Green Party Senate candidate Aaron Dixon distributed a flyer at the immigration rally, claiming to be “the husband of a naturalized citizen,” which, uh… is a lie. And that’s got Geov Parrish rather pissed off:
It’s one thing to make a possibly innocent mistake in the early stages of a campaign. It’s another to say “fuck you” to the public by repeating it, in a clear ploy for political advantage, after that mistake had been widely publicized. I’d like to see Aaron run a good campaign. Really, I would. But as of now, painful as it is to admit, I’d have to say this is the worst, most flagrantly dishonest statewide campaign for elected office I’ve ever seen.
Dixon claims to be running on principles… but I guess truthfulness isn’t one of them.
ah, Aaron dixon…who cares about him.
Dixon isn’t even a footnote. He’s what printers call a “gutter” — the fold in the middle of a page.
Dixon’s campaign simply sets the Green party back decades – not that in absolute terms that’s a whole heck of a lot.
Dixon should have run as a Republican. They’d pay him more, and he’d fit right in — liar, idiot, scofflaw, etc.
Aaron Dixon is turing into a magnificent douchebag. Way to go Greens!
MONTANA GOVERNOR PARDONS DOZENS JAILED FOR ANTI-WAR COMMENTS
Gov. Brian Schweitzer signed pardons yesterday for dozens of people who spent months in prison for speaking out against World War I. Most were working class folk of German descent convicted for casual comments made in saloons under Montana’s tough sedition laws of that era.
For example, “Herman Bausch, was a pacifist who refused to buy war bonds and spent 28 months in prison for being outspoken about it … August Lambrecht was imprisoned for seven months for predicting the United States would ‘get a licking’ in France … Ben Kahn spent 34 months in prison (for saying), ‘This is a rich man’s war, and we have no business in it … soldiers are fighting the battles of the rich.’ … Laws at the time even made it illegal to speak German. Schweitzer said his grandmother was not allowed to speak the only language she knew while out in public.
“Journalism professor Clem Work of the University of Montana said many were turned in by friends, acquaintances or in some cases by people jealous of their land holdings. … Work warned that similar cases could happen again if the nation caves in to fear and hysteria, pitting security against liberty.”
http://articles.news.aol.com/n.....8;cid=2194
Gosh, let’s see, who whips up fear and hysteria, pits security against liberty, and wants to jail people who speak out against war, corrupt politicians, or bad policies?
REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS
Republicans = anti-American, anti-Constitution, SEDITIOUS bastards
Rabbit @ 6
A lot of the German-Americans opposed to World War ONE were Republicans. And a lot of them were Socialists. It was often viewed as a DEMOCRAT war that Woodrow Wilson wanted to drag the United States into.
Given the absolute horrors of the later German regime (i.e. the Nazis)that we fought against in World War TWO, the argument that World War ONE was a war we fought to preserve “democracy” seems to make sense if one doesn’t think about it too hard.
In reality, the German regime under the Kaiser (i.e. 1870 to 1918) was fairly democratic and progressive. All citizens could vote, regardless of ethnic origin. All women could vote on equal terms with men. There were multiple parties in parliament, ranging from extreme conservatives to socialists. Germany had old age pensions and national health coverage. And a pretty good educational system.
Some of the nations fighting Germany weren’t exactly democracies. Such as Czarist Russia, which had an extremely limited electorate and a powerless parliament, with the Czar having the right to exercise absolute power. Many ethnic groups were oppressed, especially Jews — driven by the millions to emigrate to the United States and other countries. And certainly no socio-economic programs to benefit the lower classes.
The United States at the time was behind Germany in many areas. Most states did not allow women to vote. In many Democrat-run states, blacks were segregated by law and not allowed to vote. And so forth and so on. We did have more economic freedom and did allow all sorts of folks to immigrate here. And our democratic traditions were several centuries old, instead of just several decades old.
Aaron Dixon has at least done ONE THING right. He changed his voter registration to the address where he currently actually lives. I checked this out on the King County Elections website. (Stefan’s voter database comes from a Secretary of State release on 02/28/2006, so it still reflects Dixon’s old registered address where he had not lived for several years.) So maybe Dixon will be voting for himself after all!
8
Richard — first of all, what are you doing blogging at 1:13 AM? Don’t you have to practice law tomorrow, or something? Second, why is the mentality of some Republicans still stuck in 1917 — those who want to bring back sedition laws and jail dissenters and war critics? Third — and here’s my BIG point — wars hardly ever work out the way their proponents planned, do they. ALL war plans go awry. ALL wars get out of control. ALL wars have unforeseen outcomes and unintended consequences. Those with liberal educations who study history know military campaigns hardly ever achieve their intended aims, and usually create more problems than they solve. That’s one reason why educated LIBERAL folks generally oppose war and military solutions to problems. Another reason is because war is EVIL and IMMORAL! The nationalistic, militaristic, right-wing war drum pounders are uneducated fucks who blow the war trumpet because THEY HAVEN’T A FUCKING CLUE. Exhibit A: Iraq.
8 (continued)
As for your history lesson as regards Germany, how much “democracy” can there be under a monarchy? The two great political changes wrought by the Great War were the end of European monarchies and the Russian Revolution. Perhaps the Americans of 1917-1918 can be forgiven for believing a war could “end all wars.” The Americans of 2003-2006 have no such excuse, they should know better.
