Truth About Bush

MichaelMoore.com : The Man Who Learned Too Little

January 29th, 2008 2:53 am
The Man Who Learned Too Little

In his final State of the Union, Bush makes more empty promises.

By Fred Kaplan / Slate

The sad thing about President George W. Bush’s eighth and final State of the Union address is that he seems to have learned so little about the crises in which he’s immersed his nation so deeply.

His first words on foreign policy in tonight’s address reprised the theme of previous addresses: “We trust that people, when given the chance, will choose a future of freedom and peace.” He cited, as “stirring” examples of this principle, the “images” of citizens demanding independence in Ukraine and Lebanon, of Afghans emerging from the Taliban’s tyranny, of “jubilant Iraqis holding up ink-stained fingers” to celebrate free elections.

One waited for the president to invoke the lamentable flip side of these images, the retreats and retrenchments that followed (perhaps the “challenges” ahead?)—but he didn’t. Is he still living in the dream world of the spring of 2004? It’s a pleasant world, but it had gone up in smoke by that summer. If we were truly serious about promoting freedom, it would be useful to explore the lessons of those hopes as they were not only stirred but then crushed. As with his previous State of the Union addresses, this was not seen as a time to face reality.

The president, once more, depicted the complex conflicts of our time as one-dimensional struggles between the forces of light and darkness. In the war on terror, he proclaimed, “there is one thing we and our enemies agree on: In the long run, men and women who are free to determine their own destinies will reject terror and refuse to live in tyranny. That is why the terrorists are fighting to deny this choice to people in Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the Palestinian Territories.”

The question comes to mind, as it has come to mind in all of these speeches when Bush recites this argument: Does he believe what he’s saying? Does he believe that the violent battles for power in these lands really come down to freedom vs. tyranny? If so, no wonder this government has had such a hard time getting a handle on these dangers, much less trying to engage them.

He went on, “And that is why, for the security of America and the peace of the world, we are spreading the hope of freedom.” Has he ever wondered why so few people in the world—not least those he aspires to help—see us that way? It is a horrible shame, a dreadful legacy of this administration, that the majority of people in so many once-allied (or at least not-unfriendly) nations, particularly in the Middle East and Asia, regard America as a bigger threat than Iran and Osama Bin Laden. To think seriously about why these views exist, to address the perception in a serious way, doesn’t mean accepting their validity. Not to think seriously about this question is to perpetuate our bad image and diminish our real security.

Maybe the president believes that saying something makes it close to true. (Some of his former aides have told me they suspect this is the case.) For instance, toward the end of the address, he said that protecting the nation’s security “requires changing the conditions that breed resentment and allow extremists to prey on despair. So America is using its influence to build a freer, more hopeful, and more compassionate world.” The first sentence is true, the second encouraging. What’s his follow-up—what are some examples of America using its influence to this end? “America is opposing genocide in Sudan,” he said. (That’s nice. What are we doing?) “And supporting freedom in countries from Cuba and Zimbabwe to Belarus and Burma,” he added, without saying how we’re doing that or in what way any of those countries is central in the war on terrorism.

“In the Holy Land … we have new cause for hope,” the president said. His evidence: “Palestinians have elected a president who recognizes that confronting terror is essential to achieving a state where his people can live in dignity and at peace with Israel.” He did not mention the election of a parliament whose leaders believe otherwise. (This is not to suggest that the Fatah president’s views are worth nothing; but failing to acknowledge the Hamas-led parliament—which was also installed in power by free elections—glosses over the real complexities of the “popular will” in territories or countries without democratic institutions.)

On Iraq, Bush had some genuinely good news to tell, but he overstated it and distorted its implications. The past few months have witnessed a dramatic decline in casualties (civilian and military, Iraqi and American). The “surge”—which Bush ordered into effect nearly a year ago, in the face of much skepticism—is indisputably one cause of these trends. But it is just one cause, and the effects being celebrated, salutary as they are, are not the effects that were intended.

Certainly the additional 25,000 troops that the surge has brought to a few areas of Iraq—along with Gen. David Petraeus’ more aggressive strategy of using them (putting troops out on the streets instead of retreating to the superbases)—have increased security in the areas they’ve been able to occupy.

