Can one useless American Democrat be found to speak these words?

guardian 1/24/07 wrote:The director of public prosecutions, Sir Ken Macdonald, put himself at odds with the home secretary and Downing Street last night by denying that Britain is caught up in a "war on terror" and calling for a "culture of legislative restraint" in passing laws to deal with terrorism.

Sir Ken warned of the pernicious risk that a "fear-driven and inappropriate" response to the threat could lead Britain to abandon respect for fair trials and the due process of law.

Sir Ken pointed to the rhetoric around the "war on terror" - which has been adopted by Tony Blair and ministers after being coined by George Bush - to illustrate the risks.

He said: "London is not a battlefield. Those innocents who were murdered on July 7 2005 were not victims of war. And the men who killed them were not, as in their vanity they claimed on their ludicrous videos, 'soldiers'. They were deluded, narcissistic inadequates. They were criminals. They were fantasists. We need to be very clear about this. On the streets of London, there is no such thing as a 'war on terror', just as there can be no such thing as a 'war on drugs'.

"The fight against terrorism on the streets of Britain is not a war. It is the prevention of crime, the enforcement of our laws and the winning of justice for those damaged by their infringement."

Instead, we get polite Democratic applause for the endless war rhetoric and the endless war birthed by the inside job.

clocker bob wrote:Instead, we get polite Democratic applause for the endless war rhetoric and the endless war birthed by the inside job.

You weren't impressed by the Democratic rebuttal?

chopjob wrote:

clocker bob wrote:Instead, we get polite Democratic applause for the endless war rhetoric and the endless war birthed by the inside job.

You weren't impressed by the Democratic rebuttal?

I heard Webb critique the administration's management of the war, but I have yet to hear a strong Democratic attempt to break the fictional link between 9/11 and the Iraq War. They are too moderate, they need to use the wording that McDonald used in Britain, really crack Bush across the knuckles hard with the ruler every time he does that lying dance: "9/11 happened, and then Iraq happened, and then you know we can't leave Iraq, because 9/11 will happen again, even though I, George Bush, never blamed Iraq for 9/11 ( everyone else did ), now that we are in Iraq, Iraq is full of insurgents, and now the Iraq insurgents will commit more 9/11's if we ever leave Iraq".

The Democrats will become a true opposition party when they attack this adminstration right in the breadbasket, drag the 'war on terror' into public view for a dismantling. Until then, the Dem leadership are pussies.

clocker bob wrote:the Dem leadership are pussies.

I agree. The majority of Dems have been pussies since Gingrich shook the house in the 90's. to me, it seems like they try to come to the middle way more than leaning to the left. so frustrating- they're weak. and doesn't it seem like the chick dems have more balls than the boys? intellectuals are too stupid to stick together and follow the party like the republicans did for the last couple years. or they're not as well organised/lead.

I'm as mad as hell and...whatever...

clocker bob wrote: I heard Webb critique the administration's management of the war, but I have yet to hear a strong Democratic attempt to break the fictional link between 9/11 and the Iraq War. They are too moderate, they need to use the wording that McDonald used in Britain, really crack Bush across the knuckles hard with the ruler every time he does that lying dance:

I see what you're saying, but to play devil's advocate, Webb plainly (albiet politely) did point out that Iraq and the "War on Terror" aren't connected. His exact words were this:

Jim Webb wrote:Many, including myself, warned even before the war began that it was unnecessary, that it would take our energy and attention away from the larger war against terrorism...

There is a subtext there that Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11 and the WOT, but i agree that it's incredibly softballed. But what can you do? If any Democrat--hell, if all the Democrats--stepped up and said that McDonald said, they'd immediately be branded by the media and general public as lunatics. If the prevailing attitude of the country is "terrorists want to kill us and the government is acting the best it can to keep them from doing so," a radically divergent view, no matter how true, is going to be too shocking for anyone to take seriously (especially with a lazy-assed media setting the narrative) unless people are slowly dragged toward it. I like to think Dem oversight and inquiries, and perhaps the Libby trial, will all work to pull the narrative in that direction, but i'm not entirely hopeful.

DrAwkward wrote:If any Democrat--hell, if all the Democrats--stepped up and said that McDonald said, they'd immediately be branded by the media and general public as lunatics.

I don't believe this is true if they all said it.

patk wrote:

DrAwkward wrote:If any Democrat--hell, if all the Democrats--stepped up and said that McDonald said, they'd immediately be branded by the media and general public as lunatics.

I don't believe this is true if they all said it.