Rabbit @ 11
Last time I checked, Britain, Canada, Australia, Japan, Holland, Denmark, Belgium, Sweden and Norway were all MONARCHIES.
Are you trying to say that none of these countries are DEMOCRACIES?
Rabbit @ 10
By the way, the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress during World War One (1914-18), as well as President Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921) being a Democrat. The Democrats won both the House and the Senate in the 1912, 1914 and 1916 elections.
SO STOP BLAMING THE REPUBLICANS FOR THE WORLD WAR ONE SEDITION LAWS!
12
Figurehead monarchies don’t count. Monarchical government disappeared after WW1.
13
Yeah, and the KKK caped nightriders were Democrats, too. Things have flipped since then. Now the racists and sedition-law advocates are Republicans. Why shouldn’t I blame Republicans for wanting to bring back the sedition laws of WW1? You’re damn right Republicans should be criticized for supporting sedition laws — BECAUSE THEY DO!!! Not to mention the name-calling, i.e. if we don’t support Bush or his Iraq war, we’re “unpatriotic” and “don’t support the troops,” etc. Trust me on this, Richard, I will continue giving Republicans a truckload of shit for their CONSTITUTION-HATING, ANTI-FREE SPEECH, WARMONGERING HATE TALK.
Goldy,
I read Dixon’s article in retort. He says he’s only married on paper.
Here we go again , stomping on the neck of anyone who opposes our war Senator Cantwell . Really , Is Dixon the issue or is it that it is more appropiate to diffuse the opposition to our Warlord Cantwell .
Read Pacific Views website for the next war that Maria is supporting , ON TO IRAN . I am anxious to here the perceptions of the poor victims of Maria’s present war stance that are due to meet with her this week end . The father’s and mother’s of these poor souls that followed Maria into her quixotic world of subterfuge and death .
Het Goldy , tell your pal Maria to take of her death head cap when she comes back here to schmooze us for her support . Ask her about the ” IRAN FREEDOM SUPPORT ACT ” and her “undying” support of the attack on Iran which she has signed on for . Just like the last war she advocates to this day , by her Senate votes and a wink and a nod . CANTWELL THE KILLER , who do you serve ??
17.
SB 333 IRAN FREEDOM SUPPORT ACT is the fartchild of Rick “Man on Dog” Santorum. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair Richard Lugar has reservations about the bill, so Santorum has added it as an amendment to the war and hurricane relief supplemental spending measure. The plan being to circumvent the committee to allow the sponsors to pass it on the floor, without hearings.
Don’t tell me Cantwell isn’t pro-war. She can’t allow a rattling sabre to go by without her caress.
18 , I see , Santorum & Cantwell were on Jim Lehrer the other night talking gas prices . Two shills running for office , like peas in a pod , as they sat side by side for the camera . The bill you refer to is up 19 billion dollars since mid-April , a total of 109 extra billion , the majority of it to continue the preemptive war of choice in Iraq . and I don’t believe that there is any mention of bringing troops home in the WAR BILL , anytime soon . Another Cantwell lie . How can she be opposed to the war in Iraq and endorse the largest appropiation to date in this continuing farce on the U S citizens .
You can not be prowar and oppose war at the same time . Maria is definetely prowar , she votes with the WarParty all the time . Senator Cantwell is selling the Progressives vision of a future for CHINESE WAR BONDS , Heck of a job , Maria
No one would know Aaron Dixon existed Goldy if you didn’t keep giving him so much ink. I swear I do not know of one human being who’s heard of the dude outside the material you provide. Maybe if you’re that worried about him you should ignore him. Maria is a lock, Dixon or no. Who cares about him?
Goldy is obviously getting his marching orders from his DemKLOWN pals who are much less confident of Cantvotewell’s victory than you are. Just for good measure, the Dem Machine will continue to chop-chop Dixon. Don’t kid yourself LeftTurn. There is still concern by Cantvotewell.
Cantwell stands in front of constituent meetings and behaves as if she is confused to hear anti-war sentiments. She apparently believes that, if she shovels some pro-environment actions our way, she’s golden. If she frequented this blog, I could understand her quandry.
But, I don’t imagine she knows of Goldy’s cheerleading her shiny parts to distract from the dents in her record. He’d be good at selling used cars, but she’s so arrogant she doesn’t think she needs selling.
Cantwell is clearly confident that, no matter how often she sticks her thumb in my eye, I have no choice but to vote for her.
And Goldy swings his baseball bat again at the “antiwar” movement.
Hope you guys enjoy pain………
Richard, why do you waste your intelligence on shrill partisan memes? Roger is right: You can’t compare the Republicans and Democrats of today versus the WWI period, because their power bases were very different. It is true that Germany had an advanced social safety net (indeed, the progressiveness of Oregon and Wisconsin was at least partially fueled by German immigrants), but at that time the U.S. was still the leader in democratic processes.
Was the U.S.’s entry into WWI a bad move? One could argue that we pushed a long and particularly bloody war to a mercifully early conclusion. The most serious mistake of that period was the “peace” accord, which destroyed the German economy to such a degree that fascism could emerge. The accord’s unnecessarily punative measures were rooted in a “now I’ll make you pay” attitude very similar to what is seen among today’s Republicans (e.g., MTR’s modest proposal to exterminate all Muslims).
Your parallels are sloppy, Richard. Try again.
20.