However, much of the reduced violence is related to the “alliances of convenience” between U.S. forces and Sunni insurgents against the common enemy of al-Qaida in Iraq. These alliances were initiated by the Sunnis and antedate the surge. There is also the matter of Muqtada Sadr’s moratorium on violence (which, in fairness, might be due in part to the surge). And there is the simple fact that U.S. forces are paying insurgency groups not to attack them (a wise use of money, until it runs out).

More to the point, Gen. Petraeus said at the beginning that there is no strictly military victory to be had in Iraq; that the point of the surge was to provide “breathing space” to Iraq’s political leaders, so that, amid improved security in Baghdad, they might settle their sectarian disputes. This political settlement does not appear to be happening; the political objectives of the surge are not being met.

President Bush said the proof of our strategy’s success is that “more than 20,000 of our troops are coming home.” (The congressional crowd went wild with applause.) These are the 20,000 troops that were sent over as part of the surge. The simple fact is that, by the summer, the 15-month deployment tours of the last of these surge brigades will have run out. There are no brigades ready to replace them. So, they will come home—and this would have been the case, no matter what had happened in the past year. The surge has always been short-term; that’s why they called it a surge.

As for the prospect of future withdrawals, Bush said, “Any further drawdown of U.S. troops will be based on conditions in Iraq and the recommendations of our commanders.” He added, “Gen. Petraeus has warned that too fast a drawdown could result in the disintegration of the Iraqi security forces, al-Qaida in Iraq regaining lost ground, a marked increase in violence.”

Don’t bet on any more troops coming home for good before Christmas. And if a reduction from 160,000 to 140,000 puts the situation back on the precipice, below which further cuts trigger disaster, then the situation cannot be considered at all stable.

“America is a force for hope in the world because we are a compassionate people,” he said toward the end of his address. We know this to be true, at least in principle. It will take another president to demonstrate it.

Other items in this section

* Latest News
* In The News
* The ‘06 Fix
* Katrina Updates
* Rosa Parks Day E-mails
* Facts in Mike’s Films

RSS Feed

RSS Feed
More of Latest News

January 29th, 2008 2:53 am
The Man Who Learned Too Little

January 29th, 2008 2:37 am
Kennedy endorses Obama — ‘change in air’

January 29th, 2008 2:21 am
Clinton, Obama steal Bush’s final show

January 29th, 2008 1:13 am
Bush fights for relevancy in last state of the union

January 28th, 2008 8:24 pm
Karl Rove drops prep school speech

January 28th, 2008 7:32 pm
Sadrists Seek to End Cease-Fire

January 28th, 2008 7:11 pm
5 US soldiers killed in N. Iraq

January 28th, 2008 4:56 pm
Memo Details Objections to Command Center Site

January 28th, 2008 4:22 pm
Mr. Smith Goes To Washington, On Foot

January 28th, 2008 4:02 pm
Bush faces final State of the Union
Mike’s Latest News Archive
Search the site

Advanced Search | Need Tips on Searching?

BAW3A20Study3A20Bush20Administration20Made2093520False20Claims20About20the20Iraq20Threat2C20Al-Qaida20Link
Study3A20Bush20Administration20Made2093520False20Claims20About20the20Iraq20Threat2C20Al-Qaida20Link0A0ADate3A20Wednesday2C20January20232C2020080ABy3A20Douglass20K.20Daniel2C20Associated20Press0A0AWASHINGTON20-20AP20A20study20by20two20nonprofit20journalism20organizations20found20that20President20Bush20and20top20administration20officials20issued20hundreds20of20false20statements20about20the20national20security20threat20from20Iraq20in20the20two20years20following20the20200120terrorist20attacks.0A0AThe20study20concluded20that20the20statements2022were20part20of20an20orchestrated20campaign20that20effectively20galvanized20public20opinion20and2C20in20the20process2C20led20the20nation20to20war20under20decidedly20false20pretenses.220A0AThe20study20was20posted20Tuesday20on20the20Web20site20of20the20Center20for20Public20Integrity2C20which20worked20with20the20Fund20for20Independence20in20Journalism.0A0AWhite20House20spokesman20Scott20Stanzel20did20not20comment20on20the20merits20of20the20study20Tuesday20night20but20reiterated20the20administrations20position20that20the20world20community20viewed20Iraqs20leader2C20Saddam20Hussein2C20as20a20threat.0A0A22The20actions20taken20in20200320were20based20on20the20collective20judgment20of20intelligence20agencies20around20the20world2C2220Stanzel20said.0A0AThe20study20counted2093520false20statements20in20the20two-year20period.20It20found20that20in20speeches2C20briefings2C20interviews20and20other20venues2C20Bush20and20administration20officials20stated20unequivocally20on20at20least2053220occasions20that20Iraq20had20weapons20of20mass20destruction20or20was20trying20to20produce20or20obtain20them20or20had20links20to20al-Qaida20or20both.

