Latest Threads
Latest
Greatest Threads
Greatest
Lobby
Lobby
Journals
Journals
Search
Search
Options
Options
Help
Help
Login
Login
Home » Discuss » Journals » Time for change » Read entry Donate to DU
Advertise Liberally! The Liberal Blog Advertising Network
Advertise on more than 70 progressive blogs!
Time for change's Journal
Posted by Time for change in General Discussion
Fri Oct 10th 2008, 11:02 PM
It is in this type of a situation, where too many Americans buy into the Alice-in-Wonderland, up is down and down is up type of logic perpetrated by our government, where irresponsible rhetoric could lead to some tragic consequences from which we may
In a desperate bid to save his rapidly sinking presidential campaign, John McCain has taken to trying to associate his opponent with terrorism. This tactic has inflamed crowds at McCain/Palin rallies to the extent that cries of “TREASON!”, “TERRORIST!”, and “KILL HIM!” are often heard from the crowds.

This is beyond irresponsible. Though Barack Obama’s meteoric political rise testifies to the absence of racism in large segments of the U.S. population, racial hatred is far from dead in our country. And it is not at all beyond possibility that the hatred towards Obama stirred up by the McCain campaign will inflame racial tensions to the point where one of his followers decides to take drastic action. Or alternatively, the racial hatred so produced may serve as a convenient back-drop to conceal a highly organized conspiracy designed to facilitate a regime change, similar to what transpired in November 1963.

Therefore, it would behoove the McCain campaign, as well as other Americans, to take a close look at the facts behind these allegations. The best that the McCain campaign could come up with in its attempt to tie Obama to terrorism was William Ayers. So that would be a good place to start.


The relationship between Obama and William Ayers

In response to the McCain campaign’s frequent accusations that Obama is ‘palling around with terrorists’ an article on CNN Politics.com called “Fact Check: Is Obama ‘Palling around with Terrorists’?”, discusses the extent of the relationship between Obama and Ayers.

In 1995, Obama and Ayers both were involved in a Chicago public education improvement project called the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.

From 1999 to 2001, Obama and Ayers were both board members of a charitable foundation called the Woods Fund.

In 1999, Ayers hosted a campaign event for Obama in his bid for the Illinois State Senate.

The two have not spoken on the phone together or communicated by e-mail since 2005. But they did bump into each other on the street a little over a year ago, as they both live in the same neighborhood.

No evidence exists of a relationship between Obama and Ayers beyond what is noted here.

The article concludes:

There is no indication that Ayers and Obama are now "palling around," or that they have had an ongoing relationship in the past three years. Also, there is nothing to suggest that Ayers is now involved in terrorist activity or that other Obama associates are.


Is/Was William Ayers a Terrorist?

The relationship between Obama and Ayers is so tenuous that when confronted with inflammatory accusations about the relationship, the Obama campaign merely points out the tenuousness of the relationship rather than make any attempt to defend Ayers, whose actions Obama has repudiated.

Nevertheless, I think it is important to consider the history of this man whom the McCain campaign feels is the best vehicle to tie Obama to “terrorism”.

John McCain is not the first person to try to make the connection between Ayers and Obama. His task was made easier for him by virtue of the fact that the subject was brought up during a Democratic debate moderated by ABC News’ lackeys, George Stephanopoulos and Charlie Gibson. At that debate, Stephanopoulos said the following about Ayers and the organization he used to work for:

They bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol, and other buildings. He's never apologized for that. And, in fact, on 9/11, he was quoted in the New York Times saying, "I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough."

The organization that Stephanopoulos referred to with that statement was the Weather Underground, a former anti-Vietnam War organization, which was on the FBI’s ten most-wanted list during the Hoover days. Whether their activities ever killed anyone is not clear to me, but that appears doubtful.

Though Ayers and his wife were members of the Weather Underground, Ayers maintains that he never participated in any terrorist activities. In any event, Ayers and his wife turned themselves in during the 1980s, and all charges against them were dropped. Stephanopoulos’ characterization of Ayers was clearly misleading at best. Here is what Ayers himself had to say about his supposed advocacy of terrorism:

