Bush Has Said He Won't Be the President Who Pulls the Troops Out
Will my fellow Americans accept this?On March 21st 2006 Bush said at a press conference that the issue of removing troops from the country ''will be decided by future presidents."
Is this the message my fellow Americans wished to communicate when they voted on 7 November?
Bush's un-provoked, unnecessary, largely unilateral invasion and unplanned occupation of Iraq (UULUIUOI) has already cost future generations $350 billions. Including the money already approved, the cost of the total military spending for Iraq and Afghanistan could come close to $200 billion in 2007. About $120 billion was spent in the 2006 budget year, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
The evidence is accumulating that the figure the White House sends to Capitol Hill will not be limited to dollars critically needed for troops and war-fighting.
In an interview with Truthdig’s Joshua Scheer, Dennis Kucinich says November 7th meant "NO". In part, this is what he said:What we have here is a situation that is totally out of control. Not only does the administration feel unrestrained in [its] spending, but they also apparently feel unrestrained by the mandate which the American people gave the Democrats on November 7th. The Democrats in Congress have a moral obligation to take a new direction with respect to Iraq, and that direction is out. The administration is borrowing money to fund this war. This administration has not shown any willingness to suffer any kind of oversight on the spending, but the ultimate oversight is when the bill is up for passage.I agree with Congressman Kucinich. This was an elective war that Bush and Cheney ordered for the American people. Current and future generations will have to pay too much for it. It should be ended before the Presidential elections of 2008.
War spending generates a forward momentum—the more you spend, the more you are going to spend in the future. And so regardless of what anyone in the Pentagon is saying, Congress has the obligation here to cut off funds, and that’s what I’m calling for. We have to stop this! We have to stop this war and we have to stop the potential expansion of the war and we have to stop this administration from getting another $130 billion to promote war anywhere [it] please[s].
Whether it’s $130 billion or $30 billion, we are going to have to put an end to the funding of this Iraq war. That’s the only way it’s going to end. There is no other way. This is up to Congress now. This is not about George Bush anymore. The president has already made clear his intentions: He’s going to keep the troops there until the end of his term and it does not matter what that Iraq study group says.
Congress has a specific directive here from the American people as a result of the November 7th election, so the spring will tell the story of the next two years. It will tell if the Democrats are going to rescue the nation from a deepening war in Iraq, or whether we are going to permit the administration to carry the war through the end of [Bush’s] term.... You can’t simultaneously say you oppose the war and vote for the funding, and you can’t maintain [that] this is for the troops in the field when the money is there now to bring the troops home. So the moment of truth is fast approaching.
The money’s there to bring the troops home and that money is continued in the so-called bridge fund that was passed September 30th, 2006. We have the money to bring the troops home. The idea that the troops will be stranded is false and is being spread by people who want to keep the war and the war spending going.Congress has to recognize that the American people took a stand in November. What could be more profound than changing the entire Congress, the House and the Senate, over the issue of the war? Is there anybody out there who could argue that the American people asked for more money for Iraq? That the American people asked for more troops for Iraq? Did the American people ask to prolong or intensify the war in Iraq? None of those things are true. What the American people want is to get out of Iraq. The test is going to be on this bill. The vote on this bill is going to be the moment of truth.
Bush and Cheney ordered the meal. They should be made to eat their war, before they are excused from the table.
posted by Vigilante at 12/06/2006 06:12:00 AM
29 Moderated Comments:
I suggest a march on the White House be organized here in such a way to create a buzz , and surround the white house with about a million people. Then overthrow this government.?
Why not. We do have the right.
The constitution says that when government becomes oppresive the citizens have the right to change it. It leaves any options open. I like the bloodless coup idea.
Much like the Eastern Europeans toppled their government recently that could be done here also.
Americans now have no say or control in government , and unless our government is changed we are doomed.
Then we can get creative.
Corporations now control America , and they have no loyalty to America , but only to making money.
I think most people that are paying attention realize that both party`s are controled by forces that only are interested in one thing. Money.
Ah Skip,
Not trying to be a smart ass here but its the Declaration of Independence that refers to overthrowing a government. The Constitution just sets up the federal government. To prove my point I pulled the part from the Declaration you are referring to, it says:
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right....
I'll let you look up the Constitution.
Great, Lets run with it.
I'm no Cindy Sheehan, I have no desire to make a public nuisance of myself or put on a media circus sideshow and I have never in my life gone on any "protest" mainly because after the novelty of them wore off...they seemed pointless and ineffectual.
But...
I agree with Skip, have in fact been thinking along these lines. Especially after watching the Lebanese meltdown. Why not. Why couldn't people just begin to congregate in D.C. and refuse to leave until they agree to bring the troops home.