The propaganda campaign Goldy is running isn’t about Mark Wilson or Aaron Dixon, it’s about the anti-war activists.
His goal is to marginalize those who want out of Iraq by demeaning any candidate who agrees.
The other night, the 38th LD Democrats voted to endorse Mark Wilson, so everyone hasn’t been fooled.
Cynical this is the closest (and it’s not that close mind you) to an attempt at meaningful discourse I have ever seen from you. Off day?
Well anyway, whether or not Goldy gets info from the Dem party, it probably helps Dixon to get ink here more than hurts him. There’s an old saying…no press is bad press.
As for Cantwell, since her real challenge comes from Alaska’s candidate for US Senate, I see nothing to worry about. The republicans are crowing that her lead is down to 19 points. And that’s good news? A 19 point lead? Hell, even in the right wing hate radio polls (which are heavily biased toward the GOP stance) she has a 9-11 point lead. If you really think Mikey has a chance, send him some money. It’s money that won’t be available to repubs in meaningful races where they might actually have a chance.
The Dems will take back the Senate and the House due to the rampant corruption, incompetence, arrogance and impotancy of the GOP which has had its chance for more than five years to run the whole show and they’ve run it into the ground.
Of course, you could be one of those rare opptimistic types in the 32% of the public who is so partisan that you support the GOP no matter what, but even that number will fall by election time.
It’s money that won’t be available to repubs in meaningful races where they might actually have a chance.
More arrogance from the going to hell with a Democrat burns less than with a Republican peanut gallery.
Rabbit @6 and Richard @8,
Things were mighty interesting in Montana at the time. Although they jailed the people Schweitzer just pardoned, the voters in Montana elected Jeannette Rankin to Congress in 1916, a time when women could not vote in most states. Not only was Rankin the first woman ever elected to Congress, she was a anti-war Repbulican and life-long pacifist. She voted against our entry into both WWW I and WWW II.
During the Great Depression Upton Sinclair ran for governor of California on a platform to nationalize shuttered companies in order to put people back to work. Sinclair approached FDR for support, and his response was: Make me do it. In other words, he challenged Sinclair to show that his approach displayed broad public support.
Sinclair went down to defeat after a nasty campaign loaded with Rovian-style smear tactics.
Was FDR wrong to not take early leadership rather than responding to the will of the public? A similar question can be asked of Cantwell.
The simple fact of the matter is that moderate elected officials of moderate states will . . . take moderate policy stances! It’s one thing to disagree with Cantwell, but quite another to vilify her.
To argue that support for Cantwell is an attack against the anti-war movement is a straw man. The reality is that the left doesn’t have a viable candidate, because it hasn’t done its electoral spadework. Many of us would be very enthusiastic about supporting a true progressive if they had real chance of winning. But none do.
You’ve got to learn to walk before you learn to run. Stop blaming Cantwell supporters for the state of your own movement.
Another day and another reminder to the right wing swill that their hero is a common crook and drug addict. Lush Flimbaugh, the symbol of morality for millions of small minded, inbred fools who can’t think for themselves, gives out talking points by day and heads to the probation department by night for his piss test! Doesn’t that just make you pukes proud?
Nithing like a good debate. Cantwell will be the Democratic candidate in Sept.barring some totally unforseen event. And Wilson , whatever his numerous shortcomings, including lack of financial support and former libertarian and Green background. certainly has a right to run and is to be commended for taking on Maria Cantwell on the Iraq War.
Whether or not you agree with Cantwell on her position, no candidate’s positions are immune or should be immune from scrutiny and question. That is what the democratic system is supposed to be about. The Republicans and Bush are the ones who say it is “unpatriotic” and “you’re either with us or against us” when you question the war.
Assuming Maria wins the Primary, it is hard to imagine Democrats not working to help her beat McGavick in November. Any Republican beating an incumbent Democrat in November will be viewed as a vote supporting Bush’s “stay the course” position.
IF Cantwell wins the Primary? Are you kidding? You mean WHEN she wins the Primary. She’s a sitting Senator. She’s a lock. Time to get your arms around it, like it or not.
30.
Upton Sinclair ran as a Socialist and part of his campaign was to circulate a California currency seperate from that of the United States.
The “EPIC” (End Poverty in California) movement proposes that our unemployed shall be put at productive labor, producing everything which they themselves consume and exchanging those goods among themselves by a method of barter, using warehouse receipts or labor certificates or whatever name you may choose to give to the paper employed. It asserts that the State must advance sufficient capital to give the unemployed access to good land and machinery, so that they may work and support themselves and thus take themselves off the backs of the taxpayers. The “EPIC” movement asserts that this will not hurt private industry, because the unemployed are no longer of any use to industry.
Rovian is a little mild to describe the anti-Sinclair campaign put on by California businesses. For instance, major Hollywood studios produced feature quality fear propaganda that predicted the demise of California if Sinclair won, and requiring exhibitors to show them if they wanted feature films, too.
The idea that pressuring our junior senator to adopt the attitude toward the Iraq war that our senior senator holds, is not at all radical. There is nothing moderate about supporting a president who is the most radical the United States has ever had.
Chad Shue has an article on this at The Left Shue that describes what Cantwell is doing it better than I can.
