It Would Be Good for the Republic If the Republican Party Dissolved Itself Today

Republicans: they are hurting the country. We badly need a very different alternative party to oppose the Democrats.

Here's BarbinMD from Daily Kos:

Daily Kos: A Question For Senate Republicans: Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 02:18:25 AM PDT: For the past few months, "We must wait for the September report from General Petraeus," has been the mantra from the White House whenever questions about Iraq were asked. Until yesterday that is, when we learned that that much ballyhooed report would be written by the White House rather than George Bush's top man in Iraq. And when asked about this during yesterday's press briefing, White House spokesman Dana Perino said:

Well, let me remind you of a couple of things. The Congress asked for these reports from the President; they asked for the President to report to the Congress.

Really?  That's not how I remember it.  And unless a virulent case of Alberto Gonzales-itis has stricken Senate Republicans, that's not how they remember it either.  Because, from the Congressional Record, here is what they had to say when they filibustered the Defense Authorization Bill last month:

Senate Minority Leader McConnell:

Let me remind the Senate of what we agreed to...We voted, and put into law, that General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker would report in September on progress. The benchmarks report and the timeline we set in May was clear. It gave us, the troops, and our allies, clarity on what was expected.

Senator McCain:

The war will be discussed in September again—we all know that—when General Petraeus is ready to report to the Senate...General Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker will come to Washington in September to report on the status of their efforts and those of the Iraqis.

Senator Sessions:  

To press the point further, I strongly believe that whatever the inclinations of Senators on the conduct of the war in Iraq, to change our strategy now before we even hear from General Petraeus in September would be a colossal blunder for a host of reasons. To do so would be unthinkable...I am anxious to hear General Petraeus’s report.

Senator Coleman:  

Fifty-four days ago we sent a message to General Petraeus: Go forth with the surge, and then come back and report to us.

Senator Chambliss:  

I have never been more convinced that waiting for General Petraeus’s report in September was more right than yesterday afternoon...

Senator Craig:  

That’s why when we confirmed General Petraeus unanimously in the Senate, we said to him very clearly, you go to Iraq in relation to a surge that is being implemented and you come back to us and give us your honest and fair assesement in September.

Senator Cornyn:

But the fact is, Gen. David Petraeus...will come back and report to us in September.

Senator DeMint:

The Democrats agreed on that funding, but they requested that we have a report from General Petraeus in the middle of September to find out what progress we were making. We all agreed to that.

Senator Bunning  

I promised in person, in my office, to General Petraeus, that I would wait to hear his report this fall.

And of course I couldn't leave out everyone's favorite Republican:

Senator Lieberman

In fact, this amendment should not even be considered now...Because in that bill we required General Petraeus, along with our Ambassador to Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, to come back in September and report to us...I made a personal pledge to him. I am going to give him and the troops a fair chance, which this amendment would deprive him of, and I am going to give him until September to come back and tell me how it is going.

Which is it, boys?  We now know that the September report will be written by George Bush's White House, not Gen. David Petraeus.  So, did the White House lie to you, or did you lie to the American people?

Impeach George W. Bush. Impeach Richard Cheney. And don't vote for Republicans. There is no excuse for doing so. None.

Comments

[derek]

The Democratic party should be the party of the right, opposed by and alternating in power with a party to their left.

Having said that, I can't see a mechanism for this happening. In twentieth century Britain, the Labour Party rose to do the job of representing the poor that the Liberal Party weren't bothering to do (like the Democrats of modern America, they were the Less Conservative Party)

However, instead of replacing the Conservative Party, it was the Liberals they replaced.

[Hal]

What's the excuse for voting for the Democrats? Millions did that in 2006 believing they would get us out of Iraq. But the Democrats lied. So we should vote for those liars again.....? Rubbish.

[andres]

This has already been covered in a previous thread, Hal. Suffice to say that the Democrats are not a unified, monolithic party that can consciously decide to "lie" to its constituents (the Republicans are more so, but even they usually need control of the White House in order to tell real whoppers). If you persist in a cynical rejection of _both_ political parties out of a belief that they are just as bad, you will be stuck in Ralph Naderland for the rest of your unhappy, whine-filled life. Either work to change the electoral laws, or work to change the Democratic party, but no one here or elsewhere cares about the complaints.