IF enough Americans could bestir themselves long enough to do this Bush would have no choice. That's the "if". Would they?
Yo'Mamma (Can I call you that?) I agree! It's getting to the point where a general strike is called for.
Thanks, Beach, for setting Skip straight. This guy needs a truth squad to trail around after him and clean up the detritus from his comments. We should all take turns pulling this duty.
But Vigil I find it so funny that someone who spends so much time talking about overthrowing the government but apparently has NO idea about basic ideas of the founding documents.
Skippy how about you pick up the ball and run with it. Because you will have very few behind you, just fellow fruit cakes and wackos, tring to bring you’re warmed over communism to this country. You really have the corporate fat cats scared man.
Vigilante: no problem, nomenclature is not a huge sticking point for me :).
Not interested in "overthrowing" the government, just forcing a certain someone in it to listen to us. After this mornings' press conference I am leaning more towards wondering if Bush might not have to be removed...possibly by men wearing white coats.
I do believe we still "have a say" but a lot of us have been lazy and inattentive and not excercised that right so.....we've come to this situation re: Iraq.
Just listened to Bush's press conference in which I'm not sure how he could have stated it more obviously, "thanks for taking the time guys but I'm going to continue on my course and ignore you".
At some point do we not have to acknowledge that we have a "Mad King George" holding us hostage???
O.K. So maybe overthrowing the government is to much to ask right now presently , but how about as Vigilante and not your mama say stopping the war.?
Vigilant you do know , I think that they are not going to stop the war by themselves , the powers that be that is.
You can tell that they never ever intended on leaving Iraq correct , and you do know that this is only about economic interests anyway , like controlling oil .?
Vigilante I suggest now to you that a march on the White House , with the idea of getting at least 2 million people for starters could be organized as a base point from your site here , designed to spread to other blogs , left or right wing or independent. Progressives you have called them.
Beach bum I appreciate your information about the Constitution and so forth. Really interesting , I have studied ancient politics more than contemporary.
I could tell you how Athenian or Spartan government worked.
My interest does not go to American government though.
And by the way , I am not a communist. The group I belong to is a unique American group.
Vigilante, I like the term you used general strike. Lets call it that.
THE GENERAL STRIKE TO STOP THE WAR.
A march on Washington , that also includes a general work stoppage or slowdown on a nationwide basis.
A stoppage of work , by people that don`t care to go to Washington , but want to show their support.
Shut down commerce , except for essential services , like hospitals etc.
Could you float this idea in Cyberspace Vigilante.?
The outrtage that is felt by so many is "hidden" in the progressive blogs and get-togethers and not seen in the streets as it was during the Vietnam war. When at the same time over half of the Americans don't bother to excercise their right to vote and their politicians are hard at work for their financial backers, present situation was totally predictable. Of course, the main brunt of your scorn should be directed toward Dubya and his side-kicks but obvious short comings spred among all your elected members of the both houses should be recognized. Too bad that you ignored Ike's warnings and now you are paying for it.
Ikes full warning before he edited it down Pekka is this.
Beware the Military/Industrial/Congressional complex.
And yes they have taken over ala 1984 Orwellian style.
As mentioned maybe a national work stoppage day. No one go in. A big march on Washington of 2 to 3 million people also.
Economics is something that will get to these people. Shut the country down until a pledge is given. Withdrawal to start in 24 hours. Abandonment of permanent bases also.
Those "crazy Europeans" do a lot of striking and marching with gusto. They let their unpleasure to be known by their governments which I feel is precisely one of the puzzles and iritants you, the Americans, have about Europeans.
Vigil is perhaps going to spank me but, since the most Americans don't bother going to vote, there seems to be a little chance to get them to take the next step and demonstrate. Also, you being the least unionized, developed country in the world, general strike is virtual impossibility.
I wonder, if this all is a manifestation that people are not excercising their democracy fully and in a process loosing it?
I really, really, Really, REALLY, REALLY have to say something in behalf of Skip Sievert, (not withstanding Beach Bum's righteous rant against him!)
Skip is a dogmatic blogger whom I have teased by setting up the ANTI-TECHNOLOGY FORUM, which some of you have posted in from time to time.
The reason I have tried so hard to lampoon Skippy is that he is such an anti-democrat [small "d"]. He will have no truck with politics, parties, constitutions, elections - the whole F-ing bit. It's all a charade - says he - masking the powers of vested interests, monied capitalists, corporationists, etc. who are pulling the strings of the rest of us puppets and "cogs", of which he considers me a poster-boy example.
Well, I'm rising tonight, with glass in hand to toast this would be ideol-blogger.