If nitwits like the last state Demo party chair and Gary Locke hadn’t gone after the top-two primary, you wouldn’t have to bother with attacking guys like Dixon since they wouln’t make it to the general election. And we wouldn’t have had that election contest since Bennett wouldn’t have taken tens of thousands of votes from Gregoire. When are you going to see that the top-two primary would have been great for the Democrats?
peacenik @23
I’m sure your solution is to vote for the “peace” party …
24
“Was the U.S.’s entry into WWI a bad move? One could argue that we pushed a long and particularly bloody war to a mercifully early conclusion.” Commentby Green Thumb— 5/4/06@ 7:02 am
One COULD argue that, but … the fact is, U.S. troops fought only one major battle in WW1, which was inconclusive and fought after the war’s outcome had already been decided. The late British military history Liddell-Hart argued, with considerably more persuasion, that Winston Churchill won both world wars for the allies. At the outbreak in 1914, Churchill was Lord of the Admiralty, and immediately slapped on a naval blockade of Germany which was maintained for the next four years. That, says Liddell-Hart, was the decisive act of the Great War.
30
FDR was a rich guy who saved capitalism in its gravest hour.
30 (continued)
Back then, rich guys were smarter than today’s wannabes. FDR understood an economic system that didn’t work for 95% of the people would get overthrown if somebody didn’t make it work better. Today’s wingers are pushing an economic philosophy that doesn’t work for 95% of the people. So, okay, the people are gonna overthrow them. Wait and see.
35
You wouldn’t think “top two” was so great if you ended up with two Republicans and no Democrats on the November ballot. Unless you’re a Republican. In many Eastern Washington counties, where Democrats poll barely over 30%, that would be the norm … you would never have any Democrats on the general election ballot in county and legislative races.
ATTENTION DEMOCRATS!!!!
ON SEMPTEMBER 19, 2006, THERE WILL BE A PRIMARY ELECTION TO DECIDE WHICH DEMOCRAT WILL REPRESENT US IN THE NOVEMBER GENERAL ELECTION!!!!
On September 19th, Slade McGavick will not appear on your Democratic ballot!
The Politics of Fear
spitintheocean @ 17 — Talk about failing the honesty test!
Yes, read natasha’s eruption at Pacific Views … and read the ensuing commentary under her cross-post at DailyKOS. IFSA is not a declaration of war, or a drumbeat on the march to war, and no amount of hysterical flim-flam can make it so.
Just ask Rep. Lynn Woolsey, leader of the “out now” faction. (I mean it. Ask her. She’s in Seattle Saturday for a 3pm fundraiser at Prag House.)
I trust natasha’s innate sense of fair play and reality-based inquiring mind will bring her to amend her views in this matter. I don’t believe the same can be said for a few in present company, intent on taking their faction to ideological war on the wings of a lie.
Ronk @ 42
So you support the Santorum bill?????
You like all the findings against Iran and provisions of presidential prerogative?
God, you’re just being dishonest.
S.333 CLEARLY has in it the elements of causus belli. You were totally wrong about the politics of the Roberts vote and you are totally wrong about this. S.333 authorizes ACTS OF WAR – covert, violent action against a sovereign state.
Get your damn head out of the sand or AT LEAST tell us why you think Maria Cantwell SHOULD be supporting that bill.
It is a terrible bill and a horrendous political mistake. Few if any votes will be garnered by it and it undermines what she should be doing which is hanging McGavick with Bush policies.
So clearly the Greens should dump Aaron Dixon.
Who should they get in his place?
All this shows you how far yellow-dog Democrats like Goldy will go to support an establishment icon like Maria Cantwell.
Cantwell co-sponsors S.333, which will lead towards a military solution in Iran. You don’t hear Goldy criticizing Cantwell at all on this one.
Mike McGavick proposes to exclude Iran from World Cup soccer and international sporting events, as a diplomatic sanction to avoid the military path. Goldy says that only a military solution will work in Iran, and ridicules McGavick’s proposal.
Goldy went on to launch a hideous smear of McGavick — trying to say that McGavick wanted to glorify Nazism, when McGavick was strongly denouncing Nazism and the Holocaust (as well as Iran’s denial of the Holocaust).
There is a Democrat with a true anti-war and progressive agenda in the Senate race — Mark Wilson. Predictably, Goldy attacks Wilson as well.
Fortunately for Goldy, Aaron Dixon is a clown with a spotty legal record and is lying or minimizing about his past problems. This is good for Goldy — otherwise he would have to make some stuff up about Dixon.
dlaw @ 43 — As usual, you vault to conclusions that do not follow.
I didn’t say I supported IFSA. I said dishonest, axe-grinding hacks are comprehensively misrepresenting IFSA, with malicious intent … thereby duping innocents into needless concern and unfounded conflict.
As you might note in the House roll call vote, 52 members of the 62-member Congressional Progressive Caucus (co-chaired by Rep’s Lynn Woolsey and Barbara Lee) voted for IFSA (with 2 others not voting).
It may be a good bill, it may be a bad bill, it may be (IMO) just a conversation piece … but it’s unequivocally NOT the bill you have to pretend it is in order to roll it up and hit Sen. Cantwell over the head with it.
Argue your arguments … but please clean up your act.
DLAW @ 43
Mike McGavick seems to be more independent of Bush’s policies on Iran than Maria Cantwell is. And certainly he seems to be capable of independent thought on the subject — such as his recent soccer boycott article — which is more than can be said about Cantwell.
