Dems exploiting the war - I completely agree with the Greens on this one
kenny olav
Posts: 3,319
>GREEN PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES
>http://www.gp.org
>
>For Immediate Release:
>Thursday, March 22, 2007
>
>
>Greens condemn Democratic resolution for U.S.
>troop withdrawal by 2008, calling it a phony
>antiwar posture to give Democrats an advantage in
>2008
>
>• If Democrats (including MoveOn) really oppose
>the war, they should demand a cutoff of war
>funding and the immediate return of all U.S.
>troops, say Greens.
>
>
>WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Green Party leaders strongly
>criticized a proposed Democratic resolution in
>the U.S. calling for withdrawal by September
>2008, and demanded that Congress take action to
>end the U.S. occupation of Iraq with legislation
>that would effect an immediate withdrawal.
>
>The Green Party of the United States has opposed
>the U.S. war on Iraq since late 2002, when
>President Bush announced plans for an invasion,
>and has called for impeachment of President Bush
>and Vice President Cheney for a list of high
>crimes and misdemeanors, including lying to the
>American people to justify going to war.
>
>• Cres Vellucci, member of Veterans For Peace,
>Vietnam War veteran (military information
>specialist), and press secretary of the Green
>Party of California: "The Democrats' resolution
>is piece of phony and meaningless antiwar
>posturing. By proposing a plan that effectively
>delays the withdrawal of U.S. troops until
>September 2008, Democrats are trying to set
>themselves up as the 'antiwar party' in the 2008
>election, since it's obvious that President Bush
>intends to keep U.S. forces in Iraq throughout
>2008 and long after. If Democratic Party leaders
>really believe the Iraq War is a disaster -- as
>do the Green Party and most Americans -- they
>should support legislation compelling a rapid
>withdrawal of U.S. forces and reducing war
>funding to the amount it takes to bring our
>troops home safe and sound."
>
>• Anthony Gronowicz, Ph.D., 2005 Green Party
>Candidate for Mayor of New York City: "MoveOn.org
>has limited its support to the bill for delayed
>withdrawal, and has refused to publicize
>alternative legislation. As the war enters its
>fifth year, Democratic leaders and their
>supporters in MoveOn are willing to keep American
>military personnel in Iraq another 18 months.
>That means another 18 months of Iraqi civilians,
>U.S. troops, and U.S. contractors, facing death
>and injury, so that Democrats can gain a
>political advantage in the 2008 election."
>
>• Nan Garrett, co-chair of the Green Party's
>National Women's Caucus: "The fact that Democrats
>are about to approve another $120 billion for
>President Bush's war shows that they're as ready
>to indulge the Bush Administration's imperial
>designs as they were in October 2002, when many
>of them voted to surrender Congress's
>constitutional war power to the White House. The
>result has been mass death and mayhem,
>destruction of Iraq's infrastructure and civil
>society, a brutal civil war, empowerment of
>repressive theocratic movements in Iraq, and rage
>against the U.S. around the world, especially in
>Muslim nations. Even worse, if President Bush
>acts on his threats to attack Iran or Israel
>launches an assault on Iran with U.S. support,
>we'll see a regional war for years to come that's
>likely to turn into a global confrontation,
>possibly nuclear, as Saudi Arabia and other
>nations are drawn into a wider Sunni-Shiite
>conflict and powerful countries like Russia and
>China choose sides. Congress must act as quickly
>as possible to head off the Bush-Cheney agenda.
>The first step is to end the occupation of Iraq."
>
>
>• Rebecca Rotzler, co-chair of the Green Party of
>the United States, Deputy Mayor of New Paltz, New
>York and a member of the Green Party's Peace
>Action Committee (GPAX): "Democratic leaders in
>Congress are using passage of the 'hydrocarbon
>law' in Iraq as a benchmark for withdrawal of
>U.S. troops. The new law would privatize and
>allow foreign control over Iraqi oil resources,
>and would subject Iraq to World Bank and IMF
>structural adjustment policies that impoverish
>people while enriching corporations. In other
>words, Democrats are happy to prolong the war for
>the very reasons that President Bush launched it
>in the first place -- profits for U.S. oil
>companies, as well as U.S. political and
>corporate dominance in the region and the
>strategic interests of Israel."
