic fortitude.

    I’ll check it out in a bit.

  2. matt says:
    July 28, 2006 at 1:51 pm

    for fuck’s sake. read the article, then comment.

    sacramento is the new jimc.blogspot.com

  3. sac says:
    July 28, 2006 at 2:06 pm

    OK, I read it. A few things stuck out:

    Christopher mentions 3 times in the recent past where Hezbollah has fired rockets, Israel has responded with an attack, the US was called in to negotiate, a cease-fire was established, and an agreement was worked out. Three (3) times in the past 15 years. What does that tell us? It tells is the preceding methods work, but only temporarily. If I was an Israeli, I’d be awfully sick of this merry-go-round.

    I agree that the US should be talking to Syria. I also agree that it is extremely grave that Rice was not accepted in the capitals of our allies in the Middle East. I’m not sure that she’d be welcomed even if she was talking about a cease-fire. The previous 5 years have damaged our reputation enough to result in this kind of treatment. I could be wrong about that.

  4. sac says:
    July 28, 2006 at 2:12 pm

    Ha. This is kind of funny:

    http://jimc.blogspot.com/

  5. sarabeth says:
    July 28, 2006 at 5:57 pm

    If I was an Israeli, I’d be awfully sick of this merry-go-round.

    I don’t know. If I were an Israeli, I’d be mighty impressed by the highlighted statement below from Warren Christopher‘s piece:

    In April 1996, when Hezbollah again launched rocket attacks on Israel’s northern border, the Israelis countered with Operation Grapes of Wrath, sending 400,000 Lebanese fleeing from southern Lebanon. Errant Israeli bombs hit a U.N. refugee camp at Cana in southern Lebanon, killing about 100 civilians and bringing the wrath of international public opinion down upon Israel.

    This time Shimon Peres, who had become prime minister after the assassination of Rabin, sought our help. In response, we launched an eight-day shuttle to Damascus, Beirut and Jerusalem that produced a written agreement bringing the hostilities to an end. Weeks later, the parties agreed to a border monitoring group consisting of Israel, Syria, Lebanon, France and the United States. Until three weeks ago, that agreement had succeeded for 10 years in preventing a wholesale resumption of hostilities.

    In the powder keg that represents Israel’s relations with the Arab nations that are its immediate neighbors, a ten year “peace” sounds like one heck of a solid achievement. If I were an Israeli, I’d be pining for someone to step in and pull off another ten-year “peace”. A merry-go-round that takes ten years to come around is something I could not only live with but applaud. If I were an Israeli.

    Three (3) times in the past 15 years. What does that tell us? It tells is the preceding methods work, but only temporarily.

    Strange how the same facts can be dressed up so differently into numbers. You say “Three (3) times in the past 15 years”; I say “not once (ONCE) in the last ten years”. You say “temporarily”; I say “Wow! For ten whole years!”

  6. Programmer says:
    July 30, 2006 at 8:03 am

    dammit. I hate touchpads. I had this witty, erudite response all typed up before the laptop decided to navigate backwards.

    In summary – The guy’s a retired politician. He has no influence on policy, otherwise his opposition to Iraq would have meant something in 2003. His op-ed makes sense. So what ? People who don’t have an office to lose can say what they feel. How does that excuse the Dems ?

  7. matt says:
    July 30, 2006 at 8:31 am

    I had this witty, erudite response all typed up

    i guess we’ll have to take you at your word on that.

    He has no influence on policy

    who does? that’s not rhetorical. have you been paying attention to the legislative process over the last 5+ years? votes held open, threats, bribes, changes rules, etc.

    as far as Christopher’s oped, his ideas and his influence, the difference is that were Democrats in charge, they would be sending Holbrooke or Christopher himself to deal with it in the manner the oped explains. Holbrooke was the consensus pick to be SoS had Kerry won. Instead we have Condi “birth pangs” Rice smugly talking down to the rest of the world from her perch of unmitigated failure.

    I don’t enjoy being in the position of defending democrats. they’ve made plenty of bad choices and continue to employ communications tactics that wouldn’t work in a student council election, but that doesn’t mean that it’s reasonable to slam them “for not having any ideas.” they have plenty. the combination of all the oxygen sucked up by republicans, and the repeat appearances by Biden / Lieberman / etc on the Sunday shows distorts reality.