Democracy, republics, open societies - whatever you want to call them - are not supposed to be perfect forms of government; they're just supposed to be the least objectionable. As such, they are supposed to offer us government by laws as opposed to government by men; they are supposed to halt and reverse excesses of the latter.
But Skip is entitled to ask at this point, why has it taken our democracy almost 4 years to discover the worst error in its history and correct it? He could just as well as ask that of the United Kingdom's parliamentary system. He's entitled to ask just how long should it take a self-correcting form of government to correct itself? This week shows that we are probably no closer to course correction that we were the last time we American voted for these bozos.
So, here's to Skip, the anti-democrat and anti-republican!
(Damn! I'm out of scotch! Be right back!)
"I wonder, if this all is a manifestation that people are not excercising their democracy fully and in a process loosing it?"
I wonder the very same thing, a lot.
I love the general strike idea, hey, the pro-immigration block was able to significantly disrupt commerce in some areas (my own nearby Las Vegas being one) and if nothing else did succeed in making people pay attenton.
The trouble with their strike (just my opinion) was that they had no clear thing they were striking "for". It was just a general strike in support of immigrants with no defined goal.
I do believe a nationwide strike with one crystal clear goal could be effective. Blogging4Food actually makes the case for it in his comments...this issue crosses all ideological and party lines. If it's kept to one issue, bring them home, and not politicized I think support would come from a broad spectrum.
Assuming there are at least a few who would like to give it a shot...who has any experience or know-how as to getting the ball rolling??
Thank you Food Blooger , Pekka , and not your mama.
Vigilante is tied into other people and blogs , and most likely knows many people in the blogosphere. I think to a high degree , he has a lot of credibility.
Perhaps he could draw up a plan for commentary, using some of the ideas here of myself , Pekka , and not your mama.
Such as a progressive , non-political strategy to proceed.
I am assuming a lot here , Vigilante no doubt has his own agenda , that may not be like this idea at all , but from what I know of the goals of this site , perhaps his agenda and this idea could work together.
A target date could be thought out.
The only thing that is going to be effective against the powers that be in this system , whoever they are , is going to be economic. A nationwide strike.
I would add Pekka , that despite the fact that the Labor movement in this country is all but destroyed , Americans would band together to do something courageous if they are given the idea and the opportunity.
Americans in general are still good people. Our leaders are captured though by these special interest groups , that are promoting and running this war.
Comments.?
Food blooger , that was some very un-cog like thinking I might add.
Ha.
Skip, some of us will be in the streets this Sunday.
Looks good. There is one in my town .
It won`t work though. A more concerted effort is needed.
A general strike aimed at shutting down the country would work.
A certain day where interested party`s did not go to work , combined with march`s. Then more days if needed.
Shutting down Washington for starters.
"Looks good. There is one in my town .
It won`t work though. A more concerted effort is needed."
Have to agree again. It has to be nationwide, massive, and it has to come FROM THE MAINSTREAM, at least in part.
People have stopped listening to special interest and "protest" organisations for the most part. Actions taken by anti-war groups are largely ignored.
Iraq is not a "special interest" issue, it's an "everybody" issue and the push has to come from everyone.
We need a plan that everyone can participate in, anti-war activists as well as grandpa in rural S. Dakota who's never protested a thing in his life.
There are as many different reasons Americans oppose the war as there are Americans and there has to be a plan of action that includes all of them, not just the "activists".
Most people are not activists and never will be (doh, look at me, a middle-aged grandmother in rural Nevada, revolutionary NOT) but they are pissed off and I think given a chance would participate.
I'm going to "keep fishing" for people who know how to get something like this rolling, hope you all do as well.
I am blown away by mama's unbridled enthusiasm. Good for you!
However, I must go back to one of my previous point; you being a nations that hates unions. If anything, unions would provide you, in the situations like this one, the infrastructure that could be so easily utilized to pull various groups together for the common cause. The long history in underminding the labor movements and the concequent negative propaganda by the employer groups has lessened the desire for an average American to have anything to do with the unions and thus you do not have any across the board network to easily facilitate a general strike.
Also, the Vietnam era protests were possible because that war was more of a shared experience due to the fact that the general draft was involved. Too few of you have to deal with severe consequenses and propably will not feel angry enough to leave their comfortable couches and bad beer.
You underestimate the repressed anger and boiling hidden emotions of Americans Pekka.
The average household here has between 4 and 8 guns of all sorts.
If Americans just channeled 1 10th of their road rage antics into a protest , they could make this government tremble in their walnut paneled inner sanctums.
The American people do have a breaking point.
At base I think we know that the only reason the politicians are there is because we let them be there.
We are a violent society.
I suggest nonviolent obstruction to the war.
