Time to start holding the Greens responsible for LIES!!!!

I think Dems need to compile a list of Democrats who have and are speaking out against the Iraq war and send it to GP head quarters. Sure some are late at coming to bat, but they are speaking out.

1. Howard Dean
2. Dennis Kucinich
3. Bob Graham
4. Kerry (now is speaking out)
5. Robert Byrd
6. Feingold
7. Rockefeller

etc....

I'm so pi$$ed about the BS this so called progressive party is spreading. Time to start sending them emails holding THEM accountable for LIES! GRRRRR!!!

The BS story below...

Democrats Fail to Hold Bush Responsible for War Deceptions.
GREEN PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES

MEDIA RELEASE

For Immediate Release:
Tuesday, July 15, 2003

Contacts here:
Nancy Allen, Media Coordinator, 207-326-4576,
nallen@acadia.net
Scott McLarty, Media Coordinator, 202-518-5624,
scottmclarty@yahoo.com


DEMOCRATS FAIL TO HOLD BUSH RESPONSIBLE FOR WAR DECEPTIONS, ALLEGE GREENS

Democrats failed to challenge the Bush Administration when it mattered -- before the invasion of Iraq, say Greens, who assert that the White House's deceit was evident long before the war began.

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Greens charge that Democratic Party leaders are dragging their feet on holding the ush Administration accountable for massive deceptions it made in order to justify the invasion of Iraq.

"Except for a brave few, Democrats waited until the occupation started to become unpopular, with daily killings of American soldiers and the realization that we face a prolonged, multibillion-dollar occupation while the U.S. economy is failing," said Nathalie Paravacini, secretary of the Green Party of the United States. "Only now are they standing up to question both the motives and justifications for the costly invasion of Iraq, when hundreds of thousands of their own constituencies have voiced their concerns from the start."

"Greens will make bipartisan complicity in Bush's deceit a major issue in the 2004 local and national elections," Paravacini added. "It's possible that the only justice we'll see is if outraged voters vote out both the liars and the spineless next year."

Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) claims that the Senate Intelligence Committee will "review" rather than investigate evidence that numerous administration officials, including Vice President Cheney, knew that the documents showing that Saddam had purchased weapons-grade uranium from Niger were fake. Former CIA deputy director Richard Kerr has revealed that the CIA was pressed by the White House to doctor intelligence about Iraq's WMDs, and acknowledged that there was no credible connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.

"In the ten weeks since Bush declared an end to the war, no signs of an active WMD program or storage have been found, despite widespread searches," said Mark Dunlea, chair of the Green Party of New York State. "This confirms the initial findings of the U.N. inspection team that Bush had interrupted in his rush to invade Iraq. Saddam's failure to use any such weapons to repel the U.S. invasion confirms that Iraq posed no imminent threat to the U.S. or any other nation. The war was launched for other reasons, especially to gain political control over Iraqi oil resources."

Greens note that current administration members have been drafting blueprints for the invasion for at least a dozen years, especially under the auspices of the Project for a New American Century, which urged President Clinton to invade Iraq in 1988.

"There was plenty of evidence before the war began that President Bush, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and other officials were deceiving the American public and the world about their motivations for invading," said J. Roy Cannon, chair of the Peace Committee of the Green Party of Delaware. "The Green Party spoke out consistently about the deception, manipulative propaganda, and insincere appeals to patriotism and security that informed President Bush's January 28 State of Union speech and Powell's testimony before the U.N. in early February. Greens joined the worldwide protests, while many Democrats cheered Bush."

"If the Democrats had challenged Bush's deceit, a lot of war, death, and pillage might have been avoided," added Dunlea. "Instead, the Democratic mainstream, including many liberals, was so fearful of being called unpatriotic by Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly that they rubberstamped the war from the beginning, surrendering Congress's constitutional power to declare war over to the White House. Democracy was betrayed by Democrats as much as by Republicans."

NOTE: The Green Party of the United States will hold its 2003 national meeting at the Mayflower Hotel, 1127 Connecticut Avenue NW, Washington, D.C. from Friday, July 18 through Sunday, July 20. For media registration for the conference, visit http://www.gp.org/forms/conf2003form.html.
For more information about the conference, visit http://www.gp.org/conference2003.html.