I heard Sean Hannity tell Senator John McCain that I was an unrepentant terrorist… extolling bombings against the U.S. and even advocating more terrorist bombs. Senator McCain couldn’t believe it (that is, before Obama became his principle barrier to the presidency), and neither could I. I’m often quoted as saying “I have no regrets”. That is not true. I’m sometimes asked if I regret anything I did to oppose the war in Vietnam, and I say “No, I don’t regret anything I did to stop the slaughter of millions of human beings by my own government.” Sometimes I add, “I don’t think I did enough”. This is then elided: “He has no regrets for setting bombs and thinks there should be more bombings”…. Terrorism is never justifiable, even in a just cause. I’ve never advocated terrorism, never participated in it, never defended it. The U.S. government, by contrast, does it routinely…

So, lets be absolutely clear about this. The evidence that William Ayers was ever a terrorist is slim at best. If such evidence existed, why were charges dropped against him before even bringing him to trial? Far from being a terrorist, William Ayers is a passionate anti-terrorist. So much so that even when he sees his own country engaging in what he considers to be terrorism, he speaks out against it.

John McCain’s association with George W. Bush

John McCain’s association with George W. Bush is best summarized by a couple of simple statements and a picture. First, he has (truthfully) stated that “Nobody has supported President Bush More than I Have”. Secondly, he has regularly supported Bush’s policies by voting for them 95% of the time.

And then there’s this picture:



Is George W. Bush a terrorist?

In most of my DU political posts I try to aim my message to moderates as well as progressives/liberals, in the hope that I might be able to sway their opinions. This post may be an exception to that general rule, in that I don’t think that there are many moderates who are willing to consider the possibility that their own president is a terrorist. But this has to be said in any honest discussion of the terrorist connections of the presidential candidates.

The Iraq War and occupation as terrorism
In assessing the use of terror by the U.S. military in Iraq, two of the most basic facts to consider are: 1) Given that George Bush’s excuses for perpetrating the war all turned out to be lies, it is evident that the real reasons for the war were a combination of baser motives, including control of Iraqi oil supplies, the expansion of American military power, and war profiteering; and 2) Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians have died as a result of our invasion. Nor are those hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths mere accidents. As noted by Michael Schwartz:

The architects of American policy in the Middle East tend to keep escalating the level of brutality in search of a way to convince the Iraqis (and now the Iranians) that the only path that avoids indiscriminate slaughter is submission to a Pax Americana. Put another way, American policy in the Middle East has devolved into unadorned state terrorism.

The brutality described by Schwartz is evidenced in numerous different ways: The U.S. military does not hesitate to attack heavily populated Iraqi cities, with predictable results:

The US Coalition has used overwhelming military force to attack Iraqi cities on grounds that they were “insurgent strongholds.” The offensives, involving air and ground bombardment and armored assaults, have resulted in the displacement of hundreds of thousands of people (actually millions), large civilian casualties and colossal destruction of the urban physical infrastructure, making affected cities at least partly uninhabitable.

Frequent aerial bombing of Iraq has resulted in numerous civilian deaths. The use of chemical weapons by the U.S. military has undoubtedly resulted in especially gruesome deaths and injuries of many civilians. And as frustration mounts on the ground, “Day after day, scores of Iraqi civilians are being massacred in concerted offensives aimed at terrorizing the population and stamping American control over the country…”, while the U.S. government implausibly maintains that the atrocities are merely the work of “a few bad apples”.

George Bush’s Iraq War as an act of terrorism is summarized well in this article:

The invasion launched by George W. Bush was heralded by the most frightening and powerful use of force and military violence in recent history. His Shock and Awe bombardment of Baghdad was designed to intimidate and coerce the government as well as the civilian population of that nation to change its existing leadership.

George Bush’s “War on Terror” as terrorism
George Bush conducts his “War on Terror” using a variety of illegal, brutal, and cowardly means: We capture thousands of “terrorist suspects” through a variety of means, most commonly by paying bounties for them; we render a great many of them into the custody of tyrannical regimes to be tortured; thousands of others we hold indefinitely in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay, or various secret CIA prisons, without even charging them with a crime; we allow them no access to legal counsel or their own families, who aren’t even notified of their disappearances; we torture them repeatedly; and for those who are tried for crimes, we don’t allow them to see the evidence against them or to contest that evidence. According to Stephen Grey, award winning journalist for Excellence in Human Rights Reporting for Amnesty International, in “Ghost Plane – The True Story of the CIA Torture Program”, we have done such things to about 11,000 human beings since September 11, 2001.

