Kerry And Hillary Are Wrong.

[Don1]

It is wrong to send more troops to Iraq. We need to stop killing Iraqi civilians and US soldiers over there. There is no reason for us to be there except to secure interests for the corporate and political elite. That is the true reason Cindy Sheehan's son died. We need to get out now.

If you disagree or are not sure, read this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1832524

[Don1]

1. The response was underwhelming.

Seriously, I do not understand. Clinton and Kerry are completely detached from their base on this one and from the American public. The majority of Americans do not think more troops are the answer.

Now, additionally, I have polled DU. The vast majority favor withdrawal, not a troop increase...Here are the results:


So why no discussion of this issue?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2047922

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Totally Committed]

2. Maureen Dowd writes up Hillary's motives:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2048822

TC

[Don1]

4. Typical.

I am disgusted. It seems like too much our leaders think about political maneuvering and not just doing the right thing.

It is almost like they do not realize that if they do the right thing, then that is a very powerful and long-lasting political maneuver.

[JohnnyBoots]

3. kick

[Don1]

19. Thanks. n/t

[wyldwolf]

5. wow. Hmm... I agree but I have a motive

We need an exit strategy in Iraq for sure. Our continued involvement there is tying up our military and funding, preventing our resources from being used where they are sorely need - namely - Darfur. Our continued involvement in Iraq is going to cost thousands upon thousands more lives in Iraq and in places like Darfur where we will not be able to act.

I believe the next president will be a Democrat. There is pressure bubbling under now for a humanitarian mission in Darfur. Unlike the mostly made-up reasons for the Iraq invasion, the reasons for a Darfur intervention are real. But if the American people are fatiqued by war and become even more distrusting of our leaders when they call for military use, legitimate military acts will be hard to sell to the citizens of our country.

http://www.beawitness.org/splash/

http://www.darfurgenocide.org/

http://coalitionfordarfur.blogspot.com/2005/04/stop-killing-in-darfur.html

[Totally Committed]

7. Thank you with all my heart for this post...

Darfur is a horror in which our inaction defines us as a Nation. Shamefully.

TC

[wyldwolf]

8. we have a problem, though

Action in Darfur must be sold to the American people. Even on DU, people are indifferent to it.

I think there needs to be a concerted effort from the left to get into Darfur. It could start on DU.

Though the reasons for a Darfur intervention speak for themselves, a call to action from the left would also show that some of us aren't "antiwar" but are anti-THIS-war (Iraq).

[Totally Committed]

10. I agree.

Thanks again for pushing this issue.

TC

[Don1]

18. Problem...

I have read high estimates that 400,000 people have been killed in this region. Surely, something must be done, but a humanitarian intervention is not always what it is cracked up to be. Here are some issues that we would need to address:
(1) Collateral damage;
(2) The military industrial complex;
(3) Fascist control of the territory after intervention.
(4) Did we play a role in destabilizing the area in the first place?
(5) Do the people wants us there to intervene? If so, in what way? All sides?

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Don1]

33. As in...

we need a humanitarian intervention in the DLC?

I like that slogan.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

36. "Humanitarian" is sooo "leftist."

Could we call it "forging alliances?"

Or "moving to the middle?"

Or "KILL ME NOW?"

[wyldwolf]

47. Darfur/Wesley Clark?

http://platform.blogs.com/passionofthepresent/2005/08/nato_forces_nee.html

[spaniard]

48. Darfur/Howard Dean?

"Europeans cannot criticize the United States for waging war in Iraq if they are unwilling to exhibit the moral fiber to stop genocide by acting collectively and with decisiveness. President Bush was wrong to go into Iraq unilaterally when Iraq posed no danger to the United States, but we were right to demand accountability from Saddam. We are also right to demand accountability in Sudan. Every day that goes by without meaningful sanctions and even military intervention in Sudan by African, European and if necessary U.N. forces is a day where hundreds of innocent civilians die and thousands are displaced from their land. Every day that goes by without action to stop the Sudan genocide is a day that the anti-Iraq war position so widely held in the rest of the world appears to be based less on principle and more on politics. And every day that goes by is a day in which George Bush's contempt for the international community, which I have denounced every day for two years, becomes more difficult to criticize."