“Cynical this is the closest (and it’s not that close mind you) to an attempt at meaningful discourse I have ever seen from you. Off day?
Commentby LeftTurn— 5/4/06@ 7:11 am”
Ooops, sorry LeftTurd……..I forgot to tell you to Eat Shit and Die Dickwad!!!!!
Thanks for snapping me out of that waste of time “civility” mode LeftTurd!!!!
Seriously, I think you have assessed this pretty well. McGavick’s chances appear to be fairly slim (at best). But wouldn’t you agree that about 40% of Cantvotewell’s voters are holding their noses when they vote for her???? From some poll I saw not too long ago, the assessment was pretty close to that. A lot of “I don’t like her, but I hate the Republicans” type support. Hey, that’s what elections are all about though…..
You need votes from the Love Me, Hate the other Guy or Hate the other Guy’s Party sectors. They ALL count. Bush will have a highly negative impact on a lot of races. Without the “Bush Factor”….I believe this race would be a toss-up with a slight edge to Cantvotewell.
RonK @ 46
Dishonest. Just dishonest.
You vociferously say what the bill is “not” but won’t say what the bill is. If you won’t defend the bill, why the hell should I listen to your opinion about whether or not Cantwell should support it. Do you endorse her position on the bill or not?
I don’t.
Why? Look at finding 18:
“(18) The United States Government believes that the Government of Iran supports terrorists and extremist religious leaders in Iraq with the clear intention of subverting coalition efforts to bring peace and democracy to Iraq.”
Therefore, Iran is a military enemy in Iraq.
These findings mean something. The words are important. I am sick of Democratic “insiders” telling me not to worry, this compromise doesn’t matter, that compromise doesn’t matter and it’s okay because we have a plan.
Bullshit. There is no plan. That’s why the Democrats have lost so consistently.
You are using your famous Roberts-vote logic and it doesn’t work. Does Maria Cantwell really have to worry about AIPAC in this state? What the hell is going on?
It’s a bad bill with a bad sponsor that does no good for the Democratic party and lawmakers who support it are wrong. Maria Cantwell should oppose it, not co-sponsor it.
As for you, either defend the bill itself, defend Maria Cantwell’s position or shut up. But don’t give me this nonsense about how it’s innocuous. It’s not.
42.
As you inquired of one at KOS, it’s not a step to war because you say so?
While it would be interesting to speak to Lynn Woolsey about this, I know that Senator Patty Murray has not seen fit to co-sponsor SB333, and Jim McDermott was able to restrain himself, too.
Another name that isn’t on the co-sponsor list is Joe Biden, ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. From what I’ve heard from Biden, we’d do well to bring the Iranians into regional talks with the Turks and Saudis to negotiate an Iraq war settlement. I don’t think Joe would think threatening Iran is very smart right now.
Ron Paul made a speech about this last year
http://www.house.gov/paul/cong.....090805.htm
in which he said:
In 1998 Congress capitulated to the desires of the Clinton administration and overwhelmingly passed the Iraq Liberation Act, which stated quite clearly that our policy was to get rid of Saddam Hussein. This act made it official: The policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein. This resolution has been cited on numerous occasions by neo-conservatives as justification for the pre-emptive, deliberate invasion of Iraq. When the resolution was debated, I saw it as a significant step toward a war that would bear no good fruit. No legitimate national security concerns were cited for this dramatic and serious shift in policy.
“A steppingstone to war,” is how Dennis Kucinich described it.
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is certainly for getting the US to carry Israel’s water. Of them, it is said:
AIPAC, which is a de facto agent for a foreign government, has a stranglehold on the U.S. Congress. Open debate about U.S. policy towards Israel does not occur there, even though that policy has important consequences for the entire world.>/i>
http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/R.....1_walt.pdf
AIPAC is the only group known to have lobbied for the Iran Freedom Support Act.
I’m all for Israel, but we don’t have to get into a war for them.
Richard Pope @ 45
Shut the hell up you racist-supporting freak.
Do you think you’re clever? Do you think anyone gives you any intellectual credibility. You support one of the most radical, right-wing lunatic factories of the Republican party – the Washington state Republicans. You are the shill – and a dishonest shill – for the racist religious Taliban of America.
Take your Bob Jones University talking points and shove them up your ass.
McGavick is a pimp for corrupt business interests and fundamentalist lunatics. Nobody wants to hear his crap or yours.
42.
Sorry for posting this twice, but I screwed up the formatting.
As you inquired of one at KOS, it’s not a step to war because you say so?
While it would be interesting to speak to Lynn Woolsey about this, I know that Senator Patty Murray has not seen fit to co-sponsor SB333, and Jim McDermott was able to restrain himself, too.
Another name that isn’t on the co-sponsor list is Joe Biden, ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. From what I’ve heard from Biden, we’d do well to bring the Iranians into regional talks with the Turks and Saudis to negotiate an Iraq war settlement. I don’t think Joe would think threatening Iran is very smart right now.
Ron Paul made a speech about this last year
http://www.house.gov/paul/cong.....090805.htm
in which he said:
In 1998 Congress capitulated to the desires of the Clinton administration and overwhelmingly passed the Iraq Liberation Act, which stated quite clearly that our policy was to get rid of Saddam Hussein. This act made it official: The policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein. This resolution has been cited on numerous occasions by neo-conservatives as justification for the pre-emptive, deliberate invasion of Iraq. When the resolution was debated, I saw it as a significant step toward a war that would bear no good fruit. No legitimate national security concerns were cited for this dramatic and serious shift in policy.