Why do I call this terrorism? Terrorism has been defined as “ideologically or politically motivated violence directed against civilian targets.” Substituting the word “innocent” for “civilian” also provides a good definition. Well, many or most of these people are civilians, or if not, they were merely fighting in defense of their country against George Bush’s invasion, when they were picked up by the U.S. military and branded “terrorists”. Just as important, it is highly likely that the good majority of them are innocent of any crime. Such were the conclusions of Major General Antonio Taguba, who investigated our torture of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib. And such were the conclusions of the International Red Cross.


Who’s the bigger terrorist?

So who’s the bigger terrorist – William Ayers or George W. Bush and Dick Cheney? On the one hand we have a man who belonged to an organization that plotted or threatened to bomb some buildings, but who as far as we know never participated in or condoned a single act of terrorism. And on the other hand we have a man who is responsible for numerous acts of state terror, resulting in the deaths of probably over a million people.

No wonder that even our allies consider George Bush to be a threat to world peace, as demonstrated by a November 2006 international poll which showed that 83% of Mexicans, 78% of British citizens and 74% of Canadians consider George Bush to be a severe or moderate threat to world peace.

But following the 9/11 attacks on our country, the word “terrorism”, as used by the Bush administration, has come to have the most perverted of meanings. Instead of the meaning it was previously known to have, “terrorism” has come to be defined as any activity directed against the government of the United States. If you’re a citizen of a nation that is invaded by the United States, and you take up arms to defend your country against the invaders, you’re a terrorist. Or, if you’re a citizen of the United States and you protest your government’s use of terror against other peoples, you may also be considered a terrorist by your nation’s rulers.

It is in this type of a situation, where too many Americans buy into the Alice-in-Wonderland, up is down and down is up type of logic perpetrated by our government, where irresponsible rhetoric could lead to some tragic consequences from which we may never recover. John McCain and Sarah Palin should take this very seriously and work hard to get their campaign out of the gutter.


PS

As I was nearing the completion of this article I saw the news that John McCain did something that quite frankly surprised me. In response to some typically heated rhetoric by one of his supporters, he announced something to the effect that Barack Obama is not a terrorist, and in fact is “a good family man”. I saw him say that, and he sounded sincere to me.

Some will argue that he did that out of political calculation, as the irresponsible rhetoric of his campaign has been driving his reputation and his poll numbers to new lows. That may be, and I won’t argue the point. But either way, he did the right thing by handling that episode the way he did. This may have come too late to prevent a tragedy, but nevertheless he deserves credit for doing it. Thank you, John McCain. Let’s all hope that this represents the beginning of a new tone for the rest of this campaign.
Discuss (15 comments) | Recommend (12 votes)
A summary of my DU posts
Time for change


The good majority of my DU posts consist of one of six general subjects: The need to remove from office the current cancer upon our nation; election fraud; the tragedy of the Bush administration; my ideas on the liberal values that we all hope will some day replace the values that our current government runs on; historical events that I believe cast light upon our current situation; and other political ideas.


The need to remove Bush and Cheney from office

In 2006, John Conyers wrote a 198 page report, documented with 1,401 references, titled “The Constitution in Crisis – The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, Cover-ups in the Iraq War, and Illegal Domestic Surveillance”. The title of his report reflected the primary reasons why George Bush and Dick Cheney must be removed from office: They have made a mockery of our Constitution – the foundation for the rule of law in our nation – by consistently violating it. Our Constitution, if we can keep it in fact and not just in name, makes our nation much more than just a democracy. By providing protections for minorities and the powerless, our Constitution adds civility, humanity, and decency to what could otherwise be a barbaric nation – democratic or not.

Aside from the continuing damage that Bush and Cheney can do to our country in their remaining time in office, including their potential to involve us in ever expanding new wars, failing to remove from office the most lawless presidential administration in our history will set an awful precedent in our nation – a precedent for doing away with our Constitution. Providing in our Constitution a mechanism for impeachment and removal from office was of utmost priority to our Founding Fathers. As Thomas Jefferson once said, “When once a republic is corrupted there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles…”

Many arguments have been put forward against impeachment. This post answers those arguments. Some opponents of impeachment mistakenly advocate the view that the impeachment of public officials requires evidence of the commitment of an actual crime – and would not be justified by such things as gross violation of the public trust, corruption, negligence, or incompetence. Leaving aside the fact that such an interpretation would leave our nation subject to rule by people who would do great and possibly irreparable harm to it, the preponderance of evidence flatly contradicts that interpretation.

Others claim that we don’t have enough evidence to proceed with impeachment. I argue here that the current evidence for impeachment is so abundant, arguing that we need more sets the impeachment bar at an absurdly high level.

