Excellent Editorial by Gary Hart,ex US Senator

Speak on Gary

Rocket River

 

That was a great article. Hart is absolutely right.

 

Yawn. Same old tired rhetoric with the usual buzzwords.

 

Really? Can you please link some of the other articles where Democrats are criticizing the democratic party for not having a backbone? I enjoyed reading this one a lot, so maybe I will enjoy reading the others too. You seem to have seen a lot of them, and I haven't really seen any before.

 

Neither have I, and it's about damned time.

 

blade I don't know if you read much of the TMPcafe, but there are some really great discussions going on about the democratic party. Lots of thoughts being thrown around.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/section/d-democrats

 

Thanks for that link. I had not read it at all. I was pretty much unfamiliar with it. This is great.

 

Great article.

 

I am just waiting for the terrorist to stop blowing themselve up near Iraqi police stations and start blowing themselve up with Saudi, Kuwaiti and UAE oil installations. If the terrorist really wanted to cripple the U.S., they'd disrupt the flow of oil not fly planes into buildings or blow up cars.

If the U.S. doesn't start now to reduce the reliance on Middle Eastern oil, then everyone better be prepare for the U.S. military to have to take over the entire Middle East. Should the house of Saud ever fall and the Saudi government turn radical, expect all hell to break loose. It'll make Iraq look like a walk in the park.

What happens if the U.S. is invited to a war in the Middle East but we don't have the oil to get there?

 

St. Louis

 

Thanks, mc mark! Had no idea that existed. Will delve further.

Jeffster, I don't understand why you have a problem with Hart's column. It's aimed at Democrats who, as they are apt to do, are arguing with each other about in what direction, and who should lead, their own party. You know, all the political stuff that Republicans either don't do, or tend to do behind closed doors.

Of course, if you are thinking of becoming a Democrat, the door is open.


Keep D&D Civil!!

 

I'm glad you provided a link because I had no idea who that was. I follow hockey as much as I follow soccer, not at all.

 

"History will deal with George W. Bush and the neoconservatives who misled a mighty nation into a flawed war..."

Right there, the rest of the article becomes moot, if one does not agree with that premise. That is what I referred to as the same, tired rhetoric. Sorry for not being more specific. That yawn wasn't just being cute, I *really was* tired.

 

Thankfully, here in Texas, we don't have party registration, so I am proud to be officially independent. However, if I did run for public office, it would probably be as a democrat. I was selected as a delegate to the Democratic state convention in 2000, but I ended up not being able to go.

 

so...can we assume you didnt bother reading any further after that line?

What I see is a straight up attack on the principles of the current Democratic leadership....what references he makes to the Iraq situation adn the Bushies is made to set against what he thinks a principled Democratic leader should do.

Come on Jeff...I m sure you can read that with a open mind and give a honest opinion on it....the question is...will you?

 

I did read after that line..but think of it this way. Somebody comes up to you and says "the Earth is really flat, all those space pictures are fakes...now listen to the following commentary..." I mean, it kinda makes it hard to take the rest of it seriously when someone front-loads it with something so preposterous. But examining the rest of the article, I couldn't disagree with Hart more. The problems of the democratic party to me don't have anything to do with not being aggressive enough in anti-war rhetoric. The main problem with the national democratic party is that they seem to have lost all touch with the values of "Middle America" and don't understand why they keep losing when they continuously assault or ignore those values.

I have no clue what world Hart is living in that he thinks democrats are "staying silent." I do my best to *avoid* most news media, and I hear their squawking constantly. If his real point is that their focus needs to be more specifically on talking about problems with the Iraq war, instead of just being the Anti-Bush party, then I agree with half of that. But so far, no amount of pointing out what these democrats believe is wrong with the war has convinced anyone that they should vote for democrats. So, I think he's just barking up a slightly different wrong tree.