“A steppingstone to war,” is how Dennis Kucinich described it.
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is certainly for getting the US to carry Israel’s water. Of them, it is said:
AIPAC, which is a de facto agent for a foreign government, has a stranglehold on the U.S. Congress. Open debate about U.S. policy towards Israel does not occur there, even though that policy has important consequences for the entire world.>/i>
http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/R.....1_walt.pdf
AIPAC is the only group known to have lobbied for the Iran Freedom Support Act.
I’m all for Israel, but we don’t have to get into a war for them.
Well, I can’t fix it, sorry.
Thanks Ms. Cynical you had me worried – I knew you were really just a 13-year old girl with identity problems but when you elevated your discourse to that of a pimply faced 17-year old who just lost her virginity to a train pulled by the second string football team I was worried.
And of course many of us will hold our noses when voting for Cantwell. Just as many rethugs must have to not only hold, but nearly permanently plug up their noses when they vote for tax & spend Bush. She’s not great but she’s far, far better than a big oil, big insurance stooge like Mikey.
As for Pope-A-Dope’s comment that Alaska’s Senatorial candidate Mikey can be independent, well I just about spit my coffee out through my nose upon reading that. Speaking of noses, Mikey’s nose is so far up the insurance industry ass that he can barely see big oil’s tonsils on the other side.
He’d never beat Maria even if Bush hadn’t proven himself and his party the biggest losers of all time. But the Dems might have been able to find a stronger candidate than Maria that’s for sure.
But the worst Dem is 100 times better than the best rethug. So like most Washington residents, I will vote Cantwell. And Mikey can go to Alaska where he seems to want to spend all his time.
By the way, if we could just get that crook Stevens from Alaska down here a couple more times we could see Maria’s numbers on the rise quickly!
dlaw @ 49 — “defend the bill, defend Maria Cantwell’s position or shut up”?
You bear the burden here. You’re the one who claims Cantwell’s position on the bill is an atrocity of some kind.
You’re the one raising explicit false claims about what’s in the bill. “ACTS OF WAR”? “covert, violent action”? Not in the bill. Expressly prohibited in the House version. (The Senate version is dormant in committee.)
And you’re the one whose claim implies that either:
a. Your personal interpretation of this bill is correct, while 80% of the Progressive Caucus haven’t a clue, or
b. Progressive members inadvertently voted Yea when they meant Nay, or
c. They’re all spineless, or part of some turncoat conspiracy, or …
At this juncture you’re just a Nader apologist playing footsie with a GOP provocateur, making extraordinary claims and calling for extraodinary action. Where’s your extraordinary proof?
RonK @ 55
A) It is an act of war to support violent opposition groups in a sovereign country.
B) Finding 18, 10, 11, 12, 13, enumerate acts by Iran which could, under the Bush Doctrine, justify immediate military action.
C) Santorum’s aggressive approach is supported by neo-cons such as Bill Kristol as recently as TODAY in the Weekly Standard.
D) Rick Santorum’s blog directly links to AIPAC’s web site and their congratulations for those who supported the house version.
E) The Sentate version IS NOT DOMRMANT IN COMITTEE, IT IS OFFERED AS AN AMMENDMENT TO BYPASS THE COMITTEE: link here
So, yes, I think the House “progressive” caucus is dead wrong. WHy because I think the Bush Administration CANNOT do any positive work of any kind in Iran and they will discredit any group they touch. I think it is supremely dangerous to put findings of a causus belli into legislation with this Administration in power – AS WE HAVE SEEN. I think neocons like Bill Kristol are wrong and dangerous. I think neocon gourps live AIPAC are wrong and dangerous. I think Rick Santorum is wrong and dangerous.
And I think empty-headed Democratic compromise addicts are wrong and dangerous.
Oh, and I don’t apologize for Nader. I am HAPPY I voted for Nader.
And the person “playing footsie” with Republicans is Senator Maria Cantwell, now isn’t she?
Tuttle @ 50 — Calling something a steppingstone does not make it a steppingstone. Rep Kucinich’s eccentric view clearly failed to persuade many of his progressive peers. Spectrum-opposite, libertarian isolationist Rep Paul opposed the bill.
Our Rep McDermott, for his part, placed a pro-trade critique of the bill in the record (by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Foreign Trade Council, Coalition for Employment Through Exports and USA*Engage). In fact, the 21 Nay’s are an odd mix of D’s and R’s, left, right and center.
RonK @ 55
And what is the claim that you make about Maria Cantwell’s position on Iran? Do you have the honesty to make one?
RonK @ 57
You only make claims that it “isn’t quite” this and it “isn’t quite” that. Well, what is the purpose of this bill? Do you defend it? Do you think lawmakers should support it?
Stop telling us who did and did not support it. WHAT IS YOUR POSITION ON THE BILL?????
RonK is giving us a Master’s course in being an apoligist.
Apologists never take positive positions, only negative positions. They sidestep substance and try to gain or attack credibility BY ASSOCIATION.
Ever hear the phrase “put up or shut up”?
57.
Stop pussy footing around about this. It’s the Israel lobby that has them voting for this bill.
That’s a lousy reason to undercut diplomacy.
Just because Isarel sees military action as the solution doesn’t mean we should.
