Eight months have come and gone since We, the people of the United States, elected a Democratic majority to both houses of the U.S. Congress. Our hope was that they would end the occupation of Iraq, bring our troops home, deliver the Bush/Cheney/NeoCon cartel to justice and reverse the dangerous tailspin that we have endured since the first non-election of George W. Bush.
What have the Democrats given us in return?
- Continued funding for the imperial mission in Iraq, despite a clear mandate from the American people to end this thing.
- An overdue and largely superficial increase to the federal minimum wage that means even less as the weak U.S. dollar struggles on global currency markets. (We know this wage increase isn’t enough because there are already rumors that another hike is in the works.)
- A newly passed, bi-partisan, domestic surveillance law that grants the government more latitude when spying on the legal actions of U.S. citizens.
- The Bush Administration’s extended middle finger in the face of Congressional subpoenas over the U.S. attorney scandal.
So what gives? Why are the Democrats still the punks they were before they held power in Congress?
Nancy Pelosi and the Dems in the House took the trump card of impeachment off the table BEFORE the November elections. By doing so, they’ve removed the teeth from any Congressional threat to King George’s royal power.
But there have been no threats. Non-binding resolutions? Unanswered questions? Tacit, even active support for Bush’s neo-fascist policies?
When confronted by Cindy Sheehan, Ray McGovern and Rev. Lennox Yearwood, former impeachment champion and current House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers of Detroit claimed that the Dems are backing off of Bush and Cheney so they can focus their attention toward a big win in the 2008 elections. Can we assume this means they also won’t challenge Bush on Iraq?
You’d better believe it. Though the mainstream media is playing up this “coming confrontation on Iraq” in September, the fact is the Democrats are committed to this occupation. They voted for the invasion, allowed the escalation and are now adopting Bush’s benchmarks as their own. Those benchmarks include an Iraqi law that allows foreign control of Iraqi oil.
Remember Hillary Clinton and John Edwards voted for the invasion. John Kerry did too, losing his presidential bid because he failed to promise a change in policy in Iraq only better management of the quagmire.
Old news? Not at all. On August 11, The New York Times reported that most Democratic presidential candidates have expressed no plans to remove our military from occupied Iraq if they are elected.
John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator, would keep troops in the region to intervene in an Iraqi genocide and be prepared for military action if violence spills into other countries. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York would leave residual forces to fight terrorism and to stabilize the Kurdish region in the north. And Senator Barack Obama of Illinois would leave a military presence of as-yet unspecified size in Iraq to provide security for American personnel, fight terrorism and train Iraqis.
So all those who believe the Democratic hype that they will lead us in a different direction might want to reconsider. Obama has been quoted rattling sabres with Iran and Pakistan, and would renew our commitment to NATO’s flagging efforts in Afghanistan. Clinton wouldn’t rule out using nukes if she received “actionable intelligence” about the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden.
Nukes?? For one man? This type of language foreshadows a continuation of the thuggish, bullying U.S. foreign policy that plays well with AIPAC, military contractors, oil companies and the banks who keep lending the government money.
The rest of the nation’s citizens are tired of war, and most of us agree that George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and the principles they represent are the greatest threat to the internal security of the United States. When are the Democrats going to come to their senses and do something about it?