Serious question: Should Democrats nominate anti-war or pro-war candidate

[kentuck]

No doubt, Bush and the Repubs will put the best face on the war before the next election. They will say that Iraq is on the virge of democracy. They will pull a few troops out just to show things are getting better. We will hear success stories as the war continues to spread into civil war and as Americans continue to die.

In that context, should the Democrats nominate a pro-war candidate or and anti-war candidate for President? Will an anti-war candidate be able to sell the truth about the war without sounding "unpatriotic" or anti-American? Will the pro-war candidate be able to sell the war to most of the Democratic Party? This is a question that the Party will have to face soon.

My inclination is to go for the anti-war candidate but to define it as a failed mission that did not have to be fought but now that we are there, we need to withdraw responsibly. But we do need to withdraw from Iraq. Too many Americans have died from this incompetent and misguided mission already. I think this candidate could best appeal to the Democratic Party. He doesn't have to appeal to Republicans.

[William769]

1. How about a candidate that has a solution to the mess we are in?

[phillysuse]

16. General Wesley Clark

A man with a plan.

A man who is against this war - wrong war ar the wrong
time in the wrong place -

but not reflexly against ALL war.

This is a man who went to war to save 1.4 million
Bosnian Muslims from ethnic cleansing and genocide.

[William769]

22. He was my choice in 2004.

[KnowerOfLogic]

18. There is no solution; that is what must be understood. nt

[movonne]

2. I think that whoever should have a plan to get them out of Iraq...within

6mo.to 9mo. time...we have lost this war and the only reason that the candidates don't want to say this is the corporations are l00% behind this war and they will smear whoever goes against the war.

[jwirr]

3. I think you have left out one very important choice.

What about a candidate who understands the war may be a last resort for national (not corporate) security reasons but who will never take our children to war for personal or corporate reasons. The blood of our children is precious - it should never be spent for idiot reasons like we have done in every war since 1948. We should hoard the lives of our troops - they, each and everyone of them, from the private to the general, are precious. Wake up repugs - you are not just wasting money - you are wasting lives.

[KnowerOfLogic]

19. Just to clarify, "anti-war" does not mean against *all* wars, IMO. nt

[rocktivity]

4. What we need is an anti-BUSH EMPIRE candidate

One ready to clean up ALL the corruption and treason that's going on.

:headbang:
rocknation

[hogwyld]

5. Against

Not only should they be anti-war, but they should bring every last soldier, sailor, airman, and marine back to the U.S. We don't need a presence in Europe (Soviet Union is gone) Korea, or anywhere else for that matter. When they say bring the troops home, I mean ALL of them. We are not the world's policeman!

[ClintonTyree]

15. The Military Industrial Complex would never allow it.............

they'd pull a JFK "wet op" and remove the barrier in their way to world domination. Seriously, Corporate and Military entities would never allow it. There's too much to lose in their perspective.

[Rowdyboy]

6. Ask me in 2007.......Really hard to guess right now....My guess is we'll

be forced out of Iraq before serious campaigning gets underway. Things are not going well there, and-if the constitution fails, as now appears likely-then all hell will break loose.

[BootinUp]

7. Such black and white terms, you play into the repubs hands

Americans don't generally think of themselves as either pro-war or anti-war. Therefore a candidate that is painted that way, is someone the majrity of the public can't identify with.

I think the Dems need to talk about what their foreign policy national security plans are. When the question of Iraq comes up, focus on whether it is being managed well, and are we moving in the right direction, which most everyone can agree on...is to get a consitution in place and get out.

The time to get out is when the public decides that there is no further gain in terms of democratizing Iraq to be made by remaining. As it is now with the government still forming it will be hard to make that case in a convincing way.

[kentuck]

9. "The time to get out is when the public decides that..."

"..there is no further gain in terms of democratizing Iraq to be made by remaining."

And when would that be? ANd how many more would die before the public decides? Especially with the propaganda preaching to them each day about how we are close to a democracy in Iraq and that we can't "cut and run"?

[BootinUp]

11. did you stop reading my post?

There were some thoughts that I offered on that point.

[KnowerOfLogic]

20. Being against an unwise, unjust, unwinnable war is pretty black and white.

This is the time when things like courage, judgement, vision, and principle are required. It is not a time to stick a finger out in the wind.