    People who don’t have an office to lose can say what they feel.

    please explain why you think this is true, and if you see any difference between parties.

  8. Programmer says:
    July 30, 2006 at 7:48 pm

    who does? that’s not rhetorical. have you been paying attention to the legislative process over the last 5+ years? votes held open, threats, bribes, changes rules, etc.

    Please. You are telling me the Democrats have been helpless in the face of bribery and threats ? They have been complicit in the crimes of the Bush administration by choice. They didn’t think it was important enough to stand up for right. If they don’t have control over policy, it’s their own fault.

    As far as your claim that were the Dems in charge, the outcome would be different, you betray ignorance of even recent history. The Israelis have always done what they wanted. They stand down only when they want to. If they really wanted this war, are you seriously claiming that a Democratic administration could have stopped them ? These guys have swung hard to right since Netanyahu and they’re not going back. They know the US will never really punish them.

    I am not slamming anyone for not having ideas. My beef is with their lack of spine. How else would Bush be able to put ridiculous names up for the highest court, and actually get them on the bench ? Would you agree that Bush has committed crimes more impeachable than being blown by an intern ? Why aren’t the Democrats seriously calling for impeachment if so ? Because they are afraid of looking like vindictive, terrorist-loving, america-hating liberals ? Well, who seriously is going to think of them that way ? really.

    Why is the blatant whoring of public policy to business interests not a bigger issue than it is ?

    Why do you insist on blaming the media for the Democrats’ situation ? I don’t have a TV these days. I didn’t develop my opinion of the Dems by watching the media. Do you think the average person in this country has time to watch the 24-hour “news” channels or that anyone but negigible fraction of people watch the Sunday talk shows ? The Dems are in this hole because for the last 5 years they have capitulated on every policy matter of significance. Whether it be Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, the 9/11 commission, or whatever.

    please explain why you think this is true, and if you see any difference between parties.

    Well, it’s either that they are too afraid too speak up against the crimes of the Bush administration, or they actually agree with his policies. I choose to believe the former. And what is a politician afraid of more than losing his office ?

    As for a difference between the parties, of course there is a difference in the ideology. However, it does no good to have better principles than the next guy if you don’t stand up for them at every turn.

  9. matt says:
    July 30, 2006 at 8:45 pm

    You are telling me the Democrats have been helpless in the face of bribery and threats ?

    remember this?

    On the House floor, Nick Smith was told business interests would give his son $100,000 in return for his father’s vote. When he still declined, fellow Republican House members told him they would make sure Brad Smith never came to Congress. After Nick Smith voted no and the bill passed, [Rep.] Duke Cunningham of California and other Republicans taunted him that his son was dead meat.

    This is just one example off the top of my head, but similar situations took place on several other high-profile bills.

    If they don’t have control over policy, it’s their own fault.

    that’s counterfactual. it’s the “fault” of the party in the majority.

    if they really wanted this war, are you seriously claiming that a Democratic administration could have stopped them ?

    democrats would not have abandoned the peace process. think not? who’s betraying ignorance? a democratic president would have sent someone with more credibility than little-miss-fail-at-everything. stop the war? maybe not. make an effort? you bet your ass.

    My beef is with their lack of spine.

    there are certainly some instances where this is true. it’s also an overdone theme. the rules committee in the house has made a mockery out of minority input. conference committees have consistently taken legislation that senate dems have fought to make more reasonable and scrapped it in favor of the insanity that comes out of the house. i’m not sure what you want them to do? foam at the mouth and run around the rotunda with their arms in the air? then they get labeled as deaniac screamers. it’s really no win, isn’t it?

    Dems constantly get tagged as spineless, but isn’t it really the republicans who mindlessly follow the president and vote for his absurd policies. an example. arlen specter just won reelection in 2004 and as clearly in line for the chairmanship of the senate judiciary committee. when he made noises about not letting extreme judges through committee he was pounded by dobson, robertson et all until he relented, saying that he would be a good little boy. and he has. despite not having to face another election (in dem trending PA btw) until 2010 when he will be 80 years old, he has rolled over on everything that has come before him: domestic spying, judges, guantanemo, etc. rolled the fuck over. where is his spine? where’s mccain’s spine when he allows bush’s signing statement to gut his anti-torture bill? where is it when he decides that since he’s running for president campaign finance isn’t important anymore?

    but you don’t hear about their spines in the news, just democrats.

