What Kind of Fool Do You Take Me For?

Despite my attempts at life's little enchantments, this week carried a deep, dirty, rotten disgrace in its wake.

I refer, of course, to the decision of the Democratic Party majority in Congress to give George Bush a hall pass and a pot of gold to sally forth into Stage Freakazoid of His Holy Crusade. "Y'all be careful now, W.!"

The "conditions" the Party laid down are as tough as mom's dentures. I'm sure the Iraqis'll respond to U.S. ultimatums like children at The Great Father's Knee. That's what the little brown people always do when we get upset, isn't it? Colonialism With Conditions!

I expect, expected— fucking-always-expect— nothing from the Democratic leadership. Can you sing, LBJ, LBJ, How Many Kids Did You Kill Today?

But the past few months, the Dems have been outraged about Iraq. They've been determined in their election promises, devoted to pointing out the criminally negligent, self-mutilating vainglory of it all.

I thought, "Huh! They're going to follow their constituents' wishes on this. They published the best arguments of anyone! They're going to bring the reality check to the table and stand there to see it gets paid in full. Yee-Ha!"

We got the Happy Meal coupon instead.

What does it mean when the Speaker of the House says the compromise she just struck is something she herself wouldn't vote for? That's pathetic.

It says that at today's 23% approval rating for Bush's war plan— and counting down—  the Bush Admin is still outmaneuvering the Democratic leadership. Who are the Dems playing to? Why should we bother to vote for a "President" in '08 at all?

What's left of the GOP is betting on the fantasy that they'll be better unified on horseshit than the Dems are drawn asunder on the same pile of dung. Both sides, in fact, are responding to corporate profits and lobbying strategies that have nothing to do with the public interest.

And, yeah, we know that, now.

So many people seem to get it, and are even mesmerized by the circle around the drain. But being led around by the nose is still very much in vogue. Voters have been played like marionettes on kneeslappers like "special gay rights!" and "immigration walls!"

Both houses, the Capulets and the Montagues, have given The War another pat on the back and a raise because they are beholden to, and blinded by, a different constituency than the one that voted them into office.

Who am I talking about? Quo Bene?

That's what I'd love to see spelled out in the daily papers of record. Talk about missing a set of teeth. They squander their space with dribble about how the Democrats are afraid of what they would "look like" if they aren't supportive of the troops getting their C-rations.

Look like? Are you kidding me? Who besides the gilded 1% is looking for anything, except an end to this immoral imperial charade? When are the Billion Dollar Dogs of Profiteering going to be put down?

One day Enron will be seen as a minor blip, a geologic footnote, in the glacier of greed that comprises the ruling class of this country. They will grind this world flat.

The people I see who are following the money are waaay on the outside— filmmakers like Robert Greenwald with Iraq For Sale: The War Profiteers— that's mandatory viewing. You can start your "who benefits?" list right there.

Then there's Amy Goodman's crew on Democracy Now: Ya gotta love Kenneth STARR, of all people, defending Blackwater's war contracts.

The war profiteers cannot be altruistic or public-spirited. They can't be fulfilled. It's like asking a scorpion to give you a free ride. They can't be talked into a wind-down, a slowdown, or letting up on the gas. Their existence as a permanent arms economy can only survive by expansion.

Until we take away their toys, they will break them; they will break us. We have to stop paying for them, voting for them, working for them. It's a vision thing, as King George might say— to stop seeing that we share the slightest, tiniest, mutual interest.

Bush and his posse were voted in by ungilded people who thought he represented their economic trust. What does it mean for them to regret that mistake? What will we do now, when it's all too apparent we're bleeding out?

Several weeks ago, Andrew J. Bacevich, a retired Army colonel who served in Vietnam, wrote an editorial in the Boston Globe:

"Today, Iraq teeters on the brink of disintegration. The war's costs, already staggering, continue to mount. Violence triggered by the US invasion has killed thousands of Iraqi civilians. We cannot fully absolve ourselves of responsibility for those deaths."

This past Mother's Day, he lost his own son, by suicide bomber in Iraq. In despair, he cried:

"What kind of democracy is this? When the people do speak, and the people's voice is unambiguous – but nothing happens?"

Then the words that must have been the hardest...