MORE INFORMATION

The Green Party of the United States
http://www.gp.org
National office: 1314 18th St., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-296-7755,866-41-GREEN

Project for a New American Century
http://www.newamericancentury.org

"Will Congress Impeach George Bush over WMDs?"
By Mark Dunlea, The Albany Times Union, July 9, 2003
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0709-04.htm

News Release

...and another one is to take them to task for their more generic canards like "there is little difference between Democrats and Republicans."

Dean said so. What's the difference between what Dean said these last 6 months and what Nader said in 2000 about Gore?

As the late great Paul Wellstone once said in regard to Nader.

"The differences MAKE a difference!".

Furthermore, Dean would support any candidate who gets the nom with a fighting chance against Bush. HE realizes even Bushlite, is better then Bush (period).

we're in right now. They helped elect Bush. They are not for our candidate. Anyone that is not for my candidate and works against my candidate is the enemy. Green or GOP. Doesn't matter. It's about time to start drawing lines looking to see who's with us or against us.

Won't stop me from repeating the truth either.

I'm sure a lot of people believe what you do. Worldwide. That's why everybody fucking hates each other.

Stop being a part of the fucking problem and start encouraging others to side with you.

The anger, the badmouthing, and this unfounded bullshit of yours does no good at all.

Indeed, you sound like a petty president* when you say "you are either with us or against us". That's hardly the proper way to be civilized or democratic.

know my enemies better, and how to fight. The world is full of friends and enemies. The time for "encouraging" is just about over. If someone is going to work against me causing me or anyone else to lose a job, lose medical benefits, and anything else precious to us, they are the enemy. There is little else to do as far as encouraging the Greens. They're either with us working to elect a Democratic president as friends or against us as enemies no different than Republicans. They need to decide or we'll decide and treat them no better than Republicans.

Stop being a part of the fucking problem and start encouraging others to side with you. Indeed, you sound like a petty president* when you say "you are either with us or against us". That's hardly the proper way to be civilized or democratic.

Are you implying the Green Party is civilized and democratic with the rhetoric spouted above??/

Hell, it took a bunch of people who had nothing to lose in order to get the slackers to start barkin'...

The Greens were pissing and moaning about Bush long before Geppie and the rest started the badmouthing against him; which is amusing because half the time, Geppie, Daschie, and the rest were playing the tiresome "me too, we agree with you" shit from every stinking angle, I'm sure you've head peoples' posts around here...

You probably never heard the Greens because (a) they never get media coverage - proof the media is not liberal whatsoever and (b) they don't have the funds to get the media coverage they damn well deserve.

You really want to scapegoat the Greens for every single thing, don't you? :nopity:

:eyes:

Kerry's been speaking out post 9-11 against Bush since early 2002, pointing out Afghanistan failures when no one was speaking out but him and Gore. In fact, for many months here on DU the big flames were for which one of them was hitting Bush harder. Joe Conason and James Carville both remarked at times last year that Kerry was hitting at Bush most substantively beyond the normal criticisms.

If you're going to ask for people's help, be accurate inyour portrayal of their candidate.

I was refering to the Iraq WAR as did the Green Party Press Release. I realize Kerry was speaking out against Bush all along, sorry bout the confusion, mmmk...

:smoke:

Democrats failed to challenge the Bush Administration when it mattered -- before the invasion of Iraq

That's true - isn't that part of the reason some people are now opposed to Lieberman?

Except for a brave few, Democrats waited until the occupation started to become unpopular, with daily killings of American soldiers and the realization that we face a prolonged, multibillion-dollar occupation while the U.S. economy is failing

Well, that's true too.

I've felt this way from the beginning. I'm so NOT moved by all these appeals now to hold Bush accountable. Anyone who didn't know this war was bullshit BEFORE the war is an incompetent fool who shouldn't be in office. If they DID know and didn't say anything, well, they're cowards who shouldn't be in office.

And if they DID know and DID say something I guess that makes them one of the brave few referred to in the article.

Nope...I don't see where the lies are...

There were many Democrats speaking out LOUDLY all along. How many do the Greens need? And, where is the progressive additude among this type of BS hype?

"Greens will make bipartisan complicity in Bush's deceit a major issue in the 2004 local and national elections," Paravacini added. "It's possible that the only justice we'll see is if outraged voters vote out both the liars and the spineless next year."


"If the Democrats had challenged Bush's deceit, a lot of war, death, and pillage might have been avoided," added Dunlea. "Instead, the Democratic mainstream, including many liberals, was so fearful of being called unpatriotic by Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly that they rubberstamped the war from the beginning, surrendering Congress's constitutional power to declare war over to the White House. Democracy was betrayed by Democrats as much as by Republicans."

As I said, lets compile our list of Democrats who don't deserve the BS labels spouted by the Greens and Nader.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/

The leadership supported Bush and the war, END OF STORY. We must speak with one voice, blah, blah, blah...Oh, and I simply LOVE the bit about how passing the resolution would actually prevent war. Amazing. A brave few DID stand up, no one is denying that, not even the Greens, but the fact remains the Dems couldn't even get it together enough to support Byrd's filibuster.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: I knew W was hyping the threat before the war. There is absolutely no excuse for ANYONE - not the public, not the democrats, not the media - to now be claiming they were lied to.

I understand the political advantage of claiming we were lied to, and I'm not going to make a big stink about the inherent dishonesty of it all because W's not worth it. Fire with fire and all that. HOWEVER, don't try to tell me black is white, up is down, and all the rest. Don't try to pretend that people who knew better and were in a position to do something about it actually had the courage or integrity to act. They didn't.

By the way, I'm not even a Green. I will vote Dem in the next election no matter what pussy ass loser the party puts up, but that doesn't mean I'm going to play the Stepford party faithful and pretend it's all rainbows and puppies.

This is where the GP is wrong again...

"Except for a brave few, Democrats waited until the occupation started to become unpopular, with daily killings of American soldiers and the realization that we face a prolonged, multibillion-dollar occupation while the U.S. economy is failing..."

Bull...The many Dems who did challenge this administration simply did not make the Fox channel, NBC, CBS, ABC etc ... They were vocal, they were angry and they were right; they were just not heard!

Now this mess is getting ratings, and finally some @!$^&@* airtime it is said the Dems are speaking out. They have been and I expect the Green Party to walk the talk, plain and simple...

Here's a correct interpretation of the GP statement with one small and significant change...

"Except for a brave few, (THE MEDIA) waited until the occupation started to become unpopular, with daily killings of American soldiers and the realization that we face a prolonged, multibillion-dollar occupation while the U.S. economy is failing..."

If the dems had really stuck together the media would've covered it. There's no way they could've ignored a filibuster, or the leadership opposing the war, etc. You'll note that both Geph and Dash were quoted in the CNN story I linked above - no one FORCED them to say those things, and if they had come out against the war the story would've carried those quotes as well.

If we're gonna bash W for passing the buck on intel let's not try to blame everyone except the dems for the role the dems played in this. Accept the criticism as legit or defend the dems - stop trying to deflect.

So we need to filibuster everything to be heard? Dems were speaking out all along. All of them NO, many of them YES.

See below...

http://www.worldrevolution.org/projects/webguide/article.asp?ID=408

"Democratic congressional leaders yesterday ripped into President Bush on the eve of his State of the Union address, assailing his administration's credibility and contending that Bush has not yet made the case for war against Iraq.

Focusing mainly on Iraq, Daschle challenged Bush to explain why the threat is "so imminent that it justifies putting American lives at risk," and why the U.S. should short-circuit an inspections process it had demanded.

"If we have proof of nuclear and biological weapons, why don't we show that proof to the world -- as President Kennedy did 40 years ago when he sent Adlai Stevenson to the United Nations to show the world U.S. photographs of offensive missiles in Cuba?" Daschle asked.~ January 2003

"http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0240/ridgeway3.php

"WASHINGTON, D.C., September 30—In a desperate effort to monkey-wrench President Bush’s drive to win congressional backing for attacking Iraq, 74 Democratic members of the Househave called on Minority Leader Dick Gephardt to convene the full Democratic caucus Wednesday to discuss the issue. Ohio's Dennis Kucinich and California's Bob Filner led the charge, in an effort to delay any vote and buy time for anti-war momentum to build." September 2002

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/27/iraq.kennedy/

"I have come here today to express my view that America should not go to war against Iraq unless and until other reasonable alternatives are exhausted," Kennedy said in a speech before the Johns Hopkins Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies." Sen. Edward Kennedy

"Sen. Robert Byrd, D-West Virginia, challenged the notion that the United States could launch a pre-emptive strike against Iraq, accused of developing weapons of mass destruction in violation of U.N. resolutions."