    Would you agree that Bush has committed crimes more impeachable than being blown by an intern ?

    yes.

    Why aren’t the Democrats seriously calling for impeachment if so ?

    off the top of my head: president dick cheney, and a lack of votes. you do remember that congress was under republican control when clinton was impeached, riiiight? who’s in control of congress now? ahhh.

    Why is the blatant whoring of public policy to business interests not a bigger issue than it is ?

    campaign cash. is your advice to dems to prove that they have a spine by attacking business and giving republicans an even bigger advantage in the money race?

    I didn’t develop my opinion of the Dems by watching the media.

    well, i don’t know you, but id be very surprised if this was actually the case. not by any means calling you a liar, just suggesting that it’s an insidious little campaign.

    The Dems are in this hole because for the last 5 years they have capitulated on every policy matter of significance. Whether it be Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, the 9/11 commission, or whatever.

    what would you have had them do?

    and what would you like to see happen in november? 2 more years of republican control because you confuse spine with lack of numbers?

    do you think this perceived lack of spine would carry over to defense / security matters, or is it simply political?

    However, it does no good to have better principles than the next guy if you don’t stand up for them at every turn.

    what does standing up mean to you?

    speaking out? plenty of dems have, very few republicans have. do you think all the republicans who vote with the president agree with him? or do some just vote with him because they would be crucified if they didn’t?

    or is it votes? dems have been remarkably unified in both the house and senate 04-06. what else should they have done?

    I don’t like being in the position of having to defend democratic politicians. they have certainly disappointed me in many cases. but to write them off in general because they are “spineless” is to ignore the way the congress works and beyond that it buys into the standard rove playbook.

  10. sac says:
    July 31, 2006 at 1:36 pm

    Strange how the same facts can be dressed up so differently into numbers. You say “Three (3) times in the past 15 years”; I say “not once (ONCE) in the last ten years”. You say “temporarily”; I say “Wow! For ten whole years!”

    Exactly. Soon, you’ll come around to my way of thinking.

  11. Programmer says:
    August 1, 2006 at 7:49 am

    matt, I think your argument is for pragmatic politics.

    I am pretty out of touch with reality, I guess, because what I really want from Democrats is a grand gesture. En masse resignations from the Senate and House, for example. To me, the crimes of this Administration are horrible enough that I don’t understand why people aren’t running around in the rotunda foaming at the mouth.

    campaign cash. is your advice to dems to prove that they have a spine by attacking business and giving republicans an even bigger advantage in the money

    And I thought I was a cynic. I am not suggesting attacking all business. But do you seriously think you can only mortgate part of your soul ?

    I think it would be better for the Democrats to spend a few years in the wilderness than be beholden to vested interests if they do win in 06?

  12. matt says:
    August 1, 2006 at 8:22 am

    I think your argument is for pragmatic politics.

    it always is.

    To me, the crimes of this Administration are horrible enough that I don’t understand why people aren’t running around in the rotunda foaming at the mouth.

    you would understand it you owned a television. you would understand if you read what passes for the mainstream beltway press. anyone (on the dem side) who deviates from “moderation” and “comity” pays a heavy price. dems are partly to blame for not figuring out a way around this, but it’s a complicated puzzle. if you haven’t yet, i recommend reading What Liberal Media immediately. if nothing else, you will at least understand where i’m really coming from.

    But do you seriously think you can only mortgate part of your soul ?

    no, but what’s your point? it’s an ugly game. what isn’t when money and power are at stake?

    I think it would be better for the Democrats to spend a few years in the wilderness than be beholden to vested interests if they do win in 06?

    they’ve been in the wilderness for 12 years. it hasn’t helped. nader basically ran on this in 2000, and it had only been 6 years at the time.

    again, i don’t relish the role of dem party defender. in my opinion, some of my best work (various selections here) has been chastising dems for bad mistakes. but there’s no third choice, no st. mccain or st. rudy to come save us, so i’ll take the lesser of two evils (and that’s hardly a fair assessment of the real situation) any day.

    dems have a communication problem, but isn’t that better than corruption, mismanagement, dishonesty, bellicosity, etc?