"I've been  struggling...to try to understand my responsibility for my own son's death."

It's a question any American could ask, because we're losing our sons and daughters in every quarter. Our Constitution— an infant, really— is gasping for breath.

What kind of a democracy is this?  It's a cradle that begs to be set right.

Comments

[Sue]

Two parties representing two ideologies? I don't think so. It's just two different social approaches to increasing profits for the same class. The Democrats have proved themselves, once again, as useless in opposition as they were in leadership. As I read your piece on Iraq, I'm listening to a chilling BBC report about how America/U.N. is "moving toward confrontation" with Iran over their nuclear program. So Halliburton is going to open a new front? Bring in the McMercenaries to fry yet another society.

[Uncle Sean]

The Democratic and Republican politicians are just the same group of people divided into two subgroups with slightly different opinions on the world. Both have a vested interest in keeping the parties in power and so opposition will never really be that strong. Usually, they do enough to convince the people that already buy into their crap that they really are separate and really are fighting for something they believe in rather than fighting to keep their jobs. The entire democratic process in this country is sick from the voting booth all the way to the halls of congress. Thinking about the process in this country reminds me of that quote from Shakespeare:
"it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."

[C.S. Lewiston]

Pablo Picasso left Spain for Mexico in order to escape the dictatorship of Generalissimo Franco (who by the way is still fighting valiantly to remain dead...). Musician Hugh Masakela left his native South Africa, just one step ahead of the Apartheid-regime police who would have gladly imprisoned him indefinitely, as they did Nelson Mandela. Years ago I heard an NPR story about a woman who tearfully left her native Australia for America because, as bad a sexism might be here, back there she'd never have been able to do what she wanted to do in life unless she grew a cock and balls. And how many thousands of Mexicans and Chinese daily flee their homelands to escape grinding poverty or iron-heel oppression?

For 7 years now, the USA has more closely resembled its old enemy, the Soviet Union, a nation of oppressed and desperately frustrated people ruled over by a cabal of iron-fisted but incompetent party leaders. Unlike the Soviet Union, you won't necessarily get shipped off to the gulags for blogging or demonstrating. And unlike the Soviet Union, there's actually no need for heavy-handed state suppression of dissent. Any efforts along that line just get drowned out in a flood of prayer breakfasts and editorials on Fox news (America's Radio Moscow). The Democrats sink farther into the muck of timidity and inaction as the Republicans become more and more radically authoritarian. Criminal acts on the part of the ruling party continue to go unaddressed and unpunished. Books and magazine articles on emigration from the USA are still fairly few, but there were practically none only 20 years ago.

Is this it? Has the American experiment finally had it? Commentators like Chris Hedges have gone so far as to suggest that we are merely one terrorist incident or economic failure away from a religio-fascist regime. Is it finally time to drop all notions of working for positive change, just say the hell with it and run for our lives? I know that fleeing is considered a cop-out. It's not even a viable option for a lot of us. Will that soon be the only alternative to becoming an Amnesty International human-rights statistic, fleeing in terror from the War On Terror and the criminal class that runs it?

Are things really that hopeless, or do I just need to start watching Bill O' Reilly?

[Mortimer]

"I get down on my knees, and do what must be done
And kiss Achilles' hand, the killer of my son."

--Michael Longley

[Doctor Memory]

With the proviso that this is not meant in any way as exculpation for the Democratic leadership, who if nothing else have certainly (and, sigh, as usual) showed up for a PR/spin gunfight armed only with nerf weapons...

Realistically, what are their options here? As Bill Clinton ably proved back in the Gingrich era (or for that matter, Reagan in the O'Neill era), the executive branch has a lot more options for dealing with an intransigent Congress than might appear obvious at first glance, and the electorate's ardor is a fleeting, fickle thing. The people (damn them) did not see fit to give the Democrats a veto/filibuster-proof majority in Congress, so Bush can veto any appropriations bill they pass with impunity, and the Democrats from swing states then have to start wondering just how their constituents will react if the current funding expires and they get cast as "those do-nothing congressmen taking food out of our troops' mouths." That's a dangerous game to play when you've got a mere 1-seat majority in the Senate, and a presidential election on the horizon-- I may not personally give a damn about what Jim Webb's constituents think, but I do give a damn about picking off John Warner the next time he's up...

