You think Democrats in Congress DON'T own stock in energy companies, military suppliers, etc., etc., etc. Listen to the blogs and the news, they think the war will win the Whitehouse in o8 as everyone will hate Bush for it. Iran is just icing on the cake. All of Congress has a vested interest in keeping the war and even continuing it. Look at all the Candidates (both parties)out for a 2 year campaign, well even a short campaign costs like hell, much less 2 yrs. Where do you think the MONEY comes from?

It might be good political strategy and it might not. Its based on the assumption there will be something to govern once Iran is attacked.

The whole issue as framed by our democrat leadership is the given that Iran is a looming threat when in fact it is not a looming threat. This is what makes this whole thing so surreal, there is simply no honest discussion possible when said discussion is based on an outright lie. If the democrats cared at all they would be taking issue with the presumption that Iran was a threat and challenging Bush on that account. However the democrats are spineless and worthless so here we are and here we go again. Help me Mr. Wizard!

I just figure the Democrats are in no rush to bring Bush's disaster to an end, at least not until next November.

But yes, political gains are all that concern the party, either party, soldiers' well-being doesn't seem to be too high on any politician's list.

The democrats can't do anything about Iran.

It's not cowardice, it's ideology. It's part of the parties wierd coalition of special interest groups to be whacked out zionists. If you don't naturally toe that line before you started and you can't fake it after you get there, you get your secret decoder ring taken away and excommunicated (especially if you are black).

Ah, FELLOW TAXPAYERS, what could one say or do to stop the fall we are on, or at least move us away from the jagged rocks below we are about to strike. My belief is there is wisdom in discussion of solutions among a lot of people and I've proposed mine a time or two but it would take many, many participants. Unless the concensus is to sit back and watch it all go down the tubes, then perhaps it's time to come up with something else. I do hope EVERYONE realizes George likes to start his wars in the month of March.

Democrats go against the AIPAC line? That's funny.

november wasn't a clear enough message. the next one needs to be in the shape of an anvil, from the sky.

The headline should be "There are Still Democrats Just As Embarrassingly Craven As You Expect". The Democrats are not a unified, centralized force in the way Republicans are, or at least were until recently, and probably will be again the closer the election gets.

This kind of broad brushwork re-enforces the old Right-wing trope: "they're both the same". BS. Notice how the posters fed into that idea. There were no "neutral" objections in the way there would be if you attacked a Republican party policy, action or position.

e.g.
"... political gains are all that concern the party, either party. Soldiers' well-being doesn't seem to be too high on any politician's list."
Which could be rewritten:
"The Dems don't care about the troops any more than than the Republicans. Vote Green/Don't vote."

and

"It's part of the parties wierd coalition of special interest groups to be whacked out zionists. If you don't naturally toe that line before you started and you can't fake it after you get there, you get your secret decoder ring taken away and excommunicated"
or "Democrats go against the AIPAC line? That's funny."
translation:
"Dems are as beholden to madmen as the Repubs. Vote Green/Don't vote."

and

"You think Democrats in Congress DON'T own stock in energy companies, military suppliers, ... all of Congress has a vested interest in keeping the war and even continuing it. ... Where do you think the MONEY comes from?"
translation
"The Dems are as corrupt as the Republicans. Vote Green/Don't vote."

Notice a pattern here?

This post is a bit better:

"The whole issue as framed by our democrat leadership is the given that Iran is a looming threat [when it isn't]. ... If the democrats cared at all they would be taking issue with the presumption that Iran was a threat and challenging Bush on that account."

It's clearly not the case that none are doing this or there wouldn't have been a proposal to make Iran a key part of this. It may be that those who oppose that have the upper hand, not necessarily by being in a majority. Who those in opposition to this move are is the thing to focus on. Not the Democratic party.

"However the democrats are spineless and worthless so here we are and here we go again."
You talk about the Democratic party monolithically. There are parts that can be influenced and informed, and parts that can't or won't.

Finally, this isn't Pelosi's decision to make. She has to go with what she perceives to be the majority view in her party. I'm not clear on what that actually is, or how one would assess it, in truth. Everyone of those in Congress is insulated from reality to some degree. They may think they are doing the best they can because their facts are wrong. It's foolish to judge too quickly. But it's far easier to pour scorn on everyone in the whole party, isn't it?

Some context:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/3/11/15161/0415

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/3/12/235647/863

No new laws are needed. We have an old document lying about that says that only the US Congress has the authority to declare war.

If we're not using the US Constitution anymore, perhaps the Iraqis might want it?

'me'-
Thanks for the latest DNC talking points.

Bud, thanks for your constructive and highly convincing criticism. Not.

i am tired of this country moving to a one party system. i am a democrat and if our elected democratic representatives cave-in and remove or don't add language that prohibits bush from intering and starting a war with Iran, then i will just vote republican in the 2008 election, because at that point there is no difference. i am tired of weak assed politicians more concerned with their careers than doing the right and moral thing. it's embarrassing to have the american public in a majority consciencous not to wage war in Iran and yet washington democrats are caving to the american terriorist we call bush/cheney.

