what do we do about elected Democratics

[still_one]

like Clinton, Biden, Kerry, and others who believed the war in Iraq was correct, and even agree with sending more troops

[welshTerrier2]

1. a vote for bush's war is a republican-lite vote

the problem is, it's not just limited to the few Democrats you mentioned ... "winning" the "war" in Iraq is a goal of the Democratic Party itself ...

several days ago, the House voted on a bill to authorize an additional $81.4 billion for the Iraq war ... here's a link to the 162 Hall of Shame Democrats who voted to give bush more money for his corporate war and the 39 Democrats who voted against bush: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll077.xml

if this trend continues with the Senate vote, the two party system is, or should be, dead ... what a disgrace that those of us who understand this war is nothing less than the exporting of American terrorism are not offered a choice between the policies of the two major parties ...

some Democrats believe in the Al From school that preaches Democrats have to show Americans how tough they are ... unfortunately, real leadership would require making America safer, not tougher ... too bad those you mentioned and the majority of elected Democrats don't seem to understand that ...

[ulysses]

2. we can't feed them into the woodchipper

because that would be illiberal. It may be, in the end, that we let them have the damned party if they want it all to themselves so badly.

[blogbear]

3. It Is the Fault of the Electorate (and 'flip-flop' Republicrats) that..

There are those individuals within the Democrat ranks in government today which all to often sway to the demands and far right-wing agenda..(including siding with GOP about the US fiasco in Iraq)..Democrats need to 'close ranks' and expose those individuals in government who betray the party and principles..Democrats then need to set out to replace those individuals at election time with candidates who have records as party loyalists..Diversity within the Democrat party is one thing but complete betrayal of it is quite another! We need to get together now and start making our positions and platform 'crystal' clear..Then 'close ranks' and purge those from us who would sell us out. This way come election day voters will see us as the best alternative in government rather than as Republicans by a different name..

[LittleClarkie]

4. That is an over-simplification of Kerry's stance

He didn't believe that it was correct. He believed in getting back into Iraq with inspectors. Any support at all was contingent in the end on finding WMD's.

However, several Dems, including Dean and Kusinich, subscribe to the pottery barn. Their plans for withdrawl were dependant on getting Iraqi troops trained among other things. Also, Kerry and Dean both would have preferred the Biden Lugar amendment. Their plans and Kerry's were quite similar really.

He said time and again we wouldn't have been in Iraq if he'd been president. We'd have been in Afghanistan instead, going after those who actually attacked us. Still too hawkish for some, but there you have it.

[welshTerrier2]

5. clarification

"Any support at all was contingent in the end on finding WMD's."

i assume you mean any "pre-invasion" support ... given that no WMD's were found and Kerry still supports keeping US troops in Iraq until we "win", it's not really fair to say that "any support was contingent on WMD's" ...

just wanted to clarify that ...

[TayTay]

8. That is not what he said

We cannot 'win' in Iraq. This is a willful distortion of what Kerry said. He wants the US to stay long enough to train the Iraqis to fight on their own. Iraq should belong to the Iraqis. However, Iraq is in danger of falling into civil war. Civil wars usually end up killing lots and lots of innocents. Kerry's words reflect his belief that leaving suddenly would result in the deaths of more innocents.

We can debate this endlessly. I would hope that we do so honorably. Kerry is not in favor of a permanent US presence in Iraq. He is in favor of not pulling out of Iraq without at least trying to get the region stabilized. He believes this will save lives. You can agree or disagree with that position, but it is not a dishonorable position to take. I would assume that the lives of these people also mean something to you as well. Do you care what happens to the Iraqi innocents if the US presence goes away. How do you propose keeping the factions (Sunni vs Shiite vs. Kurds) fro killing innocent men, women and children?

[welshTerrier2]

17. voting with bush ... not a real good idea ...

bush and the neo-cons are in Iraq for one reason and one reason only ... they are building their empire, their corporate empire, one brick at a time ... 14 permanent military bases are being built ... has Kerry talked about these bases? will Kerry insist on assurances that no US presence will remain in Iraq long-term? will Kerry talk about the missing $9 billion? ... i noted he did not attend the hearing on the missing money ... why not ?? will Kerry call for investigations of Halliburton, Bechtel and other trans-national corporations and their roll in Iraq? ... many anti-war Democrats believe Syria and Iran are next ... has Kerry spoken out about those countries? is it just possible that funds allocated for Iraq will be used to begin operations in Iran and Syria?