You have yet to do anything but try to make reasonable because lots of people voted for it.
dlaw @ 56 —
A) “Financial and political assistance under this section may be provided only to an individual, organization, or entity that–
(1) officially opposes the use of violence and terrorism …”
B) Findings? Bush doesn’t need Congressional findings. He can order military action on the strength of his own findings (as he would have in teh absence of an Iraq War Resolution. (Note: the findings in question here are non-controversial anyway.)
C, D) Arguments by association … which you employ only as they favor your conclusion, and reject otherwise.
E) I’m aware of Santorum’s amendment gambit. Snowball’s chance.
You think Kristol, AIPAC, Santorum are “wrong and dangerous” … but so are Barbara Lee, Lynn Woolsey, John Conyers, Bernie Sanders, Barney Frank and Jesse Jackson Jr. Doesn’t this suggest that you MIGHT be wrong (if not dangerous), or that divergent views on this matter might be slim grounds for (selectively) yelling bloody murder?
RonK @ 62
More evasive nonsense.
A)The bill DOES NOT preclude the support of groups with violent wings. Indeed, it could not to be useful. Read the language.
B)Sanctioning these findings constitutes Congressional support for Bush’s causus belli. Or don’t you believe that it matters what congress says. And if it does not matter, why won’t Maria Cantwell OPPOSE THIS BILL????
C), D) This is not argument by association with non-actors. This is CLEAR EVIDENCE that S.333 is supoprted by people who intend for this government to make war on Iran. That is SIMPLY UNMISTAKABLE.
E) You said the Roberts vote would give Democrats a better chance of keeping an Alito out of O’Connor’s seat. You are not the source I would look to for predictions about what will happen in the Senate.
Finally, I know what the neocons want. They are clear about it. They want war with Iran and they support S.333 as an effort to push BushCo towards war.
What the hell the congressional progressive caucus wants out of this bill I have NO fucking idea and neither do you. What Maria Cantwell’s purpose is in co-sponsoring S. 333, you either don’t know OR WON’T SAY.
Do me a favor, instead of simply increasing your list of “good by association” names, just give us a link.
Oh and maybe, just maybe, you can ferret out SOME FUCKING JUSTIFICATION FOR THIS BILL, if your high-level contacts will afford this.
dlaw — You made the accusation … a horrible accusation that Cantwell is taking us to war … and a scurrilous, fraudulent accusation at that (since it rests on a fraudulent description of S. 333 and related legislation).
You make a serious accusation, and you have the burden of defending it.
Am I obligated to support the bill? Or defend the bill? Or defend Cantwell’s support of the bill? (Or defend any of 20 other Senate D’s, or 183 other House D’s?) No. We’re not arguing the merits of the bill. We’re arguing the fact or fiction of your claims about the bill.
We could move on to other claims, diversionary or otherwise, after disposing of this one. Perhaps you should just chuck it in, and apologize for your confusion?
But since you ask, I strongly approve of Sen. Cantwell’s position on Iran, i.e., avoidance of sabre-rattling and escalation, emphasis on win-win diplomatic solutions, and direct negotiation with the Iranian government.
dlaw — No evasions here. You have a political axe to grind, and you’ve proposed a (delusional) reading of a particular legislative act. Nobody here is obligated to share your delusion, or experience resulting alarm.
Your reading of the text is circular. You claim it promotes (indeed, MUST promote) violence, because otherwise … well … “it could not to [sic] be useful” — because in your predetermined view the “use” of the bill is to wage war.
You say S. 333 is the Big Bad Wolf, and it’ll huff and puff til it blows our house down. I say “show me”.
Your conclusions are not merely “not proven” … they’re simply not indicated.
BTW, I’ll take up your Roberts gibe some time under separate cover. I don’t think you’ll enjoy that exchange either.
RonK @ 64
Well she took us to war in Iraq, so it’s not really “horrible” according to, well, Cantwell.
I know that the supporters of this bill want war with Iran. For that reason, it empowers the Administration to conduct diplomacy THAT WILL NEVER WORK AND IS NOT INTENDED TO.
Senator Cantwell will not accomplish anything like “avoidance of sabre-rattling and escalation, emphasis on win-win diplomatic solutions, and direct negotiation with the Iranian government”. The bill, for example, takes direct negotiation with the Iranian government out of the picture. Again, read the language.
She should oppose the bill. It forwards NOTHING she wants to accomplish.
RonK @ 65
What, exactly is this nonsense about an axe I supposedly have to grind? Be specific or shut up.
I’ve read the bill. You have apparently had it read to you. Look at the groups the act proposes to support. Look at what they do.
There is no reason to believe that this Iran bill has any less potential as an argument for violence than the Clinton-era Iraq bill which Cheney said was on its own cause enough for war.
And still, still, still you STEADFASTLY REFUSE to defend the bill or Cantwell’s position on that bill.
What POSSIBLE GOOD does support of this bill do for the Democratic Party???
I know why Richard Perle wants it.
The “Culture of Corruption” honor roll gains another member…..
Police labor union officials asked acting Chief Christopher McGaffin this afternoon to allow a Capitol Police officer to complete his investigation into an early-morning car crash involving Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.), son of Sen. Ted Kennedy.
