10. Because you don’t
want to put your energies into someone who is going to rubberstamp a war on Iran.
Barack Obama, a Democratic Senator from Illinois,
said in his campaign in 2004 that “surgical strikes on Iran may become
necessary. Launching some missile strikes into Iran
is not the optimal position for us to be in, given the ongoing war in Iraq”, Obama
told the Chicago Tribune. “On the other hand, having a radical Muslim
theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse”. The Tribune said
that “Obama went on to argue that military strikes on Pakistan should also not be ruled
out if violent Islamic extremists were to take over.” John McCain, an
Arizona Republican, and Diane Feinstein, a Democrat from California, were on “Face the
Nation” together on January 15 2006. McCain said “There’s only one
thing worse than the United States
exercising the nuclear option against Iran;
that is a nuclear-armed Iran.
The military option cannot be taken off the table” Feinstein agreed with
McCain’s assessment of the “extent of Iran’s threat”. “Iran has much more opportunity to create
devastation in the Middle East than Iraq. I think it’s a very serious
threat”, she said.
9. Because you want to
end government directed and sponsored torture, not redefine it.
Alberto Gonzales, Bush’s Attorney General, wrote a memo that
“included the opinion that laws prohibiting torture do ‘not apply to the
President’s detention and interrogation of enemy combatants.’ Further, the memo
puts forth the opinion that the pain caused by an interrogation must include
‘injury such as death, organ failure, or serious impairment of body functions-in
order to constitute torture.’ Gonzales also successfully argued that ‘the war
against terrorism is a new kind of war’ and ‘this renders obsolete ” strict
limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its
provisions.’ The (Bush) administration has been adamant that prisoners at Guantanamo are not
protected by the Geneva Conventions.” Newsweek, 5/24/04].
The Democrats response to torture at Guantanamo and elsewhere? “I don’t go so far as saying shut down Guantanamo,”
said Senator Christopher Dodd, a Democrat from Connecticut, who favors congressional
hearings into admitted and alleged abuses at the centre. June 6 2005 iol.co.za (South
Africa) Senator Charles Schumer, Democratic Senator from New York, said of
Gonzales nomination “it’s encouraging that the president has chosen
someone less polarizing” (than Christian fundamentalist and extreme
reactionary John Ashcroft)… “I can tell you already he’s a better
candidate than John Ashcroft.”
8. Because you think immigrants should be treated as human
beings, not hunted down along a militarized border by the military, police, and
armed vigilantes, under a blanket of nightmarish surveillance.
Senator Hillary Clinton issued a statement on her web site
advocating a combination of high tech surveillance and beefed up Border Patrol
to persecute impoverished immigrants trying to cross the Arizona desert. “In reforming our
broken system, our efforts must be multifaceted and comprehensive. During my
tenure in the Senate, I have supported efforts to increase exponentially the
number of Border Patrol agents. By the end of this year, the ranks of our
Border Patrol will have increased by 3,000 agents since 2001, a 30% increase.
But the problem is not simply one of manpower. We also need to deploy new
technology that can help our Border Patrol agents be more effective in stopping
the thousands of undocumented immigrants who enter the country each day.
Employing new surveillance equipment – like detection sensors, unmanned drones,
and infrared cameras – can assist in this important work”. In 2004. Clinton told Greta Von
Susteren of Fox News “there’s technology now available. There are some
advanced radar systems. There are biometric and other kinds of identification
systems that we’ve been very slow to deploy and unwilling to spend money
on”.
7. Because you think
Church and State should be separated.
The Bush Regime has been undercutting one social service
after another and instituting “faith based initiatives” that
propagate fundamentalist Christianity in their place. Where are the Democrats
on this? Again from Sen. Hillary Clinton: “There is no contradiction
between support for faith-based initiatives and upholding our constitutional
principles,” (Boston
Globe, 1/20/05). And from the Democratic Leadership Committee’s website: “Nothing in the U.S. Constitution or their party history requires
Democrats to oppose faith-based initiatives.” Finally, Barack Obama was quoted
as “chastising fellow Democrats” for failing to “acknowledge the
power of faith in the lives of the American people”, and continuing that
“the party must compete for the support of evangelicals. Not every mention
of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation of church and
state”, he said, in arguing that the Democrats need to display their
religious beliefs as openly as Republicans” (Associated Press, June 28,
2006)
6. Because you don’t want to be the midwife in
what Condoleezza Rice calls the “birth pangs of a new Middle East”, by
which she means the violence, mass destruction, and yes, mass killings of
civilians, that have been unleashed by the Bush Regime in Iraq, and to which
they gave a green light in Israel’s assault on Lebanon.
From the Washington
Post July 19, 2006, as the body count in South Lebanon reached into the
thousands: “Democratic and Republican congressional leaders are rushing to
offer unalloyed support for Israel’s
offensive against Hezbollah fighters. With Israel intensifying its air and
artillery attacks on Lebanon and warning of a protracted war, the Senate
yesterday unanimously passed a bipartisan resolution endorsing Israel’s
military campaign and condemning Hezbollah and its two backers, Iran and Syria.