Kerry must not vote for additional funding of this madness ... we have already spent $200 billion creating greater and greater antagonism for the US all over the world ... the destabilized Middle East has resulted in record profits in the oil industry directly attributable to rising oil prices ... why should oil companies profit from US military actions in the region? has Kerry called for an investigation of the oil companies and their "excess profits"?

the Pentagon budget has soared over the $400 billion mark and still bush wants more ... does the term budget deficit mean anything anymore? and without affixing a timeline to withdrawal, we'll be there forever ... it's absurd to say that naming any timeline would jeopardize US efforts ... will the same argument be made a year from now? 3 years? 10 years? 25 years?

instead of detailing what i think should be done in Iraq, let me ask you this question based on your argument that civil war would break out (i agree but don't agree that continued US occupation will prevent civil war) and thousands of innocent Iraqis (i assume you mean additional innocent Iraqis since the US has already killed tens of thousands of them) would die ... the argument made in Vietnam after roughly ten years of war was that the US could not withdraw because the immoral Communists from N. Vietnam would slaughter all the S. Vietnamese ... should we have stayed in Vietnam until the S. Vietnamese were strong enough to defend themselves? we'd probably still be there today if we had used that standard ...

bush is trying to put a puppet government in power in Iraq ... the elections were a sham ... voting with bush shows a distinct failure to understand that bush's agenda is pure evil ... it trusts that bush's motivation is what he claims it is ... it funds bush's agenda ... the US is a destabilizing force in Iraq, not a stabilizing force ... the choice you presented is not the real choice ... you offered stability versus the death of more innocent Iraqis ... there will be no stability in Iraq until the US leaves or gains total control of the government, the water and the oil ... and that kind of stability should not be supported ...

the only path to peace in Iraq is to get the US the hell out of there ... then, and only then, an international process should be formulated that opens discussions on a negotiated settlement ... the Sunni's will not ever accept anything less and i'm skeptical the Kurds will go along with any government formed based on the recent elections ... the continued deaths of innocent Iraqis is the direct consequence of continued US military occupation ... this is a war of corporate empire building, not democracy ... and bush, and those who give him additional funds, will not allow peace until corporate America secures its large piece of the Iraqi pie ...

[LittleClarkie]

9. Once again, he seems to proscribe to the "pottery barn" principle

you broke it you bought it. Wanting to be there and believing in the cause is quite different from feeling that the job has to now be finished. Agree or disagree, you can't say that Kerry post-invasion believes that without WMDs we should be in Iraq right now.

What scares me is that the same ass hats who were responsible for the clusterfuck pullout in Saigon are in there now. They don't give any indication they've learned squat since then either.

If and when we do pull out, it will probably be just as messy and inept.

[welshTerrier2]

18. run that by me one more time ...

"you can't say that Kerry post-invasion believes that without WMDs we should be in Iraq right now."

OK, let's take another lap around the track here (i'm trying to get into using NASCAR expressions so that i can relate better to Red state voters) ...

1. we agree there are no WMD's in Iraq
2. Kerry believes we should not leave Iraq until the US succeeds in stabilizing the country
3. therefore Kerry believes we should be in Iraq right now ...

regardless of what he thought earlier, he now believes we should stay in Iraq (as opposed to leaving in the very near-term) ... i just don't see how anyone can twist that to say Kerry does not believe we should be in Iraq right now ... not only does he think we should be in Iraq right now, he said he plans to vote for $81 billion additional funding to help the US remain there ... didn't he ???

[LittleClarkie]

21. I guess what I'm trying to say...

badly I might add... is that while he wouldn't have chosen to be there, he doesn't feel we can leave. That doesn't mean he's a supporter of the policy.

He's not an admirer of the policy. He, unlike those on the right, isn't cheering the jackboot march of democracy in the Middle East. He doesn't wanna be in Iraq, but thinks we HAVE to be in Iraq to fix what Bush was trying to do. He seems to be trying to get the Bush Admin to use the Powell Doctrine even now. Go in force, have a goal, get the job done and then get the fuck out. It's the "going in force" part that makes your teeth itch, I know. But that seems to be what Kerry's after: the Powell Doctrine.