Study: Bush Administration Made 935 False Claims About the Iraq Threat, Al-Qaida Link

Date: Wednesday, January 23, 2008
By: Douglass K. Daniel, Associated Press

WASHINGTON - (AP) A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.

The study concluded that the statements “were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.”

The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism.

White House spokesman Scott Stanzel did not comment on the merits of the study Tuesday night but reiterated the administration’s position that the world community viewed Iraq’s leader, Saddam Hussein, as a threat.

“The actions taken in 2003 were based on the collective judgment of intelligence agencies around the world,” Stanzel said.

The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both.

null

“It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida,” according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members, writing an overview of the study. “In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003.”

Named in the study along with Bush were top officials of the administration during the period studied: Vice President Dick Cheney, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan.

Bush led with 259 false statements, 231 about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 28 about Iraq’s links to al-Qaida, the study found. That was second only to Powell’s 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq and al-Qaida.

The center said the study was based on a database created with public statements over the two years beginning on Sept. 11, 2001, and information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches and interviews.

“The cumulative effect of these false statements — amplified by thousands of news stories and broadcasts — was massive, with the media coverage creating an almost impenetrable din for several critical months in the run-up to war,” the study concluded.

“Some journalists — indeed, even some entire news organizations — have since acknowledged that their coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and uncritical. These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional, ‘independent’ validation of the Bush administration’s false statements about Iraq,” it said.

America’s Love-Hate Relationship with Drugs

By Bruce E. Levine, AlterNet. Posted January 9, 2008.

Many prescription drugs have effects similar to those of illegal drugs. But we still view some users as criminals — the others as patients.
Tools
email EMAIL
print PRINT
45 COMMENTS

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Also in Health and Wellness

Bush’s Prescription for Plutocracy
Sam Pizzigati

The Future of Medicare Is the Future of Health Care
Trudy Lieberman

Is Prayer Good for Your Health?
Stan Cox

Designer Vaginas, Anyone?
Cath Elliott

Pentagon, Big Pharma: Drug Troops to Numb Them to Horrors of War
Penny Coleman
More stories by Bruce E. Levine

RSS icon Health and Wellness RSS Feed

RSS icon Main AlterNet RSS Feed
Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

Advertisement

While Americans are inundated with coverage of the Democrats’ quibbling over Barack Obama’s use of marijuana and cocaine as a teenager, a truly important drug story continues to be neglected: The hypocrisy of Big Pharma, psychiatry officialdom, and justice institutions regarding mood-altering (psychotropic) drugs — specifically the denial of the similarity between illegal and psychiatric drugs.

Author and science writer Michael Pollan observed the following about Americans’ illegal-psychiatric drug hypocrisy: “Historians of the future will wonder how a people possessed of such a deep faith in the power of drugs also found themselves fighting a war against certain other drugs with not-dissimilar powers. … We hate drugs. We love drugs. Or could it be that we hate the fact that we love drugs?”

When we recognize that psychotropic prescription drugs are chemically similar to illegal psychotropic drugs, and that all of these substances are used for similar purposes, we see two injustices. First, we see the classification of millions of Americans as criminals for using certain drugs, while millions of others, using essentially similar drugs for similar purposes, are seen as patients. Second, we see a denial of those societal realities that compel increasing numbers of Americans to use psychotropic drugs.

In the history of psychiatry, there has been a revolving door in which a “medication” becomes an “illegal drug” — and visa versa. Sigmund Freud used cocaine as medication to treat his own and others’ depression and despair. In the 1930s amphetamines were prescribed to treat depression; later amphetamines were prescribed for weight loss; while today amphetamines such as Adderall and Dexedrine are prescribed for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Alcohol was a recommended treatment for anxiety as late as the 1940s; and in the 1950s and early 1960s, psychiatrist Oscar Janiger treated the neuroses of Hollywood stars and other celebrities with LSD. Ecstasy was used in marital counseling during the 1980s, and today researchers are studying it as a possible treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder.