The ugly fact is, the AUMF from 2002 is an open-ended thing: the GOP congress wrote Bush a blank check, and there's fuck all that the current congress can do to stop payment on it.

The troops aren't coming back until we have a new president: this congress doesn't have the votes to do it unilaterally. The best they can do is start chipping away at Bush's domestic agenda, and issuing subpoenas as fast as they can print them: this administration doesn't have to last until 2008.

None of which makes a shit sandwich any tastier, but it's good to stay focussed.

[Sandrino]

The problem is that the Democrats have no balls, they are afraid of sticking their necks out. They are so used to being successfully beaten over the head with the label liberal and being accused of being terrorist sympathizers by the Republicans that they are gun shy. Put that together with a razor thin majority in the senate and you have a nominal majority that can talk a good game but deliver little in the way of results. About the only thing that the Democrats can do successfully is to investigate the administration. Still, it would have been nice for the Democrats in congress to stand up for their so called principles and refuse to give the president what he wants, another blank check.

Until the democrats figure out how to define themselves before the Republicans do so for them, they are not going to be able to stand up against the president. It is so pathetic that the Democrats cannot turn the president's own words against him. Almost every time he speaks he twists facts and stretches logic beyond comprehension and yet the Democrats let him get away with it every time. They need a quick response team to parse out every statement coming out of the White House showing how full of shit they are and how everything they say is a lie. Instead they sit there worrying about how they will come across if they should grow a pair of balls and stand up for a change. Democrats need chutzpah, just like the Republican candidates who proudly exclaimed they didn't believe in evolution. They may be imbeciles, but at least they stand for their beliefs, however idiotic they may be. Great ideals are worthless if you are not willing to stand up for them. The Democrats in congress should put their money where their mouths are or shut up and go away to cry in a corner. If they can't beat this president at this point in time, they don't deserve representing us.

[Rich]

Realistically, their options were to not send any funding authorization to Bush. That was their other, sensible, option. Instead, they caved. Most of them are apparently too stupid to notice that they made a mistake or too bought off to get with the program.

Keith Olbermann was right last night when he said that these people were sent to Washington with the simple and unequivocal task of stopping the war. They failed. They deserve to be excoriated and the Democratic leadership, which let it happen, deserves to be lumped in with the Republicans and other lapdogs.

[misterniceguy1960]

Susie, you're beautiful when you're angry.

Or is it that the world around you is just so fucking ugly?

[hopeless]

I'm under the impression that Joe Lieberman quietly threatened to leave the Democratic caucus, thus ending the razor-thin Democratic majority and depriving the Dems of subpoena-and-investigation power, if the Dems did not cave to Bush on this. Faced with the loss of their power to investigate Attorneygate and FISAgate, they did what they had to do. Am I misinformed? Of course, the next thing you know, he'll demand an end to those investigations too--or end them by walking. Sigh. Don't forget who's really still in charge, unfortunately.

[Anarcissie]

I am surprised that people are so upset about the Democratic Party. The Democrats are simply playing the political game the way it is played, and in the present case it is far more to their advantage to have the war in Iraq going in November, 2008, than not, while of course seeming to oppose it. The Democrats are not a peace party -- as you may recall, they started the war in Vietnam. Getting the U.S. to give up war and imperialism as a set habit will require far more profound changes than the exchange of one military-industrial party for another in this office or that.

[Patrick]

Regardless of what one actually believes to be true about 9-11 and its aftermath, I ask you, for experiment sake, to consider that 9-11 was an attack upon US territory planned by criminal agents within our own nation and government in order to provide an overwelming excuse to suspend the freedom protecting provisions in the US Constitution. With this mindset temporarily adopted, then evaluate all events, news broadcasts, results and followups that have transpired since 9-11. Also, think back to events that happened before 9-11. If you experiment with this perspective, suddenly will ring hollow and fallacious almost all news and official statements about the War on Terrorism coming from the both major parties and the mainstream media. It may quickly become evident that US citizens and the world are being deceived on a massive and mind-boggling scale. That so many agents in positions of power go along with it is testimony to their enslavement to an incredibly strong and entangled political/corporate system that quickly gets rid of those who don't play along. It will become evident that we are deeply stuck in a system that exactly fits the definition of "Fascist". Our imagined wealth keeps it disguised---this could change. The Democrats are as deeply involved in this deception as are the Republicans---neither choice gives a way out.