Others argue we don’t have the votes for impeachment – which implies that we must not bring individuals to trial until we have counted the votes, rather the using the trial to get the votes. Such an argument ignores the likelihood that votes will accumulate as Americans watch the impeachment trial and become intensely exposed for the first time to the many outrageous crimes of George Bush and Dick Cheney. And it also ignores the fact that Senators who refuse to vote for conviction will probably be putting their seats in jeopardy.

But perhaps the most urgent reason for moving to impeach Bush and Cheney as soon as possible is that their continuing refusal to be bound by the laws and the Constitution of our nation raises the spectacle that they may be planning a coup d’etat. Why else would they go to such lengths to destroy our Constitution and the rule of law in our nation? We must preempt them by moving as quickly as possible on this.


Election fraud

The DU apparently was born as a result of the 2000 November-December election fraud that began the long nightmare that is the George W. Bush administration.

I went to bed on Election Day 2000, shortly after Bush was announced as our new President, feeling as if the end of world civilization was near at hand. My wife woke me up a couple hours later to tell me the good news that the announcement of Bush’s Presidency had been temporarily cancelled. Thus began a period of 36 days that I followed more intensely than any other news event of my life – ending in the infamous and disastrous Supreme Court decision that marked the beginning of our long road to dictatorship.

My son (EOTE) joined DU in January 2001, a few days after it began, but I did not, for reasons that now escape me. I did, however, do a lot of writing about the 2000 election, including a desperate plea to my Maryland Senators, to please demand a real recount of the 2000 Florida vote. And I also contributed an article to DU on that subject, in my son’s name (I did not use my own name because I was a federal employee and I was afraid that I could get into trouble for writing such an article), in the spring of 2001.

The fraudulent 2004 Presidential election is what brought me into DU. I had worked as a volunteer in the Kerry/Edwards campaign, I had followed the presidential polls obsessively, and by Election Day 2004 I was about as confident as I could be that John Kerry would be our next President. Thus, the reported results of that election were both profoundly disappointing and difficult for me to believe, as they were for the great majority of DUers.

I immediately began an effort to acquire as many election statistics as I could, in a feverish and desperate attempt to prove that the election was a fraud, which I hoped would aid in its overturning. In late November I had my son post an analysis that I did of the discrepancy between the exit polls and the official election results (Note: My son supplied the title, which I feel is too strong, which you can see if you read the article). And finding that it was awkward to have my son post my articles, I joined DU a few days later.

Since then I have posted dozens of election fraud related threads, a small number of the most important of which I have included in my journal.

In particular, I have come to believe that the main mechanism by which the 2004 election was stolen was the massive and illegal targeted purging of Democratic voters in Ohio, especially in Cleveland. This thread contains a great amount of evidence to support that contention.

In addition, I believe that there is good evidence that says that large numbers of votes in Cuyahoga County were deleted by its central tabulator, as explained in this thread, which also discusses an early 2006 partial audit of Cuyahoga County. And, I think that the death of Raymond Lemme, who while investigating Clint Curtis’ sworn allegations of vote switching computer programs, was found dead in a Georgia hotel room, just a couple weeks after telling Curtis that he had traced the corruption “all the way to the top”, is extremely suspicious to say the least. Here is my explanation of the controversy over the discrepancy between the 2004 exit polls and the official 2004 vote count. And here is a summary of several reasons I have written about for believing that the 2004 election was stolen.

Finally, here are my ideas for preventing another stolen election in 2006 and 2008.


The tragedy of the Bush administration

The fake war on terrorism

I believe that a crucial requirement for a good understanding of the Bush administration’s actions since September 11, 2001, is the realization that its “War on Terrorism” is nothing but a colossal fake. Only with that realization do numerous Bush administration characteristics and actions make sense, including: Its disinterest in Osama bin Laden; its great urge to rush into a war with Iraq at any cost; its utter contempt for international law and the rest of the world; its succession of no-bid contracts for its wealthy friends; its lavish tax cuts for the wealthiest of our citizens and corporations during ‘time of war’; the Dubai port deals; and, its attempt to turn our democracy into a dictatorship.

With that in mind, I wrote in this post about the main reasons why I believe that the Bush administration was complicit in the 9-11 attacks. There are many reasons why I believe that now, but the initial and still most important reason is the utter failure of our military, the mightiest military that the world has ever known, despite repeated warnings and more than ample time on 9-11 itself, to protect its own capital city.