September 2002

"Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, contended recently that attacking Iraq to prevent it from using weapons of mass destruction could actually incite him to fire them, for he would be a cornered dictator with nothing to lose. Containing Saddam has worked for 10 years, Levin said; why war now?"

"Others, including Reps. Sheila Jackson-Lee of Texas and Kucinich, want their party to boldly oppose Bush's rush toward war when Congress returns to Washington next month."

http://www.fcnl.org/issues/int/sup/iraq_resolution-analysis101-02.htm

"On October 10, the House and Senate passed identical resolutions authorizing the use of force against Iraq, H.J. Res.114/S.J. Res. 45. The final vote in the House was 296-133 for the resolution, and 77-23 in favor in the Senate. The joint resolution provides broad authorization for the President to wage unilateral, preemptive war against Iraq at his discretion. Although the resolution passed both houses by significant margins, the opposition vote was notably larger than expected. Many members who voted for the resolution also spoke out on the floor during debate expressing strong support for resuming UN weapons inspections and deep concerns over the costs and consequences of a possible unilateral, preemptive war."

156 of our elected officials (99% of which were Democrats) voted against this war. And, many who voted to authorize Shrub and Co. pressed for diplomatic solutions. This is more then a 'handful'...

In the words of Gloria Steinem:

"He (Nader) was able to take all those perfect progressive positions of the past because he never had to build an electoral coalition, earn a majority vote, or otherwise submit to democracy."

I find that quote especially apt now.

The media didn't cover dissent because it wasn't 'Amerikun' or 'Patriotic' enough.

Democratic congressional leaders yesterday ripped into President Bush on the eve of his State of the Union address, assailing his administration's credibility and contending that Bush has not yet made the case for war against Iraq.

If Dem leaders thought Bush had not yet made the case for war, why on earth did they vote for war? (I'm not sure what Pelosi's vote was, but I know Daschle's.) Answer that question.

And of course, it's amusing to have you cite a CNN story in your post about the mass media not covering dem opposition. :eyes:

No one said EVERY dem voted for the war, but enough did to make a difference. Game over. A filibuster is a powerful tool, and if you're not going to use it to stop the unjustified slaughter of thousands, well...when, exactly, WOULD you use it?

Your turn: defend the Dems who didn't support the filibuster and defend those who supported the war.

If you can't do that then shut up about those criticizing them. The criticism is legit. Again, I may not agree with the conclusion that we SHOULDN'T vote Dem because of it, but THAT'S the argument you need to attack. "Yeah, the Dems supported the war, and they were wrong, but they're taking a stand now and we should support that and build a better tomorrow, etc." With that one sentence you silence all criticism and focus on what comes next RATHER THAN FOCUSING ON THE PAST. The more you try to argue that the Dem party really, truly did try to stop the war but the big mean media wouldn't show their side the more dishonest and/or weak YOU and the Dems appear.

Ant said~"The more you try to argue that the Dem party really, truly did try to stop the war but the big mean media wouldn't show their side the more dishonest and/or weak YOU and the Dems appear."

I never said the Dems ALL tried to stop the war. I said the Greens are being dishonest by implying that only a few brave souls spoke out against. As you can see, I've supported my claim below. It is the Greens who are again showing they are dishonest, weak and I'll add uneducated...

My previous quote "156 of our elected officials (99% of which were Democrats) voted against this war. And, many who voted to authorize Shrub and Co. pressed for diplomatic solutions..."

Ant also said: "Your turn: defend the Dems who didn't support the filibuster and defend those who supported the war."

I personally refuse to defend anyone who supported this war, as I did not support it myself. But, I will fight like hell to see to it that those who fought against it did not do so in vein! Especially given the fact that (I believe) Paul Wellstone gave his life fighting against this war/administration.

Furthermore, I refuse to kowtow to the GP because they call them selves progressive. And, I will never again under estimate the power of their slanderous spin.