 

The Vietnamization of Bush's Vacation

Democrats' Irrelevance...Casey Sheehan's Mother “Really Changed The Landscape In The War This Month"…"Don't Expect The Democrats To Make A Peep"…

By FRANK RICH

ANOTHER week in Iraq, another light at the end of the tunnel. On Monday President Bush saluted the Iraqis for "completing work on a democratic constitution" even as the process was breaking down yet again. But was anyone even listening to his latest premature celebration?

We have long since lost count of all the historic turning points and fast-evaporating victories hyped by this president. The toppling of Saddam's statue, "Mission Accomplished," the transfer of sovereignty and the purple fingers all blur into a hallucinatory loop of delusion. One such red-letter day, some may dimly recall, was the adoption of the previous, interim constitution in March 2004, also proclaimed a "historic milestone" by Mr. Bush. Within a month after that fabulous victory, the insurgency boiled over into the war we have today, taking, among many others, the life of Casey Sheehan.

It's Casey Sheehan's mother, not those haggling in Baghdad's Green Zone, who really changed the landscape in the war this month. Not because of her bumper-sticker politics or the slick left-wing political operatives who have turned her into a circus, but because the original, stubborn fact of her grief brought back the dead the administration had tried for so long to lock out of sight. With a shove from Pat Robertson, her 15 minutes are now up, but even Mr. Robertson's antics revealed buyer's remorse about Iraq; his stated motivation for taking out Hugo Chávez by assassination was to avoid "another $200 billion war" to remove a dictator.

In the wake of Ms. Sheehan's protest, the facts on the ground in America have changed almost everywhere. The president, for one, has been forced to make what for him is the ultimate sacrifice: jettisoning chunks of vacation to defend the war in any bunker he can find in Utah or Idaho. In the first speech of this offensive, he even felt compelled to take the uncharacteristic step of citing the number of American dead in public (though the number was already out of date by at least five casualties by day's end). For the second, the White House recruited its own mom, Tammy Pruett, for the president to showcase as an antidote to Ms. Sheehan. But in a reversion to the president's hide-the-fallen habit, the chosen mother was not one who had lost a child in Iraq.

It isn't just Mr. Bush who is in a tight corner now. Ms. Sheehan's protest was the catalyst for a new national argument about the war that managed to expose both the intellectual bankruptcy of its remaining supporters on the right and the utter bankruptcy of the Democrats who had rubber-stamped this misadventure in the first place.

When the war's die-hard cheerleaders attacked the Middle East policy of a mother from Vacaville, Calif., instead of defending the president's policy in Iraq, it was definitive proof that there is little cogent defense left to be made. When the Democrats offered no alternative to either Mr. Bush's policy or Ms. Sheehan's plea for an immediate withdrawal, it was proof that they have no standing in the debate.

Instead, two conservative Republicans - actually talking about Iraq instead of Ms. Sheehan, unlike the rest of their breed - stepped up to fill this enormous vacuum: Chuck Hagel and Henry Kissinger. Both pointedly invoked Vietnam, the war that forged their political careers. Their timing, like Ms. Sheehan's, was impeccable. Last week Mr. Bush started saying that the best way to honor the dead would be to "finish the task they gave their lives for" - a dangerous rationale that, as David Halberstam points out, was heard as early as 1963 in Vietnam, when American casualties in that fiasco were still inching toward 100.

And what exactly is our task? Mr. Bush's current definition - "as the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down" - could not be a better formula for quagmire. Twenty-eight months after the fall of Saddam, only "a small number" of Iraqi troops are capable of fighting without American assistance, according to the Pentagon - a figure that Joseph Biden puts at "fewer than 3,000." At this rate, our 138,000 troops will be replaced by self-sufficient locals in roughly 100 years.

For his part, Mr. Hagel backed up his assertion that we are bogged down in a new Vietnam with an irrefutable litany of failure: "more dead, more wounded, less electricity in Iraq, less oil being pumped in Iraq, more insurgency attacks, more insurgents coming across the border, more corruption in the government." Mr. Kissinger no doubt counts himself a firm supporter of Mr. Bush, but in Washington Post this month, he drew a damning lesson from Vietnam: "Military success is difficult to sustain unless buttressed by domestic support." Anyone who can read a poll knows that support is gone and is not coming back. The president's approval rating dropped to 36 percent in one survey last week.