If Bush continues onward the world could see us slipping into a larger conflict that could ruin a vast area for a long time.
I pity the residents of Iraq.
Crash test for the surrounding area lies ahead , and perhaps for ourselves in the near term.
All excellent points Pekka and Skip both.
I agree there are a lot of people who won't give up their couch and cheap beer to do anything but I also agree that there are more of us pissed off than many people realize.
Factor in the fact that even lazy, self-absorbed, buttmuffins would likely jump at the opportunity to miss a day of work for a "legitimate" public protest and feel virtuous for doing so....you see where I'm going with this ;).
As for having people to organize, for a march or sit-in scenario in D.C., yes, we would need people with know-how. For a general strike...not so much. We'd need MEDIA, lots and lots of media attention to "get the word out". Nothing to organise about everyone staying home for a day. That's the beauty of it.
Pick a day, get the word out. No?
Well how about Jan. 15th ? Its M.L.King`s birthday also , and a few people would be off anyway.
It falls on a Monday , so it would be an extended weekend for everybody then.
The easiest thing to organize would be a stay home day. If it was extended , guess what.?
I would take three days basically to bring our economy to its knees.
Comments.?
Actually, I am beginning to see a possibility here. "Pick a day", in it's simplicity, is doable. The Skip's date sounds perfect but his suggestion of bringing the economy down will not hurt the evil doers as much as the poor. It has to be massive enough, though, to make an impact.
Mama is also right, that media attention is crucial. May I, therefore, suggest that you call all your lady-friends for a public demonstration in downtown Las Vegas. Make sure, that all the media is duely notified before it takes place. The kicker here is, do it topless!
Am sorry, if I made total ass of myself, but the devil made me do it!
Why stop at topless.?
100,000 strong totally nude march on Las Vegas , by men and women.
We could coordinate it along with work stoppage day.
You could get that many from L.A. alone.
Seriously though, Pekka don`t worry about poor people. They would be the first people to sign on to something like this. They are dealing with the inequality of our system first hand. Lets include Canada , in this idea. Maybe Mexico also. As a group they opposed the war , and their leaders did also.
You are wrong by the way Pekka of this idea not hurting the powers that be. Any thing that disrupts the flow of money , they will pay attention to.
In fact that is the only thing they will pay attention to .
LOL. Not a bad idea topless but I don't think me topless would be a good publicity stunt at all, I'm not trying to frighten people.
Maybe some of the ladies from our local "gentlemen's clubs" would be willing to participate. It is definitely worth considering.
I'm going to point a couple of people to this thread and see what they think......I'm already in over my head but I'd hate for this (work stoppage) idea to die just because of my lack of organisational ability.
Skip, the poor/average guy is usually confined to his town or country while the monied ones have the whole world as their oyster. The Globalization guarantees the free flow of goods and capital but still have "good, old" restrictions for the average Skip or Pekka and occasional mama too. To try and hurt these guys in one country, makes them to move their operations and capital instanteniously to another one. In order to succesfully fight against the global conglomerates it, unfortunately, has to be also conducted globally to be effective.
Mama, I am relieved to see that you are not only engaging but with a sense of humor to boot. What I just wrote to Skip doesn't mean that I see this undertaking hopeless. I just wanted to minimize the economic point and shift the focus to political one. To shame them to action might not be easy but, nevertheless, it's realistic if done in a large scale enoug. Believe me, I do understand your fear of things evaporating down to nothing. The feeling of being over ones's head is also so familiar to me. All I can come up with is, that try to find more experienced, like minded persons with organizational skills to get the ball rolling.
As the far as X-mas trees are concerned, I am in full agreement with you. ;-)
Pekka , Globalisation revolves around the United States. It is the U.S. That makes the whole thing spin around.Its our hegenomy.
Cheap shoddy goods from China if not bought would collapse the Chinese economy in short order. I could go on , but you probably see my point
Moralizing and Preaching does not work. The only thing that would shut the war down is economics. They are making money hand over fist now , the special interests. Oil interests and others.
I am serious when I say Pekka that the U.S. is extremely vulnerable to an economic embargo by its citizens.
Three to Four days of non buying and not showing up for work, in an economy that has to expand, would damn near collapse it. Seriously . That's fact.
Skip, we have reached the impasse in our debate, and "staying the course" would be waisting our time and would start looking foolish. However, I remain convinced that the way the economic games are played today and under the rules they operate, the major players, the ones we like to send a message to, are next to impossible to hurt. Little and medium sized fish that are not globally integrated - yes, but those are not the ones that we are after. The whole thing reminds me about a carnival game where you try to hit random heads that are popping up here and there and everywhere.
Post a Comment
<< Home