>
>
>http://www.gp.org
>
>For Immediate Release:
>Thursday, March 22, 2007
>
>
>Greens condemn Democratic resolution for U.S.
>troop withdrawal by 2008, calling it a phony
>antiwar posture to give Democrats an advantage in
>2008
>
>• If Democrats (including MoveOn) really oppose
>the war, they should demand a cutoff of war
>funding and the immediate return of all U.S.
>troops, say Greens.
>
>
>WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Green Party leaders strongly
>criticized a proposed Democratic resolution in
>the U.S. calling for withdrawal by September
>2008, and demanded that Congress take action to
>end the U.S. occupation of Iraq with legislation
>that would effect an immediate withdrawal.
>
>The Green Party of the United States has opposed
>the U.S. war on Iraq since late 2002, when
>President Bush announced plans for an invasion,
>and has called for impeachment of President Bush
>and Vice President Cheney for a list of high
>crimes and misdemeanors, including lying to the
>American people to justify going to war.
>
>• Cres Vellucci, member of Veterans For Peace,
>Vietnam War veteran (military information
>specialist), and press secretary of the Green
>Party of California: "The Democrats' resolution
>is piece of phony and meaningless antiwar
>posturing. By proposing a plan that effectively
>delays the withdrawal of U.S. troops until
>September 2008, Democrats are trying to set
>themselves up as the 'antiwar party' in the 2008
>election, since it's obvious that President Bush
>intends to keep U.S. forces in Iraq throughout
>2008 and long after. If Democratic Party leaders
>really believe the Iraq War is a disaster -- as
>do the Green Party and most Americans -- they
>should support legislation compelling a rapid
>withdrawal of U.S. forces and reducing war
>funding to the amount it takes to bring our
>troops home safe and sound."
>
>• Anthony Gronowicz, Ph.D., 2005 Green Party
>Candidate for Mayor of New York City: "MoveOn.org
>has limited its support to the bill for delayed
>withdrawal, and has refused to publicize
>alternative legislation. As the war enters its
>fifth year, Democratic leaders and their
>supporters in MoveOn are willing to keep American
>military personnel in Iraq another 18 months.
>That means another 18 months of Iraqi civilians,
>U.S. troops, and U.S. contractors, facing death
>and injury, so that Democrats can gain a
>political advantage in the 2008 election."
>
>• Nan Garrett, co-chair of the Green Party's
>National Women's Caucus: "The fact that Democrats
>are about to approve another $120 billion for
>President Bush's war shows that they're as ready
>to indulge the Bush Administration's imperial
>designs as they were in October 2002, when many
>of them voted to surrender Congress's
>constitutional war power to the White House. The
>result has been mass death and mayhem,
>destruction of Iraq's infrastructure and civil
>society, a brutal civil war, empowerment of
>repressive theocratic movements in Iraq, and rage
>against the U.S. around the world, especially in
>Muslim nations. Even worse, if President Bush
>acts on his threats to attack Iran or Israel
>launches an assault on Iran with U.S. support,
>we'll see a regional war for years to come that's
>likely to turn into a global confrontation,
>possibly nuclear, as Saudi Arabia and other
>nations are drawn into a wider Sunni-Shiite
>conflict and powerful countries like Russia and
>China choose sides. Congress must act as quickly
>as possible to head off the Bush-Cheney agenda.
>The first step is to end the occupation of Iraq."