It is politically — and economically — incorrect for the corporate press, dependent on Big Pharma advertising revenue, to compare psychiatric drugs with illegal drugs. However, the psychiatry drug textbook A Primer of Drug Action notes that individuals who have used cocaine have difficulty distinguishing between the subjective effects of cocaine and dextroamphetamine (Dexedrine) when both are administered intravenously. The amphetamines Dexedrine and Adderall, besides being prescribed for ADHD, are used by many college kids, truck drivers, and others to pull all-nighters.

Both cocaine and amphetamines enhance the neurotransmitters norepinephrine, serotonin, and dopamine. The antidepressant Effexor enhances norepinephrine and serotonin, and the antidepressant Wellbutrin enhances dopamine; and it is not uncommon to be prescribed Effexor and Wellbutrin at the same time. Effexor in combination with Wellbutrin enhances the same neurotransmitters as cocaine (you won’t likely feel the same, mainly due to the quicker impact and shorter half-life of cocaine). And selective serotonin reuptake inhibitiors (SSRIs) such as Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, Celexa, Lexapro, and Luvox enhance the neurotransmitter serotonin. Ecstasy also enhances serotonin, although by a different mechanism (you won’t likely feel the same using SSRIs as you would using Ecstasy in part because Ecstasy has a quicker, shorter-lasting pop).

The Speed Culture, coauthored by psychiatrist Lester Grinspoon in 1975, astutely predicted: “Drug companies probably will continue to produce increasingly sophisticated and disguised amphetamines, and these ‘new’ drugs undoubtedly will be greeted with initial enthusiasm by the medical establishment until it is recognized that any drug with amphetamine-like CNS [central nervous system] stimulating properties almost invariably is just as toxic, potentially addictive, and therapeutically limited as Benzedrine or Dexedrine.”

While many people use mood-altering drugs recreationally, many others believe that they need their psychotropic drugs — prescribed and illegal — to function. Eric Schlosser in Fast Food Nation, investigating the meatpacking industry, discovered this: “The unrelenting pressure of trying to keep up with the line has encouraged widespread methamphetamine use among meatpackers. Workers taking ‘crank’ feel charged and self-confident, ready for anything.”

In 2004 Miami Dolphins running back Ricky Williams announced that he had found marijuana to be “ten times more helpful than Paxil” for his anxiety and depression. What made Williams’s declaration difficult to ignore was that he had been a celebrity spokesman for GlaxoSmithKline, manufacturer of Paxil.

Neuroscientist Pankaj Sah notes, “It’s worth considering that people who constantly use cannabis may be doing it for other reasons than just to ‘get high’ — perhaps they are experiencing some emotional problems which taking cannabis alleviates. Much the same way as some people drink alcohol to relieve anxiety.”

Marijuana and other illegal psychotropic drugs can, according to Ethan Nadelmann, founder and executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, “represent a form of self-medication against physical and emotional pain among people who do not have access to psychotherapy or Prozac.” The Drug Policy Alliance (an outgrowth of Nadelmann’s Lindesmith Center, a drug policy institute created with the support of George Soros) “advocates for drug policies grounded in science, compassion, health, and human rights.”

The illegal-psychiatric drug hypocrisy in the U.S. is an ugly triumph. It is a triumph of marketing over science. It is a triumph for pharmaceutical corporations and America’s ever-growing prison-industrial complex. It is a triumph for those comfortably atop society who would rather Americans view their malaise as exclusively a medical rather than a social problem. And ultimately, it is a triumph of injustice and greed over human rights and a sane society.

Digg!

US health care system ranks last, France #1, again - AMERICAblog: A great nation deserves the truth

US health care system ranks last, France #1, again
by Chris in Paris · 1/09/2008 03:45:00 AM ET · Link
Discuss this post here: Comments (41) · reddit · FARK ·· Digg It!

The GOP and right wing media lapdogs always cherry pick data about something that failed in a national health system and use that as the excuse for propping up the dysfunctional and costly system that exists in the US. They always fail to recognize the WHO ranking that puts France at the top (Freedom Health, perhaps?) and the US arriving at number 37, just behind global heavyweights Dominica and Costa Rica. Here’s another study that they will all want to ignore. Every life is precious, if you can afford health care, might be their new line. At least the US didn’t have to compete with Costa Rica this time. Whew!

France, Japan and Australia rated best and the United States worst in new rankings focusing on preventable deaths due to treatable conditions in 19 leading industrialized nations, researchers said on Tuesday.