He seems to be something of an expert in the area of terrorism and international crime, so if he thinks pulling out without stabilizing the country would be disasterous, I tend to at least do him the courtesy of paying attention to him. However, our chance to stabilize the country was most likely with him in the White House, not the Shrub.

I wonder, if he'd gotten into the White House, and seen exactly how truly FUBAR the situation was first-hand, if he wouldn't have ended up doing EXACTLY what you advocate. I don't think we have the resources to do it Powell's way any more. But we can't know how that would have turned out. We're stuck with the Shrub.

It does seem Vietnam-like in some ways, but I do think the ME is a different situation than SE Asia was. There is a certain fundamentalism to deal with, for one thing. I don't think you can compare that to the nationalism of Vietnam, which I understood. When Kerry says that Bin Laden's dream was to create a Muslin superstate, I believe he knows something of which he speaks.

A sad side note: he was talking about pulling the troops out by the end of his presidency if he'd gotten in, something he got blasted for by the Right. Funny how Rummy predicted the same thing AFTER the election.

I don't know. I feel like I can do little but spectate at the moment. Bush has some folks convinced he was right in the Middle East. But it reminds me of what we used to accuse the Soviet Union of doing, which was to cram our way of life down other nation's throats.

Kerry doesn't want to do that. He only wants to crazy glue the pieces back together before we go.

Having said all that, I am waiting for Kerry to remember his own words about the Vietnamization of the Vietnamese. Give him a minute. It'll come to him. If I was to parallel his developement re the war now with his development into an anti-war activist then, I'd say he's in his pre-war postition. Wary of the war, but not full out against it yet. It's a progression with him, I think. Right now, he's still trying to work within the system, as he always does, and still willing to fight.

Why do I get the feeling there's a "Tet" in our future somewhere. If I'm right, you'll see alot of turing against this war as we realize we've essentially wasted two years and countless lives only to have made the situation worse, not better.

Ramble mode off.

[welshTerrier2]

23. actually, it was a nice ramble ... here's mine ...

here's my "big picture" anger at the Democratic Party and especially Kerry ... it's more than clear that the two party system gives anti-war Democrats no place to turn ... their "natural home" would have been the Democratic Party but ...

so we're told if we don't help the Democrats we're helping bush ... but the way many of us see it, the Democrats we're not helping are already helping bush ... they are giving him the money to continue his fucking war ... we see everything bush does as evil ... everything ... if he says he wants democracy, we believe he wants a weak, puppet government ... if he says he wants to train Iraqis to protect themselves, we think he only wants to continue with a destabilized Iraq to justify continued US occupation ... if he says we will pay for this war from Iraqi oil revenues, we know it will never happen ... if he says he wants to "support the troops", we know the troops will not even receive basic protective gear ... if he says he wants to go to the UN and try diplomacy first, we know he intends to go to war ... if he says there are WMD, we know he's lying ... if he says there are Al Qaeda bases in Iraq, we know it's not true ...

so those of us who see nothing but evil and lies in this administration understand that Democrats who hand bush more money to continue this have no guarantees from bush that the money will not be used incorrectly ... much of the monies previously allocated were intended to rebuild Iraq ... it hasn't happened but the money's all been spent ... much of it is missing and unaccounted for ... by voting more money for war, Democrats have to believe that bush and the US government will use the funds to "do the right thing" ... but there's just no evidence this belief is well-founded ... look at the record ... could it be any clearer?

frankly, i'm probably not all that far from leaving the Democratic Party ... i cannot continue to work for and vote for a Party that votes more money for this war ... no decision yet but that's how i'm feeling right now ... and all this anger and frustration i have has no outlet within the Party's mechanisms ... yeah, i call Kerry's office all the time ... they tell me lots of people agree with me ... great ... unfortunately, Kerry doesn't ... his IWR calls ran 20-1 against IWR and he still voted for it ... the Party is critically in need of reform (i'm working to try to bring that about) ... would i be willing to compromise if i could get some assurances that my concerns about a long-term occupation would be unacceptable to the Democratic Party? ... maybe ... we lack a real forum for grassroots participation in defining how the Party will vote on key issues ... waiting for elections (and primaries) is not adequate ... here is a list of some of the questions i raised earlier ... i see little if any effort from most elected Democrats to fight for these issues ... perhaps if there were more dialog with the grassroots and a greater sense of confidence that Democrats would fight for many of the things outlined below, there would be less anger ... but from where i'm sitting, the Democrats have shirked their role on foreign policy 100% and all they seem do to is vote with bush ...