ROLL CALL reports: According to a letter sent by Officer Greg Baird, acting chairman of the USCP FOP, the wreck took place at approximately 2:45 a.m. Thursday when Kennedy’s car, operating with its running lights turned off, narrowly missed colliding with a Capitol Police cruiser and smashed into a security barricade at First and C streets Southeast.
“The driver exited the vehicle and he was observed to be staggering,” Baird’s letter states. Officers approached the driver, who “declared to them he was a Congressman and was late to a vote. The House had adjourned nearly three hours before this incident. It was Congressman Patrick J. Kennedy from Rhode Island.”
Baird wrote that Capitol Police Patrol Division units, who are trained in driving under the influence cases, were not allowed to perform basic field sobriety tests on the Congressman. Instead, two sergeants, who also responded to the accident, proceeded to confer with the Capitol Police watch commander on duty and then “ordered all of the Patrol Division Units to leave the scene and that they were taking over.”
A source tells the DRUDGE REPORT: “It was apparent that the driver was intoxicated (stumbling) and claimed he was in a hurry to make a vote.
“When it became apparent who it was, instead of processing a normal DWI, the watch commander had the Patrol units clear the scene. The commander allowed other building officials drive Kennedy home.”
This morning’s incident comes just over two weeks after Kennedy was involved in a car accident in Rhode Island.
Developing…
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3.htm
dlaw – Your agenda is apparent, your reading of the bill is plainly eccentric, and you reject all other possibilities out of hand. “Rewad the language”, indeed. I’ve seen the language; I just don’t have your decoder ring.
For contemporaneous discussion of Iraq War causus [sic] belli, see my Field Guide to Bellicose Casuistry. The Clinton-era regime change resolution didn’t make the list until years later, when the first 40 or 50 had evaporated.
Thanks for providing the convenient foil.
“Police labor union officials asked acting Chief Christopher McGaffin this afternoon to allow a Capitol Police officer to complete his investigation into an early-morning car crash involving Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.), son of Sen. Ted Kennedy.”
“The driver exited the vehicle and he was observed to be staggering,” Baird’s letter states. Officers approached the driver, who “declared to them he was a Congressman and was late to a vote. The House had adjourned nearly three hours before this incident. It was Congressman Patrick J. Kennedy from Rhode Island.”
Another Chappaquiddick incident but his time with no loss of life. It is interesting the how certain rich and famous can go beneath the law…….(like father like son)
United States Capitol Police
Acting Chief Christopher M. McGaffin
Public Information Office
119 D Street, NE
Washington, D.C. 20510 Immediate
(202) 224-1677
Traffic Accident
The United States Capitol Police are investigating a traffic violation that occurred in the early morning hours on May 4, 2006 in the 100 Block of C Street, SE.
* * * * * *
If you have any questions or concerns pertaining to this release please contact the United States Capitol Police Public Information Office at 202-224-1677.
Prepared by:
Sergeant Kimberly Schneider
United States Capitol Police
Public Information Officer
http://www.uscapitolpolice.gov.....4-06a.html
I bet you that the obstructionist Democrats on the House Ethics Committee will keep this matter from being investigated, just like they have blocked all other ethics investigations for the last 17 months.
RonK @ 69
Your list of war causes are remarkably similar to those listed in S. 333, so I don’t know what the fuck you are trying to prove.
In typical Democratic party fashion, you steadfastly refuse to confront the central issue. You cannot and will not defend the bill. You cannot and will not say what ANY Democrats will get out of this bill.
The bill undermines the central case that must be made, that even Iraq hawk Thomas Friedman has made: the Bush Administration CANNOT execute any productive foreign policy in Iran. Empowering them is purely dangerous.
You have no case FOR this bill and if you can’t even make the case – with your naked apologist agenda – it probably can’t be made.
P.S. – Richard Pope, shut the fuck up.
“Obstructionist Democrats”???? Are you drunk?
Get the fuck out of here you worthless piece of crap.
MARIA CANTWELL VOTES FOR WAR EVERY TIME SHE GETS A CHANCE TO . DON’T YOU GET IT ?? tHE WAR TO END ALL WARS , MARIA SAYS YES .
ONE HECK OF A JOB MARIA , USING THE BRIGHTEST AND THE BEST OF WASHINGTON STATES YOUTH AS CANNON FODDER FOR YOUR EGO , SENATOR STOP THE WAR !!
dlaw — I’m here to defend the truth – not the bill. I’m just here to distinguish between the bill as it is, and the imaginary bill you’re using as a handle grip for your anti-Cantwell axe.
I don’t especially favor the bill. For that matter, the Bush Administration — which you claim the bill empowers — opposes the bill. (whuh?)
“… a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest
li-li-li li-li-li-li-li-li-li …”
Hmmm, what ever brought that to mind? “The Boxer”. Oh, yeah, Boxer. Barbara Boxer. Senator Boxer. She supports the bill, and Bush doesn’t … so it must be a neocon plot of some kind, right?
Kevin Cairns (74, 75), you don’t do a very good imitation of an anti-war lefty. Maybe you should put Aaron Dixon on your payroll.
P.S. – Richard Pope, shut the fuck up.
“Obstructionist Democrats”???? Are you drunk?
Get the fuck out of here you worthless piece of crap.
Commentby dlaw— 5/4/06@ 4:31 pm
[………………………………”?Are you drunk?” Not as drunk as a driving Kennedy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!]
RonK @ 76
Yeah, don’t throw George Bush into the briar patch of S. 333.
You dupe.