Ant said~And of course, it's amusing to have you cite a CNN story in your post about the mass media not covering dem opposition.

Note: I said 'air time'. If the mass media i.e. the tele...had "aired" the stories you and I knew about all along, this war never would have happened.

*Footnote: General Electric owns NBC, CNBC etc... They also manufacturer aircraft carriers. They had no interest in reporting the truth, and they have no interest in doing so today.

The GP states that 'only a brave handful' of Dems spoke out about the war. I say 156 voting against this resolution is more then a f'n 'handful. In addition regarding your comment on CNN ... news print is not the same as the NBC nightly news. I am not saying it got no coverage, but it got little.

Ant said~"No one said EVERY dem voted for the war, but enough did to make a difference. Game over. A filibuster is a powerful tool, and if you're not going to use it to stop the unjustified slaughter of thousands, well...when, exactly, WOULD you use it?"

There's that filibuster word again. I know this is a favorite talking point of the Greens. The answer is obviously Dems are individuals and were split on this issue. But I'm sure the Green Party would always vote in unison, and with great nobility. :eyes:

Are you saying a Green would NEVER dissapoint as an elected official? Are you saying if there were 300 Greens in the house/senate none would have voted for this resoultion? :puke:

And, if some Greens supported issues you did not, is it time to dump them altogether?

I never said the Dems ALL tried to stop the war. I said the Greens are being dishonest by implying that only a few brave souls spoke out against.

Lies, damn lies, and statistics, eh? So 156 of our elected officials - and actually, according to my math only 94% of them, or 147, were Dems - voted against this war. Of course, that 156 was only 29% of the vote. (296 to 133 House, 77 to 23 Senate) So is 29% a few, a handful, many, a lot? It's clearly not most. To be fair, according to the CBS article I read a majority of the Dems in the House voted against the resolution, but only 21 Dems in the Senate did the same. And, of course, there's still the matter of what the leadership said in defense of the vote. You've already acknowledged that THEY acknowledged that Bush hadn't made the case, yet they voted for it anyway. That is, in my mind, unacceptable.

So those are the facts. Personally, I think the Dems failed here, and I have no problem at all with people pointing that out. I won't attack the messenger even if I don't agree with the solution they propose. You clearly disagree. Such is life. However, I don't think the Greens are being dishonest, and I don't think others on the left help anyone by trying to bash them at every turn, ESPECIALLY when what they're saying is worth paying attention to. You say you don't support the Dems who voted for the war, well, clearly they don't either. There's your common ground. Their solution is to vote Green. What's yours? How does rewarding those who did the wrong thing help?

Furthermore, I refuse to kowtow to the GP because they call them selves progressive. And, I will never again under estimate the power of their slanderous spin.

Asking that you not accuse them of lying - what was that about slanderous spin? - is not the same as asking that you "kowtow" to them.

Ant said~And of course, it's amusing to have you cite a CNN story in your post about the mass media not covering dem opposition.

Note: I said 'air time'. If the mass media i.e. the tele...had "aired" the stories you and I knew about all along, this war never would have happened.

I'll grant you that the media didn't do the greatest job covering the anti-war position, but my point is they SHARE the blame; they don't carry all of it. A dem party unable to focus on an issue as important as this one and unwilling to challenge a popular president, and a public that doesn't seem to care much less understand much of anything anymore, is also part of the problem. Constantly shifting blame to others - especially onto the media, something that for the most part you can't really DO anything about in the short term - means we don't focus on what WE did wrong. That's something we can control and act on and it should therefore be our first priority. Quite frankly, to a certain extent I applaud the greens because I think it's appropriate AND relevant that we let the Dem party know how we feel about their behavior. Again, you say you don't support those who supported the war, so what's wrong with letting them know that? I don't really see a FUNDAMENTAL disagreement on this point.

The GP states that 'only a brave handful' of Dems spoke out about the war. I say 156 voting against this resolution is more then a f'n 'handful.

Well, technically speaking, 156 voted against the war, but only 147 of those were Dems, which is only 28% of the total vote. BUT, it is 57% of the total Dem vote, so I'll give you that. (You can check my numbers, it's late and I don't doubt that I've maybe screwed up the calculations.) Again, though, technically speaking, if we're speaking about speaking out, I don't think the Dems put up much of a fight against the war, which is a big problem for me. Daschle and Geph especially, as the leaders, shouldn't have been such wimps. They gave in to the "united we stand" bullshit and failed to act courageously when we needed it most. Again, I don't think it does anyone any good to try and silence that perspective.