Abuse of the human rights of prisoners for no apparent purpose

To me, the most sickening and disgraceful aspect of the Bush administration’s “War on Terrorism” is its complete lack of concern for human rights, demonstrated among other ways by the indefinite confinement, without trial or even bringing of charges, of thousands of prisoners of war, and its frequent use of torture. I have discussed this issue in several OPs, starting with this one. Here I describe the issue as seen through the eyes of a U.S. Army Muslim Chaplain who had ministerial responsibilities for hundreds of our prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, who witnessed the severe and daily abuse of his charges over a period of several months, and who eventually was imprisoned himself when it was felt that he was making too many waves over what he had seen. Here is my summary of what the great journalist Seymour Hersh had to say on this subject, based on his numerous high level sources. Jimmy Carter felt so strongly about this issue that he broke the unwritten rule against ex-Presidents criticizing sitting Presidents, with one of the most scathing attacks on this policy that I have ever seen. And Senator Richard Durbin was the victim of continued public verbal abuse from the right for daring to make public how our government was treating its prisoners.

Lying us into war

It is evident to most informed people that one of the biggest motivations for Bush's "War on Terror" was to provide a justification for the invasion of Iraq. Seymour Hersh’s excellent account of how the Bush administration manipulated and twisted intelligence in order justify a preemptive war against Iraq is a must read for anyone who still supports this administration and thinks that the Iraq war was necessary. And as for Bush's excuse that we are now fighting that war for the benefit of the Iraqi people, Democrats should start talking about how the Iraqi people actually feel about us being in their country.

Just how bad are Bush and his cronies and how much danger do they pose to American democracy?

George w. Bush and his administration and fellow travellers in today's Republican Party are about as bad as they come. They are anti-science ignoramuses. They are chicken hawks. They have no consciences. They are torturers. They are cowards. They are evil. And I doubt that there are any moral boundaries beyond which they will not go to get their way.

I think that in the interest of preserving our democracy, we should be aware of the similarities between the Bush administration and Hitler’s Nazis (which I wrote about even before the revelations about Bush’s warantless wiretapping), and understand that if we aren’t vigilant, yes it CAN happen here too.


Moral values that separate us from today’s Republicans

It makes me so mad to hear people ridicule what they consider to be “liberal values” and compare them unfavorably to the wonderful moral values of George W. Bush and his Republicans friends. In the vast majority of cases these people don’t even have a vague idea about what liberal values really are. They have simply been conditioned by our corporate media over several years or decades to believe that liberals encourage irresponsibility, are ‘soft’ on national defense and ‘law and order’, and are wild spenders. These ridiculous myths about liberals have in turn encouraged the Democratic Party to disavow the liberal label and in some cases to veer way to the right. I submit that, rather than running away from the liberal label we should be proud of it, and we should challenge those that seek to disparage it. And to further make this point I posted a tribute to several historical and current political leaders who have been unafraid to speak out loudly for what they believe in, and I suggested an answer to those Republican morons who accuse liberals of hating America.

Let's take a look at some of the specific moral values that separate Democrats from Republicans:

Republicans like to pretend that they're more moral than us because they're more "religious"

Many of those who disparage liberals are fundamentalist Christians who repeatedly invoke the name of Jesus Christ, and who believe that the superiority of their moral values to those of liberals and Democrats is proven by their repeated references to Jesus. Don’t these people understand that Jesus was a liberal, whose moral values were much closer to those of the Democratic Party than to those of the Republican Party, with whom they align themselves and vote for? Isn't it an astounding paradox that the Republican Party has usurped for their own purposes one of the most liberal religious leaders in world history, while at the same time showing nothing but contempt for liberals and liberal principles?

The movement for privatization of government functions

One of the biggest threats to our democracy is the privatization movement. In the name of “freedom” and “self-reliance”, the leaders of this movement advocate the freedom of powerful corporations to destroy our environment and to run our elections, our schools, our social safety net programs, and our prison system, as well as every other program which has long been considered a legitimate function of government. The fact that government is elected by the people to serve public functions, whereas the purpose of private corporations is to make profits for their investors, is either totally lost on these people, or else they simply feel that the above mentioned programs should be run for profit rather than for service.

Al Gore alluded to this issue in his great film, "An Inconvenient Truth", where he discussed the unholy alliance between government, private industry, and the press, whereby a corrupt government, in exchange for legal bribes from the industries they are supposed to control, propagates false information and policies that are favorable to those industries instead of the public that they are elected to serve. I discuss my own personal experience with that unholy alliance, where the FDA withdrew an about to be published scientific article I had written, under pressure from a manufacturer who stood to be economically hurt by the information in that article.