Where is the Democratic Party on these issues and when are they going to start fighting for the things i believe in (on foreign policy)?

1. 14 permanent military bases are being built ... has Kerry talked about these bases?
2. will Kerry insist on assurances that no US presence will remain in Iraq long-term?
3. will Kerry talk about the missing $9 billion? ... i noted he did not attend the hearing on the missing money ... why not ??
4. will Kerry call for investigations of Halliburton, Bechtel and other trans-national corporations and their roll in Iraq?
5. many anti-war Democrats believe Syria and Iran are next ... has Kerry spoken out about those countries? is it just possible that funds allocated for Iraq will be used to begin operations in Iran and Syria?
6. the destabilized Middle East has resulted in record profits in the oil industry directly attributable to rising oil prices ... why should oil companies profit from US military actions in the region? has Kerry called for an investigation of the oil companies and their "excess profits"?
7. it's absurd to say that naming any timeline would jeopardize US efforts ... will the same argument be made a year from now? 3 years? 10 years? 25 years?

[peacetalksforall]

12. I can't buy anything you say to defend him and the others....we watched

it happening...the lies, the positioning. Those votes to authorize killing and the rhetoric preceding it only accomplished a delay in the invasion date because it required Cheney and the pnacers to go to the UN first (where Cheney and the pnacers slapped them around a little with Powells' lies).

The planned takeover was in progress for years into decades.

Dems are elected to know more than we do and act. These Dems are complicit in the killing. They, by implication and vote, are complicit in the takeover of the world if they knew as much as we learned about it all.

If they would fess up and say they knew what we knew and felt like we did, but did it for the votes, I might go easier on them.

Nice defense, however.

[TayTay]

13. I still don't buy this

I do not buy your central argument that the Dems knew what the Bushies knew. I think information was withheld from them. We had the false story about Nigerian yellowcake coming out. We had a lot of disinformation that clouded that decision for a lot of people. The plain truth is that these people thought Iraq had WMD and could use them. That is the only thing that ever justiified that vote. (I have read their actualy words and this is what they said.)

They were lied to. How can so many people who acknowledge how bad the Bush Admin is refuse to acknowledge this fact. The Senate was lied to, in order to get the vote that the Bushie wanted. In light of all the other awful and illegal and immoral things they have done, why is this so hard to believe.

[peacetalksforall]

15. TayTay Did you follow DU at the time...there were all kinds of

exposures, testimonies, analyses....so many people on DU and on the outside 'knew' the truth. Scott Ritter and Blix of Sweden and others told us that there weren't any WMDs that they could find. The case built. We learned about the letter to Clinton signed by Cheney and all the pnacers in 1988 'asking' to invade Iraq. We now have all the after the fact knowledge about the agenda of the pnacers.

Most importantly, we were told that the terrorists were directed by bin Laden who was being supported by the Taliban of Afghanistan. The rhetoric pointed a gun at Afghanistan, but Rumsfeld and Franks and Cheney and Halliburton and all the other charmers said oh no we can't go to war in Afghanistan...too many mountains...or something like that so they turned and shot Iraq....just like they had planned for decades.

Why were they always so angry at Clinton? Because he caused a delay in the plans. Why did the steal the vote from Gore? Because it would have cost a delay in the plans.

They are right where they want to be. And realizing it isn't hindsight. If the Dems didn't know about the plans, they are stupid, If they knew about the plans, then they are complicit.

[Mass]

16. In October 2002 when the vote was taken?

I remember Blix and Ritter saying that a few months after in January, February, but the vote was taken earlier.

[TayTay]

6. Please show me an actual speech

wherein these folks have said what you allege. The votes on IWR were based on the universally held theory that there were WMDs in Iraq. The Senate believed this when they voted on this issue. The world believed this as statements from the French, the Germans and others attest. They (and we, the American public) were lied to.