There's that filibuster word again. I know this is a favorite talking point of the Greens. The answer is obviously Dems are individuals and were split on this issue. But I'm sure the Green Party would always vote in unison, and with great nobility.

Since I never said such a thing I'm not sure who it is you're arguing with here. Besides, it doesn't take total agreement to support a filibuster, only 40 votes. That would've left 10 dems free to try and kill it. Again, though, if WAR isn't worth a filibuster, what is?

Are you saying a Green would NEVER dissapoint as an elected official? Are you saying if there were 300 Greens in the house/senate none would have voted for this resoultion?

DID I say that? No, I did not, so save the dramatic shadowboxing for another time.

And, if some Greens supported issues you did not, is it time to dump them altogether?

Again, did I say that? If I waited for a candidate who I agreed with on everything 100% I would never vote. However, there are certain issue that are deal breakers for me, and this is one of them. The only reason the Dem candidate will get my vote is because I hate Bush. I may disagree with how others choose to vote - though to be honest if it looks like my state is a given one way or the other I may just vote third party myself - but I'm not going to throw a tantrum and accuse them of all sorts of nonsense when the reality is they're making very good points that the Democratic party would be wise to listen to.

according to dictionary.com that is....

A handful implies 5 or 6, not 147 ;)

Thanks for crunching the #'s by the way. I'm actually an accountant, but don't really like that sorta thing. I didn't bother to verify your numbers, as I feel you sound intelligent and really helped illustrate my point(s) anyhow.

I'll be back tomorrow to continue our lively discussion. I'm off to zzzzzzzzzzzz!

Night :hi:

First and most importantly, how do you get the blue font? I tried it all.

You've already acknowledged that THEY acknowledged that Bush hadn't made the case, yet they voted for it anyway. That is, in my mind, unacceptable.

"THEY"... Who's they? I would ask that we not forget about those many Dems 147 of them...who stood their ground and voted against the War in question.

"Democrats failed to challenge the Bush Administration when it mattered -- before the invasion of Iraq, say Greens, who assert that the White House's deceit was evident long before the war began."

Except that paultry 147.

I won't attack the messenger even if I don't agree with the solution they propose.

I'd say this messenger is the Grim Reaper.

I don't think the Greens are being dishonest, and I don't think others on the left help anyone by trying to bash them at every turn, ESPECIALLY when what they're saying is worth paying attention to.

I say the Green Party better stop the vitriol before they ask others to 'listen' And, believe me, I'm paying attention this time, which is why I intend to send them a note 'informing' them of the facts..

You say you don't support the Dems who voted for the war, well, clearly they don't either. There's your common ground. Their solution is to vote Green. What's yours? How does rewarding those who did the wrong thing help?

Who said I would 'reward' those who voted in favor. Their solution (to vote Green) didn't/doesn't work. If it did, what happens when the Greens dissapoint? Do we start another political party? The solution is to support those who voted against and hold others accountable. We actually need to support organizations like Moveon.org and have a progressive coalition that actually works together to defeat the RW agenda.

Asking that you not accuse them of lying - what was that about slanderous spin? - is not the same as asking that you "kowtow" to them.

When the Green Party stops lying, I'll stop asking that they 'stop' lying.

I'll grant you that the media didn't do the greatest job covering the anti-war position, but my point is they SHARE the blame; they don't carry all of it.

Share the blame? Then the Green Party should share in the blame also, because if Gore were president we wouldn't be in this mess. And, if the GP didn't lie in 2000 and tell many young/naive people that Gore/Bush were the same ??? Furthermore, they are attempting it again with BS like the press release in question, and I wont sit back and quietly hear them out this time.

A dem party unable to focus on an issue as important as this one and unwilling to challenge a popular president, and a public that doesn't seem to care much less understand much of anything anymore, is also part of the problem.

There you go, lumping every Dem into the same 'they' catagory. This is what the Green Party does and it's not 'globally responsible'. I agree with you on the public not caring or being educated on the issues. That is frustrating.