[BootinUp]

26. Thats pretty black and white all right.

I assume you are for immediate troop draw down and you see no valid role for our military there at all? You equate any mission there now with the decision to invade? Good luck with that.

[TankLV]

8. We should nominate whomever the majority of the party vote to want to

see be their nominee.

I will vote for such a person.

I will NOT vote for anybody who supports this illegal criminal WAR OF CHOICE!

[Lexingtonian]

10. both, neither...it won't matter in '08

I don't know where you get the idea that the U.S. will be in control of Iraq then. Unless you yourself buy into their Triumph Of The Will pile of caboodle.

Pro-war or anti-war is in the rear view mirror. It was already that for the swing voters last November. It was just about preaching for all the partisan ones.

[wuushew]

12. The idea of pre-emptive war is not dead

In the road ahead lies Iran and Syria. Members of the DLC have made it clear that they consider it morally and legally legitimate to use lethal force against states that have done nothing against us.

I will not be voting for Clinton, Biden, Byah, Lieberman or any other such warmonger in the primaries.

[meganmonkey]

13. As far as I am concerned, if the Dems don't nominate an anti-war

candidate, they got their first and last presidential vote from me in 2004. It'll never happen again. I am not one to say things like that, but the only reason I am involved in Democratic politics is because I learned last year that I have a lot in common with Democratic voters, and I saw a grassroots movement to make the Democratic politicians do what Democrats should do. If the party cannot/will not/does not start representing their people, than it is not the party for me. I am sorry to say it, but it's true. The alternative? I don't know. I just don't know. But I know a lot of far-left-wing folks like myself who have participated actively in Democratic campaigns over the last couple years who will be really pissed off if the party doesn't keep heading towards a firm anti-Iraq-War stance.

:shrug:

[longship]

14. Not just the war.

I want my candidate to get us out of Iraq. Period! As fast as that is practical, using whatever means at the disposal of the US.

I want ethics in government legislation so robust and so leak proof that a criminal regime like BushCo could never again come to power.

I want federal election laws which requires all aspects of all elections to be handled in the public sector. I want voting to be codified as a right of all citizens. I want public accountability restored at all levels of the electoral process by the designation of all records, methods, and procedures as public documents, available for anybody to see and review.

I want my candidate to support launching an investigation into torture and mistreatment of prisoners in the control of the US. I want the people who ordered this treatment held accountable for crimes against humanity all the way to the top of the command.

I want my candidate to restore Constitutional rights to the people in the country. Repeal the Patriot Acts outright. Sponsor legislation to make the Bill of Rights work for the people.

I want my candidate to restore responsible and balanced tax policy where the wealthy and corporations are not allowed to skate while low income people bear the burdens.

I want my candiditate to restore sanity to spending. If that means line-item veto, or some other methodology whereby "bridges to nowhere" can be purged from budgets, so be it.

I want personhood restored to the people of the nation. I want corporatehood restored to corporations. I want my candidate to sponsor legislation to eliminate corporate give-aways and restore responsible regulation of corporations. Companies doing business in the USA must pay taxes in the USA. Period!

I want my candidate to restore sanity to procurement practices. No non-bid contracts. Ever! No conflicts of interest. Ever!

That's a good start. Give me somebody like that and we'll be on our way to a better USA.

[seabeyond]

17. maybe we need ot define both anti and pro war

is anti war everyone come hom in two weeks, pro war, want to stay there forever and rule the land?

[KnowerOfLogic]

21. Anti-war, or they don't get my vote. nt

[seabeyond]

23. pull out in 2 weeks, regardless, of EVERYTHING>

define what anti war is please

[libnnc]

24. That's a good question and this is a

good discussion. Those of us who feel strongly against this war and occupation (and other wars) need to define exactly what 'anti-war' is.

This is a difficult topic that we're going to have to tackle and dissect, long before '08.

[seabeyond]

25. i think so too. n/t

[Puregonzo1188]

27. Anti-War Candidates-just like the 60% of Americans who are against the war

[Zynx]

28. Pro-war doesn't work.

We proved that in 2004 that it makes it very difficult to draw distinctions between the candidates.