>
>
>• Rebecca Rotzler, co-chair of the Green Party of
>the United States, Deputy Mayor of New Paltz, New
>York and a member of the Green Party's Peace
>Action Committee (GPAX): "Democratic leaders in
>Congress are using passage of the 'hydrocarbon
>law' in Iraq as a benchmark for withdrawal of
>U.S. troops. The new law would privatize and
>allow foreign control over Iraqi oil resources,
>and would subject Iraq to World Bank and IMF
>structural adjustment policies that impoverish
>people while enriching corporations. In other
>words, Democrats are happy to prolong the war for
>the very reasons that President Bush launched it
>in the first place -- profits for U.S. oil
>companies, as well as U.S. political and
>corporate dominance in the region and the
>strategic interests of Israel."
>
>
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
It's always gonna be between the dems and republicans. I mean it's so easy for them to exploit the war. blah, they don't even need to exploit it, they'll get the votes they want anyway.
Sad but so verrry true.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
You'd never know it from the media coverage.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Yep, and they're a blast....
http://www.tshirthell.com/store/product.php?productid=911
they are the same way on the healthcare issue
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOB0f3I1AXk
less than 3 minutes, well worth the time to watch!!
and NAFTA, less than 2 min
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7CqN6uNp4k
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
The best part of this T-shirt is the inclusion of Slimer.
That would figure for the Boston Puker.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
What makes the Green Party newsworthy? I'm not try to be an asshole like I usually am, but I wonder why the national media should cover the green party? Is a green party candidate going to win in 2008? No. 2012? No. 2016? No. It makes sense to me that media do not cover them. I'm not saying it is a good thing, but it makes sense.
This Green Party statement that was posted about. Does it mean anything to anyone that is not already that far left? No. It is almost like if Bob Dole said something. Yeah, a few people might listen, but in the grand scheme of things it means (or produces) nothing.
Do I like to answer my own questions? Yes.
Why don't they deserve coverage?? Why do you think they won't win? It would mean a hell of a lot if people are actually given the chance to hear what they have to say. Let the people decide who is deserving and electable not the fucking corporate media.
Why do the Reps and Dems deserve it? They never accomplish anything but screwing us over and the fucking news doesn't even mention people who very well may bring a long needed change to that. You're supposed to fix things that are broken and try new methods/ alternatives that might actually work instead of going even further down the wrong path year after year, decade after decade. When is enough ever gonna be enough??
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Well I was gonna call him names but that's much better.
Ya know it's not in the constitution or anything that we have to have just two political parties. Perhaps if more people were aware of these parties then change might come about.
Because they can earn 26million in 3months?
Clinton raises record $26M in 3 months
By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writer
50 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - Two Democratic presidential candidates broke previous fundraising records during the first three months of the year, with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton setting a high bar of $26 million in new contributions for the quarter.
Former Sen. John Edwards raised more than $14 million since the beginning of the year. Clinton also transferred $10 million from her Senate campaign account, bringing her total receipts for the quarter to $36 million.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070402/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_money
Yeah read that earlier today. It really is becoming the person who can raise the most $$$ can win the election. I guess it's been the way for a while but it's just now sinking in. :(
Well, I never said that there can't be more than two parties. And I never said that the Dems and Reps were better. I was merely pointing out the majority of the country doesn't care about the Green Party, which is why it is not reported on frequently.
See my post above. But seriously, the Green Party is about as electable as me or Chris Dodd, which is why the news does not cover me or Chris Dodd.
It really is all about money right now. Everyone knows you can't buy love so how are you going to get leadership that cares if it's all about who bought the best advertising/whitewashing campaign to be viewed for months on end? The information age is growing leaps and bounds, it's quite exciting! The next generations will have access to many more choices and outsiders that couldn't buy their way in before because we are all sharing info and spreading it through the internet, blogs, even myspace. Young people are showing many signs of wanting to be in the 'know' these days and they are starting to get their acts together about voting and becoming politically active to bring about the change they wish to see. I'm very hopeful and excited to see what the future holds for us all in the new age of information and instant access.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
how does that answer what she asked? maybe they would care if they had some coverage, maybe not as much as the others are shoved down our throats but they are not even heard...they aren't given enough information to base if they actually care, the corporate media makes that decision for them. how can you say you don't care about something you know virtually nothing about? why don't they deserve coverage?
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Completely disgusting and wrong, but why bother holding an election that is clearly a farse.
I have not said anything about the Green's parties views or whether or not they are deserving of coverage. I am merely pointing out that the general public does not care about the Green Party, and yes, you are correct that one reason is that they do not get news coverage. Another reason is that the country leans conservative (evidenced by GW winning in 2004, and with all the shit that is going down the Dems just barely took over the Senate). So of course the Green Party is not going to be the big newsmaker. If Democrats have to lean to the center to be electable in this country, you think the Green Party is going to do well? This is why the media does not cover them, because they are too far left to make a difference.
It sounds like you don't like the media's agenda, unless that agenda is pushing fringe political groups that you like. If the media did a story about the leader of the Green Party, people would think "Who is this? Oh yeah, someone who has no bearing on any political outcome in this country." And then they would think, "The media should spend hours a day on this guy. Enough with all of this news related to 98% of our political representatives." Well, maybe not that.
It just seems you want the media to start covering things for the heck of it. Every fringe political group deserves its day I guess.
america is governed like a corporation ... so, as long as you have a populace who doesn't give a rats ass and continue to believe they are powerless - this is the end result ...
The media should cover groups that have at least some strong support and the Greens have plenty of it. They just don't have the big bucks from the rich people wanting to keep their buddies in office. They don't stand a chance because they get no coverage, not in spite of it. How hard is that to understand? How are people supposed to care about someone they haven't even heard of yet? That makes no sense at all.
The country doesn't lean conservative, the voting population does. There are also plenty of people fed up with the government and would like to see someone get elected that would actually fix some things about this country....only people never get to see what anyone like that has to say because those parties are shut out by the media. Groups like Libertarians and the Greens have good ideas and a lot of things they'd like to talk about and should be talked about....only the things they care about aren't exactly what a corporate ran media wants everyone hearing.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
And until more people read and watch independent media, along with thinking for themselves, they will continue to eat up whatever the corporate run mainstream media will tell them too. I believe that this is truly becoming an epidemic in this country.
Why is it so hard to understand that these groups are part of the fringe and the media then does not cover them frequently? It is an example of what came first, the chicken or the egg. Are these groups not covered because of their ideas, or because they haven't been covered before? It's not like the Green Party is new. They've been around for a while. They haven't had a great impact. It is not the media's fault. Eventually public opinion will turn and want that 3rd party candidate, but until now it hasn't.
How can people care about something or someone they've never heard about?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I think you'd be surprised how many people would vote for a 3rd party if 1) they knew about them and 2) if their votes actually counted when voting for someone other than R or D. We need to institute this. I believe if people would be more willing to vote outside the norm if they knew their vote counted.
I think this is statement is pretty baseless. I think the majority of this country stands firmly in the middle. GW won in 2004 because Kerry was a down right horrible candidate. The reason the Greens do not get support is because they do not get any coverage. Same goes for Libertarians. The Reps and Dems have monopolized the electoral process in this country to the point where it is damn nearly impossible for a 3rd party candidate to get any where. Election are no longer won but bought. If people actually voted on the issues and on track record instead of the face they see on TV the most we wouldn't have a Dem or Rep left in Congress or in the White House.
I would love to see the Greens, as well as the Libertarians, Reform Party, Natural Law Party, Constitution Party and other minor parties join together to form some kind of coalition party that would run candidates at the Federal level, as all of these parties share common ground on one thing: calling bullshit on the war in Iraq and on the handling of the "war on terrorism". In fact, I'm sure they can find common ground on a number of foreign policy issues, and on the reformation of how our Federal government works. If they were smart, this would be the #1 goal of all these parties, because otherwise they will just continue to be little seen and little heard from.
You think they should join together? (all the smaller parties)