If the U.S. health care system performed as well as those of those top three countries, there would be 101,000 fewer deaths in the United States per year, according to researchers writing in the journal Health Affairs.

AlterNet: Blogs: Video
Dow Jones Index Suffers Worst Start to New Year Since 1904

In economic news, more signs are emerging indicating the country might be heading toward a recession. The reported unemployment rate hit 5 percent in December — it was the biggest jump in unemployment since a month after the Sept. 11 attacks. The price of oil briefly topped one hundred dollars a barrel for the first time ever last week. On Wall Street, the Dow Jones industrial average suffered its worst start to a new year since 1904. The Nasdaq composite index dropped over five percent last week–its worst start to a new year ever. And the Times of London reports the living standards in Britain are set to rise above those in the United States for the first time since the 19th century.

Ethan Harris, the chief economist at Lehman Brothers, predicted 2008 would be a difficult year for the U.S. economy.

Ethan Harris: “We are going into a very uncertain period for the economy with lots of downside risks. The fact that the stock market started the year on a down note is a reminder that there are significant risks out there, so that’s the message. It’s just confirming what we knew, which is it’s going to be a difficult year. The stock market could be up in the year if the economy can skirt recession, but it’s going to be a choppy ride this year. ”

President Bush: “This Economy of Ours is on a Solid Foundation” President Bush has attempted to put a positive spin about the recent economic news. President Bush: “While there is some uncertainty, the report is that our financial markets are strong and solid. And I want to thank you for being diligent. This economy of ours is on a solid foundation. But we can’t take economic growth for granted. And there are signs that cause us to be ever more diligent in making sure good policies come out of Washington.”

Digg!

» Recession in the US has arrived Dvorak Uncensored: General interest observations and true web-log.
The feared recession in the US economy has already arrived, according to a report from Merrill Lynch. It said that Friday’s employment report, which sent shares tumbling worldwide, confirmed that the US is in the first month of a recession…

An official ruling on whether the US is in recession is made by the National Bureau of Economic Research, but this decision may not come for two years…

It bases its assessment on final figures on employment, personal income, industrial production and sales activity in the manufacturing and retail sectors…

Merrill also objected to the use of euphemistic terms for the state of the economy.

“To say that the backdrop is ‘recession like’ is akin to an obstetrician telling a woman that she is ’sort of pregnant’”.

Another aspect of the discussion - predictably - is the “I’m all right, Jack” crowd - who really don’t give a damn about anyone else, anyway.

The Difference Between Republicans and Democrats
Thu, 10/18/2007 - 19:57 — dlindorff

The difference between the Republicans in Congress and the Democrats in Congress is striking.

The Democrats are in the majority in the House, and are a narrow majority in the Senate, yet they cannot pass any consequential legislation. The one thing they tout as an accomplishment in nine months of controlling Congress is a pathetic “raise” in the federal minimum wage which, first of all, is so small and belated that in most states it will go unnoticed because it’s lower than most state minimum wage laws, and in any case it’s below what the market is providing, and secondly, they only passed that measure by attaching it to an obscene $120-billion funding bill to continue the Iraq War.

The Republicans, however, in House and Senate, though in the minority in both Houses, have managed, by asserting their unity and collective strength, to block a bill that would somewhat restrict spying on Americans by the National Security Agency, to block a bill putting a deadline on the US occupation of Iraq, and to uphold a presidential veto on a bill expanding subsidized health insurance for children.

Say what you want about Republicans being cold-hearted, child-hating, war-mongering, domestic spying advocates. At least they fight for the crap they believe in!

Democrats, on the other hand, claim to be against the Iraq War, but they continue to support funding it, to the tune of over $300 billion since they took control of Congress.

They could stop this war in a heartbeat if they acted like Republicans and just refused to introduce a war funding bill in the House, or if 41 of them would filibuster any war funding bill to death in the Senate. (Or a senator could have just put a “hold” on the war funding bill, as Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) just today put a hold on the NSA spying bill.)

They could stop NSA spying the same way. If they can’t muster the votes to pass a law outlawing warrantless spying by the agency, they can just hold the NSA’s budget hostage until Bush agrees to their terms.

They could get S-CHIP—the child health insurance program—expanded the same way—by holding something else the Republicans want hostage until Republicans agree to override a presidential veto of the program.