[Anarcissie]

If the U.S. were truly fascist, we wouldn't be allowed to say so.

[Sandrino]

The problem with conspiracy theories is that they assume that the government can keep the lid on such a monstrous plan. Looking at how efficient the government is about everything else, I deeply doubt they could manage it. Conspiracy theories are tempting because they seem to make sense out of a senseless world. We like to have explanations because they make us feel like we have a better grasp on reality. I am afraid this is a false sense of security.

If the government was responsible for planning and executing the 9/11 attacks, why have the terrorists be Saudi nationals? Since they wanted to use 9/11 as an excuse for the war on Iraq, why not use Iraqi terrorists instead? Why would such a conspiracy be more believable than Osama Bin Laden wanting to attack the US in a horribly spectacular way? If there was such a conspiracy in place, why not use Saddam Hussein in place of Osama? I would think that if they wanted to fool us, that they would have made a more straightforward case. If they were able to pull off the 9/11 attacks and leave no trace of their complicity, why not hide some WMDs in the desert for our troops to find?

These conspirators you believe in don't seem very competent which is about the only thing that makes me think that they could possibly have anything to do with Dubya's administration. In order to support the extraordinary claim that 9/11 was planned by an internal organization bent on destroying our freedoms you need overwhelming evidence. Of course you can't provide proof because the conspirators are so good that they have hidden all the evidence and killed all the witnesses, riiight. These conspirators seem better at hiding themselves and the evidence of their crime than coming up with a straightforward case of Saddam's complicity with 9/11. If they are so good, how come they didn't give us any plausible reasons to believe that Saddam and Osama worked together to plan and execute 9/11? I don't believe it for a second.

[Anthony J. Kennerson]

For me, Susie, this latest "betrayal" of the "Dimocrats" is simply an old tired tale of money chasing power.

I really don't think that Reid and Pelosi et. al. had any intentions of even remotely challenging Dubya on the war, especially since they are openly giving him a similar blank check to bomb the hell out of Iran if need be. It's all just a shell game to take advantage of Bush's "lame duck" status and extend the war towards the 2008 election, where they will simply attempt to exploit the killing to their advantage by talking up how ineffective Dubya has been in orchestrating the war....and how better Hillary will prosecute it. (I have no doubts that she will be the nominee for the Dims, since Obama has "the wrong complexion for the connections", so to speak, and Edwards will be cast off as simply an evil liberal "Breck girl" who can't win the NASCAR dads in the South and the "swing voters".) In other words, the Dims are far more likely to challenge the Repubs from the RIGHT -- as in, they won't do enough to WIN the war against those dirty brown-skinned terrorists -- than they ever will from the Left. After all, they feel that the Kos crowd will moan and cry, but in the end they will back the Dims anyway because of the fear of the alternative.

Problem is, though, there is the small notion that Bush's "surges" might just work -- in the sense that Iraqis and Iranians are vanquished and the region is made safer for the US to control the oil and the natural resources -- and that whomever the triumphant GOP nominee will be (more than likely McCain) will basically say that the "cut-n-run" Dems are either nitpicking with the "success" of "our boys" in battle..or that they (the Dems) are simply the same old soft "liberals" who allow their bleeding hearts to get in the way of dispatching those dirty anti-Christian "Islamofascists" who "hate us for out freedoms". That, along with a dose of Diebold and voter suppression of Black and Brown voters, and the usual Karl Rove acrobatics, would be enough to insure a GOP comeback victory...especially if the conservative Democrats (both the DLC and Blue Dog variants) continue their trend of bolting in support of Dubya.

And of course, Pelosi and Reid simply are powerless to stop their right-wing Democratic Quislings, because they themselves -- and most of the rest of the Dimocratic leadership and powerbrokers -- are simply too dependent on the same economic and military-industiral complex for their political fundraising as most of the Repubs are. But, since they have to offer a mirage of an opposition to please the corporate media and keep the "liberals" in check, they make up the pretense of opposing Dubya's policy on "progressive" grounds...thusly deceiving and seducing various "liberal" intellectuals (yes, Kos, I mean you and your lib blogospheric friends) into becoming paid agents and boosters for the Dimocrats at the expense of the constituents they are supposed to represent.