Constantly shifting blame to others - especially onto the media, something that for the most part you can't really DO anything about in the short term - means we don't focus on what WE did wrong.

I am not shifting blame. I am saying something very simple here. The media has great influence. They have the ability to sway public opinion. Just ask Ralph... Our politicians answer to their constituants. The majority of Americans (like it or not) were gung ho about the war after the proper 'sales' pitch. The Democrats who voted will/should have to answer to the people who voted for them either way. And, lets not forget that 75% of the sheep in this country was a wavin that flag after the statues of Saddam came down.

Quite frankly, to a certain extent I applaud the greens because I think it's appropriate AND relevant that we let the Dem party know how we feel about their behavior. Again, you say you don't support those who supported the war, so what's wrong with letting them know that? I don't really see a FUNDAMENTAL disagreement on this point.

I have no problem letting Democrats who let us down 'know' they did. Which again is why I'm not supporting John Kerry right now. I don't think WE need Green Party slander/lies to hold our reps accountable however. We need more democrats like Wellstone, Dean, Kucinich, Levin, Pelosi, etc...

Well, technically speaking, 156 voted against the war, but only 147 of those were Dems, which is only 28% of the total vote. BUT, it is 57% of the total Dem vote, so I'll give you that. (You can check my numbers, it's late and I don't doubt that I've maybe screwed up the calculations.) Again, though, technically speaking, if we're speaking about speaking out, I don't think the Dems put up much of a fight against the war, which is a big problem for me. Daschle and Geph especially, as the leaders, shouldn't have been such wimps. They gave in to the "united we stand" bullshit and failed to act courageously when we needed it most. Again, I don't think it does anyone any good to try and silence that perspective.

I am not trying to silence this perspective. I am asking the Green Party to be honest in it's portrayal of the issues. Which they have not been.

Again, though, if WAR isn't worth a filibuster, what is? How many Greens does it take to filibuster?

There were plenty of Dems who wanted to filibuster. Where is the mention of 'them' in the GP rhetoric?

If I waited for a candidate who I agreed with on everything 100% I would never vote. However, there are certain issue that are deal breakers for me, and this is one of them. The only reason the Dem candidate will get my vote is because I hate Bush.

Good for you, that's the additude all true progressives should have in this presential election.

I'm not going to throw a tantrum and accuse them of all sorts of nonsense when the reality is they're making very good points that the Democratic party would be wise to listen to.

Tantrum? Wise to listen to? The Green Party is no more worthy of listening to then the Republican Party.

I love this most of all....

"Greens will make bipartisan complicity in Bush's deceit a major issue in the 2004 local and national elections," Paravacini added. "It's possible that the only justice we'll see is if outraged voters vote out both the liars and the spineless next year."

I'm off to compose my letter to the Green Party. Do you know where I can get a list of the names of Democrats who voted against the war. I'd like to ask the party of global responsibilty to post it on their website.

By the way, the Green Party ran a candidate against Paul Wellstone, go figure?

Pardon spelling/grammar issues, I'm on my way out the door.

Honestly- aren't there enough lies right here in River City without having to stir up more pathetic, chidlish hatred of the Greens who have EVERY RIGHT to form their own viable party? This is becoming frigtheningly patholigical!



Divide and conquer! :bounce: Demonize! :bounce: Divide and conquer! :bounce: Demonize! :bounce: Divide and conquer! :bounce: Demonize! :bounce: Divide and conquer! :bounce: Demonize! :bounce: Divide and conquer! :bounce: Demonize! :bounce: Divide and conquer! :bounce: Demonize! :bounce: Divide and conquer! :bounce: Demonize! :bounce: Divide and conquer! :bounce: Demonize! :bounce: Divide and conquer! :bounce: Demonize! :bounce: Divide and conquer! :bounce: Demonize! :bounce:

Boy, seems like we have a lot of "Nader in 2000" voters here?

And ... speaking of "pathetic, chidlish hatred" have you ever listened to NADER?!

I am equally sick of Greens (former or not) who say Dems should take the 'high' road, while their own party (former or not) shovels out the $hit.

Your right, the Green Party has EVERY RIGHT to form their own party.

AND I have EVERY RIGHT to defend mine!

:kick: