Cowards on Parade, Again?

Seven years of schooling and I ain't learned nothing.

Who're we talking about?

Well, we could be talking about George W. Bush, everybody's favorite whipping boob. The stupidity of Dub'ya, however, is no secret. Except to the kool-aid drinkers watching Faux. Talking about the vapidity of the decider guy doesn't qualify as news. But let's stop and reflect for a moment upon the man who more than any other American, defines America to the world. King Baby.

The vanity of the man is no secret.

Rising out of the cock-pit like Apollo burnished gold in the setting sun the younger son beamed, grinning before the bunting and the banners. And in the splendor of that perfectly stage-managed moment America forget the god among them clipped his own warrior wings when his own turn to serve came. Junior hid among the idle rich burning jet-fuel, preparing for missions he promised never to fight. Did the cheers years later finally drown out the voices of self-recrimination, brow graced with the victor's laurel wreath?

If so, then only for a moment. Or did he ever really have a moment of doubt?

We know that George Bush is willing to destroy millions of innocents.

So, where do Dems find heroes, as America's reputation sinks into the sun? What have Dems learned in the seven years since George W. Bush seized power with the help of a right-leaning Supreme Court?

The facts suggest: not much. Despite all the crimes that have been committed by Cheney and Bush, despite all the immense damage Cheney and Bush have inflicted upon America, leading Dems refuse to take a strong stand against the illegal acts of this out of control administration.

deepsouthdoug reminds us that war against Iran looms. From shockwave we learn of a new Turkish-Iranian alliance. The consequences of an un-provoked Israeli-American attack on Iran will be dire. And the next Dem president will have to deal with the consequences.

You'd think Dems would have learned there's nothing to be gained by lying supine before the media, begging to be taken seriously. We know that when radio stations can market themselves as Sirius Patriot and Sirius Left there's not much chance of un-biased reporting.

Americans, we finally discover, have been paying attention, however, even if Dem leaders haven't.

How could we ever have arrived at a position where nearly four out of ten Americans want to impeach the criminals in the White House and not one of America's leading Dems is willing to make the same stand? Not one.

How is it that after 3500 American dead, tens of thousands wounded, families wrecked and millions of Iraqis dead or displaced, not one of the leading candidates is willing to call for an immediate end to this disastrous Presidency? Four out of ten Americans want impeachment. Yet, not one leading Dem is willing to speak for this massive movement of people.

We have to ask why. Are Dem leaders just as frightened of the press as they have been for the last seven years? I was admonished by a friend for being too harsh on folks un-willing to call for impeachment as the US constitution demands. He claimed it takes time for folks to wake-up? I respect him. But he's wrong.

Lady Liberty has been tied to the oak tree in the front yard and gang-raped daily by a cabal of racist, fear-driven bigots for the last seven years and folks are trying to say they didn't hear the screams?

Obama talked real tough about Iraq when opposition to the war cost him nothing. Now that a second war looms, Obama now struts and boasts of the need to "deal" with Iran with all the bluster of a wannabe George Bush. It's pathetic.

Edwards is no better. The vaunted "man of the people" won't be serving in Iraq or Iran. His kids might get a chance to fight. But you'd think that Edwards would have the courage to speak out against a second disastrous war after he co-sponsored the attack Iraq bill.

Hillary Rodham Clinton is at least consistant. HRC tilts to the right on Iraq and Iran. She more than any other candidate is comfortable with a robust, doomed US presence in the Middle East. She's closer to Bush and Cheney on Iraq and Iran than any other candidate. HRC promises to be a better, more effective George W. Bush. That should worry us all, but it shouldn't come as a surprise.

Edwards: Silent on Impeachment.

Obama: Silent on Impeachment.

HRC: Silent on Impeachment.

Non-candidate: Al Gore recently spoke out against impeaching Bush and Cheney.

Gore might have been for impeachment in 2006 before he was against it in May, 2007. Did his non-decision to inch closer to candidacy have anything to do with reversing his position?

Every single member of this community is dedicated to removing Bush as quickly as possibly by almost* every legal means possible.

War with Iran guarantees a disaster of proportions that will make the last seven years seem like a walk in the park. Folks like to compare Viet Nam to Iraq. Well, what we're looking at right now is Eisenhower putting US advisers into Viet Nam. JFK inherited the policy and it blew up in Lyndon Johnson's face.

How can it be that each of the leading Dem candidates refuse to speak out against a possible attack on Iran, given what we know about the death and disaster in Iraq? Have Dems forgotten about the terrorists spawned from this sort of aggression? You'd think one 9/11 would be enough.

How can it be that 4 out of 10 Americans want Bush impeached and not one of the front-running Dem candidates will broach the subject? How can it be that this community of progressives is willing to cut all these folks a free pass given what we know now?

I'm looking for answers. I expect others are, too.