Not to mention the supreme power of the corporate media, which has basically become the propaganda wing of the Military-Industrial-Political complex. Don't let MSNBC's boosting of Keith Olbermann's commentaries fool you; he's basically tolerated there for ratings and for legitimizing the myth of a "liberal" media in opposition to the FOX News/Right-wing talk radio/Religious Right media syndicate.

In other words, this is no "betrayal" of Democrats straying from "liberal" values. This IS and has been the Democrats being Democrats all along; talking a good game about being so "progressive" and "liberal" to deflect and monitor the Left, while in the crunch following the money to the (center) Right. And all this justified by the myth of "lesser evilism", that the Repubs would be so much worse...as if the Repubs couldn't have succeeded in doing half of what they have done without the direct complicity of the Democrats in power.

I prefer that we Leftists just open our eyes, clear our heads, and then just make the clean and total break from such a lame party...and develop our own movement that will actually defend our principles. The Dimocrats have had their chances, and they have simply blown them to pieces. I left the Dimocrat Party over 20 years ago to become a Left Independent, and recently registered as a Green Party member...and it looks like I made the right decision. Especially after yesterday.

Anthony

[sfmike]

Thanks for the jeremiad. As far as I'm concerned, Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein and all the rest of the our local "liberal" witches are simply tools of AIPAC and the "military-industrial complex." If the world does manage to survive all these people currently in charge, may they rot in historical memory forever. They are less than worthless.

[Harel B]

Thanks for the very poignant closing quotes Susie. Yes it's war for
oil but also an empire in decline that can't afford to lose face (as
it sees things). On Democrats: I think I'd win or tie any contest of
how disgusted one is with the Democratic party leadership..but despite
the low 23% approval for W or not, the ugly fact remains the
Republicans had enough votes to sustain Bush's veto. An analogy: it's
not enough to complain about corporate greed putting profits over
people (which I agree is disgusting), because the legal and economic
framework makes that the inevitable paradigm. Don't like that? Neither
do I, which means that framework needs to be changed. If we don't
change that economic-cum-legal system, we can cry about "stop putting
profits over people" till the cows come home...with not much
results.

Similarly, while the establishment Dems are pathetic, it's up
to we the people to change the system. Yes, that will take years, but
until we do that, you can bet your car and your house the
same-old-same-old will continue. This brings back to your question
Susie about why bother voting in 2008? I think it's a false dichotomy
between "vote for lesser evil" and non-election activism. We need
both. Not a close call in your state? Then vote 3rd party, otherwise,
I think voting for lesser-evil is ok but ONLY if the other 364 days in
2008 and every day other years, we keep working to change (read:
overhaul) the political and economic "systems" of imperial militarist
corporate feudalism..

[chris defendorf]

i don't give a shit about what i don't like... i like Susie.

[Anarcissie]

The chance that anyone's vote will decide an election is vanishingly small, especially a national election (unless you're on the Supreme Court). That being the case, the only way not to waste your vote is to vote for someone you like and respect. You won't feel nauseous when you do it, and some people do look at the votes, so you'll be telling them a thing or two.

[unklef]

Well said Susie- So right on- When i read that line about following the 1% who are making all the profits, i had to flash on Noam Chomsky- just read his book, "Failed States". Of course he's talking about the U.S. as THE failed state-sowing violence
worldwide, ignoring international law and the will of its own citizens. You summed it up perfectly- but it doesn't make me feel any better cause its such a god-awful reality.
Unlike the hell on earth this freaky gov't created in Nam,this is one imperial project our
uber-capitalist class just can't
walk away from no matter how bad
they fuck up. That lake of oil
simply can't be left for competing global interests to control. That's the elephant in the room that these tools in the Democratic Party and the rest of the talking heads seem bent on ignoring.

[Steve]

Once upon a time H.L. Mencken said:

" . . . all the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most easily and adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum. The presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day, the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."