IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New In all seriousness
they don't look very different to me, from the outside looking in.

One's just a little more naked in their fascist tendencies, is all.
New It depends on where you look.
Few Democrats(*) endorse Bush's doctrine of [link|http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=5251|"preemption"] - saying we'll go to war before a threat is imminent. Few Democrats endorse Bush's doctrine of the [link|http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20060109_bergen.html|"unitary executive"] and its corrollaries - e.g. The President can do almost anything under his [link|http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article02/|Article II] powers in a time of war, no matter what other laws are on the books. Few Democrats think that every tax increase is bad no matter what the circumstances, and every tax cut is good no matter what the circumstances. Democrats are far more likely to favor greatly increased government participation in providing heath insurance to a larger slice of the population, and reigning in excesses in pharmaceuticals, finance, mergers, tax evasion, etc., etc.

Few Democrats accept Bush's "Culture of Life" with all its ramifications (abortion outlawed, stem-cell research greatly restricted, state and federal politicians jumping into [link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo|end of life decisions], opposition to [link|http://egov.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/pas/|Death with Dignity] acts, etc., etc.).

Yes, there are far fewer differences than there were in, say, the early 1970s on issues like labor law, "free trade", bailing out corporations, etc. I think that's unfortunate, because the battle of ideas makes our country stronger. If everyone agrees on too many issues, we're more likely to be blind-sided by technological change or a crisis.

My $0.02, FWIW.

[edit:] Completed a thought in the second paragraph.
(*) Joe Lieberman is an obvious exception...
Expand Edited by Another Scott June 21, 2007, 05:42:32 PM EDT
New Worse yet
Worse yet, in practice their actions are even closer then the speeches and position papers suggest.

For instance, despite their claims not to support Bush's wars, Congress is actually taking steps that help Bush setup an war against Iran. Take this for instance [link|http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1182409609714&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull|JPost] giving Bush an excellent basis for action against Iran and attempts to block any action by Bush against Iran have been defeated.

Some of this is disorganization, and some is fear. But there is a small group that quietly support bits of Bush's doctrine.

New Dunno.
The Resolution in question is [link|http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.CON.RES.21:|here]. It expresses the sense of the House. It's not legislation.

[lots of whereas-es]

Whereas, on August 3, 2006, in a speech during an emergency meeting of Muslim leaders, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stated that the Middle East would be better off `without the existence of the Zionist regime', called Israel an `illegitimate regime' with `no legal basis for its existence', and accused the United States of using Israel as a proxy to control the region and its oil resources;

Whereas Iran funds, trains, and openly supports terrorist groups, including Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad among many others, that are determined to destroy Israel;

Whereas, on December 14, 2001, the President of Iran's Expediency Council, Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, threatened Israel with nuclear attack, saying, `[i]f one day, the Islamic world is also equipped with weapons like those that Israel possesses now, then the imperialists' strategy will reach a standstill because the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything [in Israel], while it will merely harm the Islamic world';

Whereas Iran has aggressively pursued a clandestine effort to arm itself with nuclear weapons; and

Whereas the longstanding policy of the Iranian regime is aimed at destroying the democratic State of Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East and the most important strategic ally of the United States, which is confirmed by statements such as those made by Iranian President Ahmadinejad and Council President Rafsanjani, demonstrating the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That Congress--

(1) condemns, in the strongest terms, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's offensive remarks, contemptible statements, and reprehensible policies aimed at the destruction of the State of Israel;

(2) calls on the United Nations Security Council to charge Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with violating the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and Article 2, Section 4, of the United Nations Charter;

(3) further calls on the United Nations Security Council and all Member States of the United Nations to consider measures to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, which would be both a dangerous violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and a potential means to the end of carrying out President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's threats against Israel; and

(4) reaffirms the unwavering strategic partnership between the United States and Israel and reasserts the steadfast commitment of the United States to defend the right of Israel to exist as a free and democratic state.

It had [link|http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HC00021:@@@L&summ2=m&#cosponsors|103 co-sponsors]. I haven't seen a breakdown by party; I see a few rather prominent members of each party.

An awful lot more would be required for the Congress to advocate or authorize an attack on Iran.

The Resolution doesn't seem to be getting much attention yet (Google lists [link|http://news.google.com/news?tab=wn&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&ncl=1117478931&hl=en|10 news stories]), even though it was passed on the 20th and was introduced in January. I read it as an appeal to the UN, not a statement that we're going to jump in if Iran doesn't change policy soon.

Of course, [link|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401907_pf.html|the Pentagon has been war-planning Iran since 2003], if you believe William Arkin. Conventional wisdom is, though, that we don't have enough troops to go to war with Iran.


New Ok
Not so much a basis as an excuse. After all, the odds of the UN acting on that is slim and the odds of them doing anything are none.

An awful lot more would be required for the Congress to advocate or authorize an attack on Iran.

Bush administration officials have already claimed that the authorization he already has allows him to use force anyplace he feels necessary in the "war on terror."

New There may come a time.. soon?
When Nancy Pelosi has to quarantine the Bagman, as immediate parallel to launching an emergency impeachment of the Cheney-Bush twins - should they show evidence of another attack of Vulcan in-heat/blood-lust.

(If there's been a growth in Guts by then - the necessary caveat.)

     Nader considering running again - (JayMehaffey) - (7)
         I think many "consider" running just to get some press. - (Another Scott) - (6)
             In all seriousness - (jake123) - (5)
                 It depends on where you look. - (Another Scott) - (4)
                     Worse yet - (JayMehaffey) - (3)
                         Dunno. - (Another Scott) - (2)
                             Ok - (JayMehaffey) - (1)
                                 There may come a time.. soon? - (Ashton)

I never want to see that line out of context.
64 ms