I'd like to believe you, but you've been following the mainstream media the past six years, right? All it takes is one radical outlet to scream "Democrats are insane and hate America!" and before long MSNBC and CNN are publishing headlines like "Democrats Dispute Notion that they Hate America" and "Democrats: Do They Hate America?" and "GOP Disagrees with Dem American-Hating Stance."

DrAwkward wrote: Iraq and the "War on Terror" aren't connected. His exact words were this:

Jim Webb wrote:Many, including myself, warned even before the war began that it was unnecessary, that it would take our energy and attention away from the larger war against terrorism...

There is a subtext there that Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11 and the WOT, but i agree that it's incredibly softballed. But what can you do?

Alright, take it a step farther- state that fighting terrorism like we were fighting a war is a failure, and make Iraq Exhibit A in that argument. Not only disconnect Iraq from the WOT, disconnect War and Terror.

Dr A. wrote: If any Democrat--hell, if all the Democrats--stepped up and said that McDonald said, they'd immediately be branded by the media and general public as lunatics.

I'm not that sure. Yes, five years after 9/11, it would be a cold shower for the people who have been stewing in 'perpetual war' propaganda for all that time, but it is the honest approach, and if somebody doesn't take the first step, we're never going to get any place.

Dr. A wrote: If the prevailing attitude of the country is "terrorists want to kill us and the government is acting the best it can to keep them from doing so," a radically divergent view, no matter how true, is going to be too shocking for anyone to take seriously (especially with a lazy-assed media setting the narrative) unless people are slowly dragged toward it.

I don't see it as a radically divergent view, but I agree, it will *appear* to be at first. Reordering the public's thinking about how to fight terror will be like breaking a wild horse at first- the post-9/11 brainwashing is far more thorough than even the brainwashing that permitted all the Cold War spending. Nukes are scary, but exploding buildings on Wall Street are the best psyops of all time. American brains fried on 9/11, and into that vulnerability rushed the PR campaign for the past five years.

9/11 Truth has helped break this spell ( I gladly claim ), and now, it is time for some of the spineless democrats to return to 9/11 in an honest manner. Even if the inside job is never exposed, if the terror hype is broken, that's a big victory.

DrAwkward wrote:I'd like to believe you, but you've been following the mainstream media the past six years, right? All it takes is one radical outlet to scream "Democrats are insane and hate America!"

Because of this, the Dems are considered extreme if they are partisan in any way, ignoring the radical neo-con policies and right-wing media yellers. Thinking of the political discourse as a spectrum (left, right, etc.,) this effectively truncates the entire left side, leaving a new spectrum from the center to the right. All the Dems allow themselves to be villified if they stray to the left of center, while the "centrist" D's (i.e. Lieberman) are actually in the center of the center to right spectrum of political discourse.

DrAwkward wrote:I'd like to believe you, but you've been following the mainstream media the past six years, right? All it takes is one radical outlet to scream "Democrats are insane and hate America!" and before long MSNBC and CNN are publishing headlines like "Democrats Dispute Notion that they Hate America" and "Democrats: Do They Hate America?" and "GOP Disagrees with Dem American-Hating Stance."

cf. Sen. Dick Durbin on Guantanamo:

Secretary Rumsfeld approved numerous abusive interrogation tactics against prisoners in Guantanamo. The Red Cross concluded that the use of those methods was "a form of torture."

The United States, which each year issues a human rights report, holding the world accountable for outrageous conduct, is engaged in the same outrageous conduct when it comes to these prisoners.

Numerous FBI agents who observed interrogations at Guantanamo Bay complained to their supervisors. In one e-mail that has been made public, an FBI agent complained that interrogators were using "torture techniques."

That phrase did not come from a reporter or politician. It came from an FBI agent describing what Americans were doing to these prisoners.

Then the attack machine came out:

Comments from the White House and other elected officials helped to keep the spotlight on Durbin. Also on June 16 , White House spokesman Scott McClellan called the remarks "reprehensible" and "a real disservice to our men and women in uniform who adhere to high standards and uphold our values and our laws."

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) called for a Senate censure of Durbin. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) wrote on Monday to Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), urging him to "encourage" Durbin to "apologize for and withdraw his remarks."

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a prisoner of war in Vietnam, said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press": "I think that Senator Durbin owes the Senate an apology -- I don't know if censure would be in order -- but an apology, because it does a great disservice to men and women who suffered in the gulag and in Pol Pot's 'killing fields.' "

And finally he retracted his statement.

clocker bob wrote:
the Dem leadership are pussies.