The need for a free and independent press

Another great threat to our democracy is the ownership of our country’s news media by a very small group of wealthy individuals who have strong ties to the Republican Party, and whose motivation in providing “news” is to maintain satisfaction with the status quo, rather than to report what is important and true. Two prime examples of corporate media shills and pseudo-journalists who pretend to be real journalists are Chris Matthews and Tim Russert. Bill Moyers explains how this situation threatens to destroy our democracy, and how this came about through the dismantling of rules and regulations which were meant to prevent the monopolization of our news. And Robert Parry explains why he started his web site to help combat the misinformation we get from our corporate media.

Health care

Liberals, and most other decent people, believe that people should be entitled to decent health care. That is why, prior to the "pro-life" administration of George W. Bush, infant mortality rate in the United States had been steadily declining for several decades. But shortly into the Bush administration, due to the starving of women and infant health programs for federal funds, infant mortality rate began a steady rise. Nor do Republicans care much about veterans' health, as indicated by the rejecting of this much needed veteran's health bill in the U.S. Senate by virtually a strict party line vote.

An enquiring mind

One of the many tricks that our corporate media uses to squelch alternative viewpoints is to label anyone who substantially disagrees with their “correct” version of the news as “conspiracy theorists”. Well, I have news for them. The views of us “conspiracy theorists” are usually much more closely aligned with reality than is most of the trash that we hear from the corporate news media these days, such as the stories about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, which were used to justify our illegal preemptive invasion of that country. We “conspiracy theorists” believe that it is not only the right of American citizens to challenge the corporate news media story lines, but it is our responsibility as well, as good citizens who care about our country.

The dignity of all human beings

Perhaps the most important value held by liberals is a belief in the dignity of all human beings – hence the 19th century movement by liberals to abolish slavery. Here is one of my favorite stories on that subject.

A summary

And here is a post where I talk about all the major values that separate Democrats from Republicans.


Historical events that help us understand our present

Though there is little doubt that George W. Bush is by far the worst president we’ve ever had, our past history is at least partly responsible for preparing the way for this tragedy. The history of our nation is full of examples of failures to live up to our ideals. In addition to our long history of slavery and our near extermination of the Native American population of our present day country, we began a long history of overseas imperialism beginning in the late 19th Century. The long standing history of extreme hostility to socialism by the elites of our country has been responsible for much of this imperialism, as well as domestic repression against labor unions and others who would speak out against the status quo. The usurpation by our Executive Branch of the war making powers given to Congress by our Founding Fathers did not originate with George W. Bush. And the attitudes fostered by our long history of slavery are still with us today, especially in the areas of our country where slavery thrived for so long.

Today, as the transgressions of George Bush and Dick Cheney threaten the existence of our nation as we know it, we would do well to recall how the German nation was led into tyranny more than six decades ago. The parallels between Hitler’s war on terror and George Bush’s war on terror are extraordinarily striking in my opinion. And the better able we are to recognize the danger, the more likely we are to take steps to prevent a similar fate.


Political ideas

Republicans have 3 great advantages in elections against Democrats, whereas the only advantage that the Democratic Party has is that its policies are meant to serve all Americans, rather than just the select few. In addition to electoral fraud and huge sums of money donated to the GOP by their corporate masters as legalized bribery, Democrats have to contend with a multitude of news media whores.

But those advantages are not sufficient for a Party that has nothing of value to offer to our country. So, when we suggest investigation of their corrupt deeds they call us conspiracy theorists. When we suggest policies such as making basic affordable health care available to all Americans they accuse us of class warfare. And when we criticize the rampant corruption at the highest levels of government they accuse us of "hating America". And when none of that works they try to scare us by telling us that if we don't give them unlimited power over us we risk being killed by terrorists.

If there was ever a presidential administration that needed to be impeached, this is it. Grass roots efforts are under way to accomplish this, and we can all help. Our Democratic leaders need to seriously consider and talk about this. And they must be united and avoid inter-party warfare.
Profile Information
Time for change
Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your ignore list
DU Donor DU Donor
8793 posts
Member since Thu Dec 2nd 2004
Silver Spring, MD, US
Male
Visitor Tools
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.
 
Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals  |  Campaigns  |  Links  |  Store  |  Donate
About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.