Skip to main content

View Diary: My Photo Journal of the DC March (247 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Precisely (4.00)
    Dear lawsond:

    We, as US citizens, supposedly have representation in Congress & only have political redress here as pertaining to congressional abilities to provide mandated checks upon the power of the executive (that is, BushCo) as described in the US Constitution. However, in recent years & for a number of reasons -- including outright Mafia-style intimidation by instruments of the majority party --  this mandate has basically been abandoned.

    So, in short, we do not have a functioning representative government at this time. The results are as you see it.

    We did not, as a nation, vote to elect George W. Bush as president in 2000 (the Bush-friendly Supreme Court did that) & there is questionable validity to his re-election in 2004. Even if the election is eventually proven valid (if the issue happens to come up some time), Bush was elected by all of about 16% of  our citizens.

    That said, a terrific number of us have been taking to the streets, contacting our congressional representatives, educating ourselves & others as to the true functioning of the Bush regime since before the 2000 debacle. The complicity of a Bush-friendly corporate media complicity hasn't helped one iota.  

    Drop your suppositions about the 'power of the people' in the US to directly influence the functioning of our 'democracy'  & you might understand the current situation a bit better.

    •  thank you! (none)
      thank you for that.
      my question "explain please?" was not rhetorical and i truly am looking for answers.
      your explanation was helpful.
      the american political machine is a fearsome beast and influencning or changing it is, i understand, like pulling a u-turn with a cruise ship.
      however, that doesn't help the millions of iraqis picking their way through the ruins of THEIR country.
      i guess what i really want to know is when you talk about "peace now" do you mean peace in iraq or home?
      •  'Peace now' (none)
        I can answer you on a personal basis only, lawsond.  Others might answer differently.

        With regards to the position of the US in creating & managing societal stability in Iraq, one is apt to assume two things: that a) this is an actual objective of the current administration (doubtful, imo, even given its short-sightedness & historical myopia) & b) that the continual presence of the US as an occupying force can in any way achieve this. My opinion on this second question is negative. At this point I believe stability is beyond the powers of the occupation to achieve, regardless.

        As for peace in either Iraq or Ohio, I don't see it as an either/or question. Imho, peace is a matter of economic self-determination, a systemic functionality of the means of representational governance & the continued vitality of communal culture, meaning that individual citizens are conscious of their civic responsibilities in the functionality of the whole for their own ultimate benefit.

        Community disenfranchisement as a means of control is in play here in the US & in many other nations across the globe as a result of either direct or indirect US influence, in service to the benefits of heavy industry, including defense.

        Sorry for slow response; I'm on dial-up.
        Glad to be able to offer just a little help with your questions.

    •  Beengo! (none)
      great take, ww.

      as George Carlin pointed out two weeks ago on Bill Maher's show-- our current government is a scam... a fairy tale.

      we do not have representative government.. and the dems are just as much to blame as the repugs.

      the dems are just as happy about the pathetic fact that only fifty percent of eligible voters actually vote as the repugs-- because that makes their jobs easier! it's millions of people they don't have to pay attention to-- or be concerned about their issues!


    •  By the way, (none)
      about 'the rest of the world' screaming 'don't do it!' before the invasion of Iraq: millions of our own citizens joined in that screaming, not only in the streets, but in direct communicative action regarding our elected representatives.

      My own urgent requests to my Democratic NY representatives that they vote against the Iraq War Resolution were met with literal yawns by staff members. Citizens attempting to address Senator Clinton at her NYC offices before the vote were arrested, cleared away like dust-mites. They were too bothersome.  

      And yes, there's far too much media complicity in the Grand Illusion that is Bush governance, but the phrase above should read: The complicity of a Bush-friendly corporate media hasn't helped one iota.

      And it hasn't, neither.

      •  fascinating but.... (none)
        yes, this is all fascinating..all this talk of the dems and repugs.
        but how does this help THE PEOPLE OF IRAQ?
        it is their country that has been effectively destroyed.
        what does the united states owe to them?
        •  Shorter comment as per above (none)
          Imho, the US needs to remove its talons from the flesh of Iraq. The current administration is not interested in the well being of the Iraqi people, but only in the profits of its own benefactors; ergo, the continued occupation will only do further harm.

          The situation would be different if the US was currently an instrument of stability in Iraq, but it isn't. There is no benefit whatsoever to this occupation. If there were, we would see this benefit begin to manifest. It's been over two years since the invasion & the people continue to suffer. The entity that will help them is not the current US administration; Bush et al have no plan beyond regional military domination, no ideology beyond ultimate profit & no concern whatsoever for the lives of the Iraqi people beyond societal & political control.

        •  ps: Dems/Repugs (none)
          Actually, discussion of the basic political realities now in place here is relevant  in relation to the balance of powers against the executive (Bush et al).

          We're supposed to have some.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site