Interestingly enough, in case you even remotely care about the actual bad guys in this, the Republicans in the * Admin, John Bolton was one of the guys in State who helped to block information from getting out that Iraq might not have WMDs. (There have been press reports that Bolton was taking orders from Dick Cheney, even though he was working for Colin Powell at State.) He is a bad guy and he should not be confirmed as UN Ambassador.

I understand that going after Democrats is the most important things in some Dems life. You will pardon me if I don't join in. I think it is more important to go after the actual perpetrators of the bad policies in Iraq, Bush and the Republican Party. But, pay no attention to this, just go about your mindless vendetta.

[welshTerrier2]

7. "the actual perpetrators of the bad policies"

here's a list of 162 Democrats who qualify as perpetrators of the bad policies in Iraq: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll077.xml ... the bad policies are being pushed by bush and the neo-cons ... the 162 are apparently willing accomplices ...

[LittleClarkie]

10. Apparently? Have you oversimplified all their stances as well?

Not to mention, pulling it all out of the context in which Bush lied to get us in there in the first place. The falsified evidence must have been quite convincing.

I'd ask you for what TayTay requested X 162, but I understand that would take a while.

[TayTay]

11. Really

They designed the policies? They wrote up the Pentagon battle plans and designed the war? Someone ought to tell Donald Rumsfeld that he's been replaced. Apparently there was a coup d'etat and nobody bothered to tell him.

None of those Dems designed this. They voted on this with the info they had at the time. I was not then nor am I now a supporter of this war in Iraq. But we are there. We have to deal with what is actually happening, not with what we wished had happened. That is the plain truth. And I am not sure that a pullout is a good thing to do. I don't want another bloodbath. And I am genuinely afraid that this is what will happen.

Does that excuse the Bush Admin from the war crimes I believe they have committed? No. But it does mean that I don't think the country is stable enough to go it alone at this time.

What do you think will happen in Iraq if the US leave abruptly?

[welshTerrier2]

19. sorry, but this is silly and it's not what i said

i didn't say anything about Democrats designing the policies ... i said they were willing accomplices because they voted for them ...

you seem to believe the vote i cited in my post was based on the original IWR ... it wasn't ... the vote i described was taking last week to continue the funding for bush's agenda in Iraq ... those who support the commission of the crime bear some responsibility as perpetrators ...

what do i think will happen if the US leaves Iraq abruptly ... well, perhaps the entire city of Fallujah will be bombed into the stoneage? ... ummm, nope, the US already did that ... daily violence? ... yup, probably daily violence ... lack of food, water, utilities? ... already have those after 2 years of US "help" ... more than 100,000 dead Iraqis? that's how many have died so far ... more will die whether the US leaves or not ... some really pissed off oil company executives and stockholders? ... count on it ...

i have not called for the US to leave abruptly ... i think we need to set a timetable, probably around 3 - 6 months and get the hell out of there ... in the interim, the UN and other Muslim nations should convene negotiations among the regional factions in Iraq ... there will never be the stability you're seeking as long as US troops remain in there ... remember, bush's agenda is not peace, it's not democracy, it's corporate exploitation ... if peace, democracy and stability are not even goals, they will never be achieved ..

[Mass]

14. So should we fire outstandish Representatives

like John Conyers or Stephanie Tubbs Jones (half of the Black Caucus, I guess). Good, I get to keep my Congressman (Markey).

[K-W]

20. You clearly dont understand the process that led to the war.

Congress passed no bills authorizing the use of force against an unarmed Iraq nor before the inspections were exhausted.

Bush's war was illegal and anyone spreading the lie that congress approved it is taking Bush off the hook, and I dont know why anyone would want to do that.

[welshTerrier2]

22. so, by your own argument ...

since the war is illegal, which Democrats have stood up to say it was ???

IIRC, most of them seem to go along with the premise that the CIA provided bad intelligence ... the CIA's motives never seem to be questioned, only their competence ... and if the war is illegal, wouldn't voting to continue funding for the war (which many Democrats have done) be wrong?

and as far as "spreading the lie that Congress approved the war", i'm still waiting for them to cut-off funding ... seems like most in Congress have been going along for the ride ... voting more funds to continue the war is kind of "approving" it, isn't it ??

btw, i don't agree with your assessment of whether the IWR did or didn't authorize the use of force ... but let's not revisit that again ...