After reading where Democrats have put the Iraq War debate on hold. I would like to know what debate and why even a debate should be held. As stated previously all it takes are 41 senators to filibuster any bill related to the war in Iraq from coming to the floor which means the funding of it. That is precisely how this senate can end the war. The problem is they do not want to end it. I want all to think of that since every minute of each day a soldier is being fired upon and in some cases their lives are ended and for what? The same thing is happening to innocent Iraqis and the same question should be asked, and for what? The answer is greed and power and those that lust after both.
I hold mainly the Democrats in contempt since we gave them this power to end this war last November and they erroneously state they need sixty or more votes to override the president’s veto. That his hogwash if you ask me. The magic number is 41. Do not let them fool you.
As I was watching Lou Dobbs Tonight last night, Lou’s guest was CNN’s, Jack Cafferty who came on to speak with Lou regarding his best selling novel, "It's Getting Ugly Out There: The Frauds, Bunglers, Liars and Losers Who are Hurting America". The latter part of his book title best defines a great majority of members serving in both houses of congress.
Cafferty opined of the war, “Seventy percent of the population thinks the country is going in the wrong direction. The primary reason they feel that way is the war in Iraq.” He went onto say, “And one of the reasons that they don't support the war in Iraq is that we were -- they ran a game on us. They lied to us, and they got us committed. Powell was right.” While that is mainly directed towards the Republican led congress and a Republican president, the Democrats who voted for this war fell for these lies when the truth was out there.
So, I ask you; if you are against this war, just how in blazes can you support the front-runner, Senator Hillary Clinton? She knows of this filibuster rule since she is in the senate, yet she has never brought this up to show any kind of leadership and to bring our soldiers back home. Even President Bush advising her of how to handle the war is pretty telling. As I stated before when confronted with this in the last debate by former Senator, Mike Gravel, she laughed. I called it a moral deficit on her part.
In reading this telling article published on October 7th, by The Times Online, “George Bush smooths path for Hillary” this passage jumped out at me, “In the clearest sign of a shift in gear, Gates is to appoint John Hamre, a former official in President Bill Clinton’s administration, to chair the Defense Policy Board once led by Richard Perle, a leading neoconservative advocate of the invasion of Iraq. The board’s job will be to prepare for the transition to a new administration in 2008, according to a Pentagon spokesman.” Is that a Clinton administration? This coziness between President Bush and Senator Clinton should be a red-flag to everyone.
Dobbs read a quote from Cafferty’s book which reads, “I have never been scared before, but I am scared now. Scared that we're losing our way, not because somebody is taking it away, because -- but because we're giving it away." To this I add, isn’t about time that Americans especially those backing candidates like Clinton and other front-runners in both parties take back control of our government and choose other candidates that make sense?
When Dobbs asked Cafferty this poignant question, “You think the 2008 election could change it?” Cafferty’s answer was, “No.” He even asked if he was excited about any candidate out there including all eighteen candidates and his answer was again, no. I believe he stated no while including the lower-tier candidates is because he knows they stand little chance at making it to the final round.
All of this leads me to comment on a brief editorial by Andrew Sullivan The Threat of Ron Paul, he states, “His constituency consists mainly of libertarian types who are either not Republicans or have not felt at home in the Republican Party for quite some time.” As a former Republican, I left that party back in the nineties not feeling at home within it. They allowed it to be co-opted by Neo-conservatives and Evangelicals. Through that move they pushed aside moderate Republicans who should have been given a voice of the party’s direction. Now through this co-option, many are seeing the demise of it. Any political party shoots itself in the foot when they allow extremists to ultimately control it.
It was then, I switched to the Democratic Party in hopes life would be better there. Wrong! I saw the same party-power play going on within that party as well. I guess party politics was not for me and I do suspect others feel that way.
As a person who just left the Democratic Party due to numerous reasons, I too am feeling drawn to Ron Paul. At least he is telling the American people exactly what is wrong in Washington and how both parties have not served ‘we the people’ well. The same can be said of former Senator, Mike Gravel on the Democratic side. Both men have shown immense courage to tell it like it is as they confront the front-runners in both parties. I feel myself equally drawn to Mike Gravel. But sadly and angrily the powers that be within the hierarchy of both parties will not give us a candidate that we can truly support. In both parties you have had some wishing to keep the lower-tier candidates out of debates and we the American people are not being served through this form of censorship.
Sullivan was correct as he stated, “His support comes from people who are fed up with the two major parties and don't feel represented by either of them.” What exactly will it take for both parties to realize this? More important, what will it take for you to realize it if you are a member of either party? Is being a part of the Republican and Democratic Party more important than the direction of this country? Is it more important than our soldiers who continue to die each and every day?
As I have relayed in the past, I am now an independent without any party affiliation. So, independents like me are forced to vote for candidates that go against our core beliefs. I say forced because at this stage a viable third party candidate is not within our reach. Back when I was a Republican, I voted for H. Ross Perot because his opinion on NAFTA. As you will see with our jobs being outsourced and the products coming into this country from China, Perot was correct.
Two of our founding fathers, George Washington and Alexander Hamilton did not believe in political parties. But, here we sit being ruled by both.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
