Is Pelosi playing "blood politics" -- ??

[nashville_brook]

I'm trying to understand the Pelosi problem -- spitballing here -- is this what she's doing: playing BLOOD POLITICS? Or is it more sinister -- is she complicit, pressured? Or more mundane -- incompetant?

Thoughts?

______________________________


http://www.coastalpost.com/07/12/16.html

Blood Politics
By Dan Stone

If those who believe that Pelosi, Reid and the Democrats are continuing to fund the war, and maintaining the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq so that the Republicans will lose big time in 2008, are correct, then the Democrats are playing a blood sport. This particular sport is characterized by one faction of the ruling class, for political reasons, e.g., to win an election, or to win more seats than otherwise, forcing the poor to fight and die for them long past the time that peace could have been brought.

This Blood Politics has been played before, most notably by Kissinger in the Vietnam War. Henry Kissinger, an architect of saturation bombing in Vietnam, made a deal with the South Vietnamese: If you hold off the peace talks until Nixon is elected, I will get you better terms. Nguyen Van Thieu of South Vietnam obeyed. The desired political result was achieved, the rug was pulled out from under Nixon's rival, Hubert Humphrey, and Nixon won the 1968 election, making Henry Kissinger his Secretary of State. But the terms of the final peace plan (signed January 27, 1973) were not better; they were the same terms as those of the original peace plan. The only difference was that four years had elapsed, resulting in the deaths of twenty thousand more American troops, and hundreds of thousands of civilians in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. The only people who benefited from this scheme were Nixon and his top officials including Kissinger. Blood Politics: Prevent peace, prolong war, let more people die in war so that you can win an election.

Are Pelosi, Reid and the Democrats also playing Blood Politics? _Preventing peace, prolonging war by throwing money at Bush's wars and occupations, letting more people die in Iraq and Afghanistan so that the Democrats will win in 2008, or win more seats in congress than they would otherwise? If they are playing this deadly game, their strategy may backfire. The American people may take their voter rage out on the Democrats for being weak and refusing effectively to oppose the occupations, rather than on the Republican neo-cons for getting us into the wars in the first place. Nixon lived to regret the success of Blood Politics. He got what he wanted --- the presidency --- but later chose to resign rather than be impeached.

(snip)

[Annces]

1. I don't think so

They are not playing a game of chicken. They are easily held back. I think even if they have been threatened, they should still act.

Like Serpico

[Individualist]

2. She's playing DLC politics

"Let's just look at the cold, hard facts about the DLC and its record. The DLC has pushed, among other things, the war in Iraq and "free" trade policies, using bags of corporate money to buy enough Democratic votes to help Republicans make those policies a reality. They have chastised anyone who has opposed those policies as either unpatriotic or anti-business -- even as a majority of Americans now oppose the war in Iraq, oppose the DLC's business-written trade deals, and are sick of watching America's economy sold out to the highest corporate bidder. Additionally, in brazenly Orwellian fashion, the DLC has also called its extremist agenda "centrist," even though polls show the American public opposes most of their agenda, and supports much of the progressive agenda." http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0727-32.htm

[nashville_brook]

3. the worst case scenario is that Pelosi condones CIA abuses and has impeachment "off the table"

b/c the DLC agenda jibes with corporate warfare -- they'd just prefer it had better marketing.

something just isn't right with the news today -- there should be more outrage. there should be a giant head of steam billowing about investigations. democrats should be pounding the podium about the destruction of the CIA tapes. they should be pounding the podium about what they know about the Abu Ghraib tapes.

they should be acting more "innocent" i suppose.

[OzarkDem]

6. Dem leaders show no conviction, no passion, no commitment

other than the commitment to get re-elected.

Frankly, I think they don't really care one way or another if the war ends, as long as they get re-elected. I also don't think they're sharp or courageous enough to engage in "blood politics". You have to believe strongly (however wrongly) in what you're doing to make that strategy work. You also have to be doing it in opposition to the other party, and, because of the DLC kool aid drinkers, Dem leaders don't really oppose the GOP. I think they actually feel they have more in common with the GOP leaders than with their own base of supporters.

The current "B" team of Dems who are leading Congress now are just seat warmers, loafers, taking up space, getting by from day to day with only a bare minimum of an agenda and no concern at all about the mandate voters gave them in 2006. Their only focus is on raising money for the next election.

[nashville_brook]

8. something just seems "off" to me -- if they were just looking at political effects, then

you'd expect that they'd be opposing the current adminsitration loudly. they are suffering from their complicity.

seems like there's a looming "come to jesus" moment where they are going to be forced into a confrontation with the GOP b/c sitting on the sidelines is making them complicit in GOP crimes.

[Double T]

4. incompetent and incapable of dealing with the rethugs.

[nashville_brook]

5. she's beginning to give the impression that she's in over her head, and there's not a worse

public image for a woman who promised SO MUCH when she took the gavel.

that she's playing "blood politics," could be overly optimistic.

[EstimatedProphet]

7. Yeah, that's what she's doing.

As a matter of fact, she has shipments delivered to her personally of little Iraqi babies that she tortures for fun.

Since people don't get it: :sarcasm: