Widgetized Section

Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone

Bickering Democrats split over terrorism

By
August 30, 2007

Constantly bickering Democrats can’t mount an effective campaign against President George W. Bush’s failed war on terror because they can’t stop fighting each other over the issue.

The so-called “war on terror” splits Democrats down the middle and allows Bush to continue on his merry way while they snipe at each other.

Reports Jonathan Weisman in The Washington Post:

A growing clamor among rank-and-file Democrats to halt President Bush’s most controversial tactics in the fight against terrorism has exposed deep divisions within the party, with many Democrats angry that they cannot defeat even a weakened president on issues that they believe should be front and center.

The Democrats’ failure to rein in wiretapping without warrants, close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay or restore basic legal rights such as habeas corpus for terrorism suspects has opened the party’s leaders to fierce criticism from some of their staunchest allies — on Capitol Hill, among liberal bloggers and at interest groups.

At the Democratic-leaning Center for American Progress yesterday, panelists discussing the balance between security and freedom lashed out at Democratic leaders for not standing up to the White House. “These are matters of principle,” said Mark Agrast, a senior fellow at the center. “You don’t temporize.”

The American Civil Liberties Union is running Internet advertisements depicting House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) as sheep.

“Bush wanted more power to eavesdrop on ordinary Americans, and we just followed along. I guess that’s why they call us the Democratic leadersheep,” say the two farm animals in the ad, referring to Congress’s passage of legislation granting Bush a six-month extension and expansion of his warrantless wiretapping program.

Rep. Rush D. Holt (D-N.J.), who leads a newly created House select intelligence oversight panel, lamented, “Democrats have been slow to recognize they are in the majority now and can go back to really examine the fundamentals of what we should be doing to protect democracy.”

6 Responses to Bickering Democrats split over terrorism

  1. bryan mcclellan

    August 30, 2007 at 7:56 am

    Democrats,ever the sheep,and soon to be smirks Goats.Baaaaaaaaad..

  2. vietnam vet

    August 30, 2007 at 9:03 am

    vietnam vet
    The democrats has become a gutless party. If they can’t win on bush’s failed war policy on terror, then they will not win the white house in 2008. The only answer I have…They must be in bed with bush.

  3. JoyfulC

    August 30, 2007 at 9:14 am

    The fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans, I think, is that Democrats actually try to do what their constituents want them to, whereas Republicans tell their constituents whatever they want to hear to get voted in, then proceed to do whatever they want, regardless of how the people who put them in office feel about it.

    Each method has serious drawbacks. If a politician is going to vote in line with their constituents’ wishes, then it’s ridiculous to think that those wishes are going to be homogenous across an entire nation. Not everybody sees things the same way. Democrats need to work more on selling solutions to their constituents to solve this problem.

    Republicans need to stop suckering their voters with non-issues and fanning the flames of their prejudices and extremism, and start being more honest about whose interests they represent and why. If they truly had to sell to their constituents the notion that giving handouts to corporations and the wealthy somehow made more sense than having a solid social net, they might find themselves having to modify their policies a bit to include everyone’s well-being, or be satisfied with only those votes they could get from the very wealthy.

    One thing I do like about the Democrats is that they think and they dare to disagree. It seems like being a Republican these days means signing on to march lock-step and never question the party line. That just can’t be a good thing! And based on the outcomes the US achieved over the years when we had a Republican administration and a Republican dominated Congress, it sure isn’t!

  4. Steve Horn

    August 30, 2007 at 9:50 am

    I suspect that some in the Democratic party want the war to continue through the ’08 election cycle.
    Why do I suspect this? Simple – you can’t run on an anti-war or peace platform if there isn’t a war going on.

  5. mary cali

    August 30, 2007 at 6:39 pm

    The democrat divisions indicate the difficulty of exiting the Iraq quagmire. Democrat leaders are conflicted as there are no simple solutions for all to agree on. Even though they may be opposed to the war, they understand they have an obligation not to make the situation worse for Iraq, our forces, the Mid East, and the world. Bush and his henchmen have created such a mess that there is no simple clean up operation. Getting out of Iraq is a process not something that can be achieved instantaneously as most of us would like.

  6. Klaus Hergeschimmer

    August 31, 2007 at 5:17 am

    Oh please JoyfulC & mary cali, stop being the poster bearers for the Republo-Neo-Nazi-Cons.

    The Dems had a clear cut chance to cut funds last May, and they buckled under their own bluff.

    Congressional spinelesscrats never would have gained those seats in the House had they campaigned on passing non-binding bills to stop the war. I despise the Democrats like I never have.

    Nancette Pelosi is a damn traitor in the pocket of AIPAC which was clearly demonstrated when she addressed a gathering of the AIPAC lobby way back in March leading up to the May Iraq spending bill and they booed her when she brought up the provision to require Bush to get permission to bomb Iran, and surprise, surprise, the next day she removed that provision.

    We can’t abide by a lemming like Nancette who voted for the Patriot act, that makes decisions based on what is politcally expedient at the time.

    Five years of Iraq and nothings getting better, many dems have defense industry connections such as
    Hairy Reed, Congressman Carl Levin who never says no to
    AIPAC. Diane Feinstein’s husband is a war profiteer.

    I get frustrated at a lot of democratic friends of mine who just have this Candy Ass Myopia about the Democratic party, they just can’t bring themselves to admit the Democratic party has totally betrayed America and the troops.

    There is no law that Congress has to pass a spending bill. They could do it, but the biggest McEmbassy
    ever built is on the line, and by and large, the Dems are in the same bathtub with Gorgie Bush playing with the same Rubber Ducky.

    Thomas Friedman, who was gung-ho for the occupation of Iraq even says the Democratic notion of leaving a force of less then half of our troops in Iraq to protect American Assets is a fantasy. The situation for a force that small would be nothing less then perilous
    with a country in anarchy. The surge has worked to a small degree but there is no poitical reconciliation in Iraq. All our troops are doing in Iraq is treading water for nothing, dying for nothing!

    Iraqis get maybe a few hours of Electricity a day, there is virtually no clean drinking water, oil production is still below pre-war levels as is everying else.

    There is now a cholera outbreak in northern Iraq and its spreading rapidly. Hospitals are controlled by local militas, so if you happen to be from the wrong faction, you die.

    All these conditions in Iraq have been like this since
    the U.S. invaded.

    The idea that the Democratic party has an obligation NOT to make things worse is fatuous!

    -You mean it’s not worse already!!!

    Another notion I can’t abide by:’Democrats dare to disagree’! Disagree With who! Not George W. Bush and that’s for damn sure (only non-binding disagreements).

    The Jack-Ass-Party puts up a brave fusillade of non-binding resolutions, and then says,”Oh, OK, we’ve proved to our constituents that we fought bravely with you Mr. Chimp, so here is your money”.

    Again I repeat: Do you think that the Democrats would have re-gained the house if they promised to try to end the occupation of Iraq with non-binding legislation?

    “ONLY A FOOL FIGHTS IN A BURNING HOUSE”
    -KANG the KLINGON