What's left is the option stated bluntly by Mr. Hagel: "We should start figuring out how we get out of there."

He didn't say how we might do that. John McCain has talked about sending more troops to rectify our disastrous failure to secure the country, but he'll have to round them up himself door to door. As the retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey reported to the Senate, the National Guard is "in the stage of meltdown and in 24 months we'll be coming apart." At the Army, according to The Los Angeles Times, officials are now predicting an even worse shortfall of recruits in 2006 than in 2005. The Leo Burnett advertising agency has been handed $350 million for a recruitment campaign that avoids any mention of Iraq.

Among Washington's Democrats, the only one with a clue seems to be Russell Feingold, the Wisconsin senator who this month proposed setting a "target date" (as opposed to a deadline) for getting out. Mr. Feingold also made the crucial observation that "the president has presented us with a false choice": either "stay the course" or "cut and run." That false choice, in which Mr. Bush pretends that the only alternative to his reckless conduct of the war is Ms. Sheehan's equally apocalyptic retreat, is used to snuff out any legitimate debate. There are in fact plenty of other choices echoing about, from variations on Mr. Feingold's timetable theme to buying off the Sunni insurgents.

But don't expect any of Mr. Feingold's peers to join him or Mr. Hagel in fashioning an exit strategy that might work. If there's a moment that could stand for the Democrats' irrelevance it came on July 14, the day Americans woke up to learn of the suicide bomber in Baghdad who killed as many as 27 people, nearly all of them children gathered around American troops. In Washington that day, the presumptive presidential candidate Hillary Clinton held a press conference vowing to protect American children from the fantasy violence of video games.

The Democrats are hoping that if they do nothing, they might inherit the earth as the Bush administration goes down the tubes. Whatever the dubious merits of this Kerryesque course as a political strategy, as a moral strategy it's unpatriotic. The earth may not be worth inheriting if Iraq continues to sabotage America's ability to take on Iran and North Korea, let alone Al Qaeda.

As another politician from the Vietnam era, Gary Hart, observed last week, the Democrats are too cowardly to admit they made a mistake three years ago, when fear of midterm elections drove them to surrender to the administration's rushed and manipulative Iraq-war sales pitch. So now they are compounding the original error as the same hucksters frantically try to repackage the old damaged goods.

IN the new pitch there are no mushroom clouds. Instead we get McCarthyesque rhetoric accusing critics of being soft on the war on terrorism, which the Iraq adventure has itself undermined. Before anyone dare say Vietnam, the president, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld drag in the historian David McCullough and liken 2005 in Iraq to 1776 in America - and, by implication, the original George W. to ours. Before you know it, Ahmad Chalabi will be rehabilitated as Ben Franklin.

The marketing campaign will crescendo in two weeks, on the anniversary of 9/11, when a Defense Department "Freedom Walk" will trek from the site of the Pentagon attack through Arlington National Cemetery to a country music concert on the Mall. There the false linkage of Iraq to 9/11 will be hammered in once more, this time with a beat: Clint Black will sing "I Raq and Roll," a ditty whose lyrics focus on Saddam, not the Islamic radicals who actually attacked America. Lest any propaganda opportunity be missed, Arlington's gravestones are being branded with the Pentagon's slogans for military campaigns, like Operation Iraqi Freedom, The Associated Press reported last week - a historic first. If only the administration had thought of doing the same on the fallen's coffins, it might have allowed photographs.

Even though their own poll numbers are in a race to the bottom with the president's, don't expect the Democrats to make a peep. Republicans, their minds increasingly focused on November 2006, may well blink first. In yet another echo of Vietnam, it's millions of voters beyond the capital who will force the timetable for our inexorable exit from Iraq.


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/opinion/28rich.html