A few hours earlier, Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) delivered
his most strident defense of Israel
since the conflict erupted a week ago. The House is expected to pass a
similarly pro-Israel resolution today”. And once again from the ever
reliable Mrs. Clinton, this time at a New York City
rally on July 18: “We will support [Israel’s] efforts to send a message
to Hamas, Hezbollah, to the Syrians, to the Iranians, to all who seek death and
domination instead of life and freedom”.
5. Because you think
the “Patriot Act” and the pervasive spying it allows on essentially
the entire population should be rejected, not refined.
Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy, who some consider to be an
opponent of the Patriot Act, cleared up any confusion about this on his web
site: “Contrary to the false claims and misrepresentations by some, there
was no effort on either side of the aisle (meaning from either Democrats or
Republicans) to do away with the Patriot Act. That is simply and profoundly not
true. Along with others here in the Senate, I am seeking to mend and extend the
Patriot Act, not to end it”.
4. Because you don’t see how running candidates who oppose a
woman’s right to abortion will protect that right.
Bob Casey, Jr., a Democratic candidate for the Senate from
Pennsylvania Democrat is widely being promoted by Charles Schumer and others in
the Democratic leadership, as being an example of a “new, anti-abortion,
pro-values” Democrat. Casey, who makes his opposition to abortion a
cornerstone of his campaign, has said he favors overturning Roe v. Wade:
“You can’t say you have the position I have and not believe that,”
Casey said in a recent interview. Source: Philadelphia
Inquirer, “Casey’s Clear View on Abortion”
In his 1996 autobiography, Casey wrote “Many people
discount the power of the so-called ‘cultural issues’–and especially the
abortion issue. I see it the other way around. These issues are central to the
resurgence of the Republicans, central to the national implosion of the
Democrats, central to the question of whether there will be a third party. …
[The] Democrats’ national decline–or, better, their national
disintegration–will continue relentlessly and inexorably until they come to
grips with these values issues, primarily abortion.” National
Catholic Reporter, Nov 26, 2004
3. Because the
Democrats won’t end the wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan,
even though they know most people in this country oppose them.
“On June 15, the U.S. Senate overwhelmingly defeated a
resolution calling for the withdrawal of American combat forces from Iraq
by the end of this year. Only six of the 100 senators voted in favor of the
resolution, even though public opinion polls indicate that the majority of
Americans and the vast majority of Democrats nationwide support such a
deadline. Furthermore, a recent Le Moyne College/Zogby International poll
revealed that 72% of U.S. troops serving in Iraq believe that the United States
should end its operations in that country by the end of 2006, thereby giving
the Democrats a concrete way of demonstrating that they “support the troops.”
“During the same week, the House of Representatives, by
a 256-153 vote, claimed that the ongoing war in Iraq
was part of the “war on terror” and explicitly declared that “it is not in the
national security interest of the United States
to set an arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment of United States
Armed Forces from Iraq.”
Forty-two Democrats joined all but three Republicans in supporting the
resolution. Although the former Iraqi regime rid the country of WMDs years
earlier, allowed UN inspectors to return to verify dismantlement, and
maintained no ties to al-Qaida or other Islamic extremists, the House
resolution claimed that the deposed government “constituted a threat against
global peace and security and was in violation of mandatory United Nations
Security Council Resolutions” and “supported terrorists.”
(From Stephen Zunes in Foreign Policy In Focus. Zunes is
a professor of politics at the University
of San Francisco.)
2. Because they will not initiate an effort to impeach Bush, even though
millions of people are in favor of and in fact demanding such an effort.
“Seeking to choke off a Republican rallying cry, the House’s top
Democrat has told colleagues that the party will not seek to impeach President
Bush even if it gains control of the House in November’s elections, her office
said last night.”Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) told her caucus members during their
weekly closed meeting Wednesday ‘that impeachment is off the table; she is not
interested in pursuing it,’ spokesman Brendan Daly said.” Washington Post, May 12,
2006
And from an article entitled “Democrats Must End Talk of Bush
Impeachment”, Martin Frost, a former Democratic Congressman and now an
official in the Democratic Party wrote: “Now that everyone recognizes what
I first said last September – that Democrats have a real chance of taking back
control of the U.S. House of Representatives this Fall – it’s time for
Democrats to start acting like winners. Step one would be for the Democratic
leadership to definitively put to rest any loose talk of impeaching President
Bush. They should say in one and two syllable words that impeachment will not
happen once they are in the majority. ” I know there are people on the left who
would like to see Bush impeached but they do harm to the Democratic Party by
raising this as a possibility and Democratic leaders should shut them up once
and for all”.
1. BECAUSE YOU WANT TO BRING ALL THIS TO A HALT!
The endless, escalating wars
The institutionalized torture
The spying on everyone and anyone
The forceful intrusion of a hateful brand of fundamentalist Christianity
into every sphere of life
The wholesale, frontal assault on women’s right to choose
And on, and on, and on.
The Bush Regime is committing great crimes against humanity, and has even
greater ones in store. The Democrats are aiding and abetting every step of the
way. Is that what you want to be part of?
PUT YOUR MONEY, TIME, AND RESOURCES INTO SOMETHING THAT WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE! GIVE GENEROUSLY AND
FREQUENTLY TO WORLD CAN’T WAIT/DRIVE OUT THE BUSH REGIME! HELP GET THE WORD OUT
EVERYWHERE!