Me (I feel like I'm talking to myself)--

I'd like Democrats to worry that there might be a mass exodus to the Greens, without that exodus actually occurring on election day. They are politicians and vote-counters--so long as they think the left has no place to go, it's inevitable that many will pander to the center and even the center-right. That's the perrenial problem of American politics and I don't know the solution. It's not clear that you know either.

Me: I don't know about anyone else but I'm NOT talking about the whole Democratic Party, just its Congressinal Deligation and it's 08 candidates. It's true I am a third party person (member of the Voter Initiative Political party of Wyoming, VIPP-WYO) and as far as I know, we have NO foreign policy. We are STRICTLY A TAXPAYER AND TAX REFORM ORIENTED PARTY. Now I PERSONALLY believe in using TAX PROTEST to affect a change in the direction of Congress, but that's just ME. I'm also thinking that waiting for the next election cycle to have ANY third party, green, purple, black, or white or even VIPP were it possible IS GOING TO BE A DOLLAR SHORT AND ABOUT 2 YEARS TOO LATE. Tell me I'm WRONG, it seems to me, with ALL the Iran rhetoric, with the endless Troop "surge", TWO MAJOR CARRIER FLEETS in position and a third on the way, and (What worries me the most)JUST NOW starting diplomatic talks with Iran, I'm thinking WE will soon be knocking on Teheran's door. With 2 quagmires on either side of Iran we are not leaving soon, and none of us living will see the LAST PAYMENT ON, I just don't see how a third is in any way in THE BEST INTERESTS OF AMERICA.

I wasn't suggesting a voting strategy but if you don't understand that Democrats are more hawkish on Israel's enemies than Republicans are generally hawkish on general principle and why you are really a babe in the woods.

me's defence of the Democratic Party was funny enough, but the "for context" links which both go to dkos were a great punchline.

Be that as it may, the links in fact undercut me's point, showing that liberal Democrats are being rolled by the DP leadership and Blue Dogs from "moderate" seats. That is, people primarily concerned with votes, and what they (foolishly) believe is the best strategy for keeping them. But the best method to whip these people into line is precisely to create the impression that cravenness on this issue will lead to a loss of DPUSA votes, either to third parties or voters joining the third of Americans who have already given up on Tweedleism.

me's defence of the Democratic Party was funny enough, but the "for context" links which both go to dkos were a great punchline.

Be that as it may, the links in fact undercut me's point, showing that liberal Democrats are being rolled by the DP leadership and Blue Dogs from "moderate" seats. That is, people primarily concerned with votes, and what they (foolishly) believe is the best strategy for keeping them. But the best method to whip these people into line is precisely to create the impression that cravenness on this issue will lead to a loss of DPUSA votes, either to third parties or voters joining the third of Americans who have already given up on Tweedleism.

Sorry about that.

'me'-
If you want to be taken seriously, don't post links to Daily Kos.
This explains what the Dems are doing:

The Washington Dodgers - by William S. Lind
http://antiwar.com/lind/

Speaking about Israel, Ed, I began thinking about when Rome was "pacifing" them Jews, during the time of NERO. Well is seems one night a fire broke out in one of the gettos and burned Rome to the fucking ground and of course they blamed the Christians. The point being "the chickens came home to roost". While the war was way over in the Middle East all the Romans were happy, partying, working, doing business, getting married, or laid. Then after a week or so of firestorm they was just cooked, well done, burnt.
The trouble with Iran is, unlike Afghanistan and Iraq, them chickens will be over here roosting. And much like Rome, we won't REALLY GIVE A HOOT, UNTIL IT LAYS ON OUR DOORSTEP. We've made a believer out of IRAN. He don't think there is even one little chance we won't invade, NOT ONE. To the Iranians it's just a matter of when. The Taliban thought we would NEVER ATTACK, and they were wrong. Saddam thought he could just keep on complying and bullshitting and sooner or later we would learn the TRUTH that he was no threat, as long as he co-operated he could keep on struggling. He was wrong. But the Iranians, they don't see things that way and they understand that fighting a DEFENSIVE CAMPAIGN will cost them their land. They will be FORCED into an OFFENSIVE FIGHT. Now, bombing England, or Spain, or Jordan, or even Israel IS NOT going to help them against us. Only one place and one place alone will any attacks help them, and MICHAEL CHERTOFF is ALL they got stoping them. Think about it.

I don't think the majority of voters who elected politicians to end the war thought of themselves as "babes in the woods" because they thought the ones they elected might actually represent their desires.

But, it is elucidating to many, I think, this crass obedience to Israel.

Who controls the message?

"crass obedience to israeli 'wingers" looks better on a business card than "crass obedience to the oil industry which by the way is killing us all and buying itself islands with the profit." imo. i mean if you had to pick one, to justify beating the crap out of arabs for their loot, i'd go with israel, it's just a more positive picture.