Democrats could also put a stop to presidential trashing of the Constitution by voting to initiate an impeachment inquiry by the House Judiciary Committee under John Conyers, giving him full subpoena power to go after the people and the documents his committee needs for its investigation of high crimes and misdemeanors by the administration.

There’s no need for more dead-end investigations by various gutless House and Senate Committees. The Bush/Cheney administration has made it clear that it is simply going to stonewall those investigations and refuse to honor any subpoenas—if the Democrats even have the ganas to issue subpoenas. But an impeachment panel would be something else. It’s pretty hard for a president to stonewall an impeachment committee, since unlike other committees of the Congress, an impeachment committee is a Constitutionally sanctioned body—one which would likely win the backing of any sincere “constructionist” jurist on the bench. Moreover, in an impeachment inquiry, a president could not make a supportable argument of “national security” or “executive privilege.”

But the Democrats in Congress know all this. They know that they could do these things, and yet they are not doing them.

Only the Republicans are playing hardball. The Democrats are playing wiffleball.

Why is this the case?

Progressives typically attribute it to spinelessness. But this misses the point. The Democrats are no more or less spineless than Republicans.

What they are is devoid of principle.

The party leadership, with the backing of most of the rank-and-file members, has decided in its “wisdom” that the only important thing is winning in 2008. Pious rhetoric aside, they could care less about the lives of American men and women trapped in the bloody quagmire of Iraq. They could care less about the children of the uninsured poor and middle class. They could care less about the privacy of Americans’ phone and computers. All they care about is the November ’08 election. And they have decided that the best way to win that election is to do as little controversial as possible, and to keep the war perking along. They also want to try to pass as much nice sounding progressive legislation as possible. If those bills are killed by Republican maneuvering, fine. They’ll blame the Republicans and say we need to elect more Democrats. If some of those bills pass, and then get vetoed by the increasingly unpopular President Bush, fine, too. They’ll blame the Republicans and their president for intransigence.

But it’s all a lie, because, in the majority, they have the power to stop the war, to stop the Constitutional violations, to win health insurance for kids who don’t have it, and to impeach the president.

They just won’t use it. And no amount of phone calling, letter writing and protesting is going to make them do it. They lie and claim they need 60 votes in the Senate, or even 67 votes, but look what the Republicans can do with just 49.

There is only one way to get the Democrats to act properly, and that is to threaten their dreams of a 2008 victory in the Presidential and Congressional elections.

How do we do that? By letting them know that they no longer can count on the automatic support of progressive voters.

If progressives, African-Americans and trade unionists—the whole base of the Democratic Party and the core of its support–were to rise up and quit the party to become independents, there would be such a scramble to the left side of the Capitol building that the domed structure would tilt on its foundation.

Note: these core Democratic constituencies wouldn’t need to decide how they are going to vote next November. Individuals can each make that decision on Election Day. But by cutting that tie to the party, they will put the fear of death on the incumbents in Congress and on the leaders of the Party, who will worry that they’ve lost their grip on voters that they have taken for granted for decades.

Nor do people have to give up voting for progressives in the primaries. In many states, you don’t need to be in a party to vote in that party’s primary, and in the other states, people can just re-register in time to vote, and then quit again.

We progressives cannot wait until November 2008 to elect more Democrats to Congress and to elect a Democratic president. People are dying in Iraq every single day that we delay. The Constitution is being destroyed line by line, article by article, every day. And besides, we have seen just this past November what happens when we just give our votes to the Democrats without demanding anything from them.

They just turned around and screwed us royally. We’ll end the war, they said, and then turned around and funded it through the rest of Bush’s second term. We’ll defend the Constitution, they said, and then threw in the towel and gave Bush permission to spy without a warrant. We’ll fix the mess in New Orleans, they said, but New Orleans is still a dying city.

It’s time for progressives, for African-Americans, for unionized workers, for feminists, to all let these devious hacks know that we’ve had it. Our votes are no longer in their pockets. We are no longer Democrats. We are democrats!

If they want our votes in November 2008, they have exactly 12 months to prove to us that they will fight for those votes. If they want our votes next year, they’ve got to end the war NOW. They’ve got to start impeachment proceedings NOW. They’ve got to get health care for poor kids NOW. They’ve got to stop the NSA spying NOW. They’ve got to fix New Orleans NOW.

Otherwise, next year we may be going elsewhere with our votes

Top Recipients: Health