http://www.caglecartoons.com/previewColumn.asp?columnID={164AD899-E91F-4E98-8A80-9B3D20F97D38}

[welshTerrier2]

41. "the reasons for a Darfur intervention are real"

the reasons SHOULD BE real; we need to safeguard that IF we use our military for humanitarian reasons, the objectives are honest ... and let's take that one step further ... the US cannot act unilaterally nor can it build a phony coalition ... i'd be willing to use NATO forces (including the US) but the terms have to be very clearly spelled out ... it's NOT that legitimate military acts will be hard to sell; it's that anything bush is selling will be hard to sell ... btw, many of us are not distrusting of our leaders because we "became fatigued by war"; we're distrusting because we believe their motives were for imperial gain rather than the parade of reasons they provided ... the Darfur genocide has a lot to do with oil ... we need to intervene immediately because of the human crisis but let's make sure this doesn't become a front for grabbing more oil from Sudan ...

this is a rerun of a post i made several days ago:

we've spent considerable time and bandwidth this past few days talking about the human tragedy in Darfur ... somewhere between half a million to as many as two million have died at the hands of their own government ... some 300 - 400 a day continue to die while the rest of the world stands by and does virtually nothing ... that has to change and has to be our immediate focus ...

but what's causing all this killing??? ... is this just some kind of just-for-fun killing spree orchestrated by a government out of control?

not according to the following essay ... you remember that famous line near the end of the movie Casablanca: "round up all the usual suspects"? well, here we go again ... sitting at the core of Darfur's geo-politics is OIL ... and that means trouble ... that means THE EVIL ONES have been sniffing around ... that means that human life is no match for the prospect of profits ... that means bush, big oil, Halliburton, et al ...

source: http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2005/08/war_of_the_future.html

Yes, racism enters into our refusal to even try to understand Africa, let alone value African lives. And yes, surely we're witnessing the kind of denial that Samantha Power documents in A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide; the sheer difficulty we have acknowledging genocide. Once we acknowledge it, she observes, we pay lip-service to humanitarian ideals, but stand idly by. And yes, turmoil in Africa may evoke our experience in Somalia, with its graphic images of American soldiers being dragged through the streets by their heels. But all of this is trumped, I believe, by something just as deep: an unwritten conspiracy of silence that prevents the media from making the connections that would threaten our petroleum-dependent lifestyle, that would lead us to acknowledge the fact that the industrial world's addiction to oil is laying waste to Africa. <skip>

In short, the Islamist regime has manipulated ethnic, racial, and economic tensions, as part of a strategic drive to commandeer the country's oil wealth. The war has claimed about two million lives, mostly in the south -- many by starvation, when government forces prevented humanitarian agencies from gaining access to camps. Another four million Sudanese remain homeless. The regime originally sought to impose shariah, or Islamic, law on the predominantly Christian and animist South. Khartoum dropped this demand, however, under terms of the Comprehensive Peace Treaty signed last January. The South was to be allowed to operate under its own civil law, which included rights for women; and in six years, southerners could choose by plebiscite whether to separate or remain part of a unified Sudan. The all-important oil revenues would be divided between Khartoum and the SPLA-held territory. Under a power-sharing agreement, SPLA commander John Garang would be installed as vice president of Sudan, alongside President Omar al-Bashir. Darfur, to the west, was left out of this treaty. In a sense, the treaty -- brokered with the help of the U.S. -- was signed at the expense of Darfur, a parched area the size of France, sparsely populated but oil rich. <skip>

With the signing of the treaty last January, and the prospect of stability for most of war-torn Sudan, new seismographic studies were undertaken by foreign oil companies in April. These studies had the effect of doubling Sudan's estimated oil reserves, bringing them to at least 563 million barrels. They could yield substantially more. Khartoum claims the amount could total as much as 5 billion barrels. That's still a pittance compared to the 674 billion barrels of proven oil reserves possessed by the six Persian Gulf countries -- Saudi Arabia, Iraq, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Iran, and Qatar. The very modesty of Sudan's reserves speaks volumes to the desperation with which industrial nations are grasping for alternative sources of oil.

The rush for oil is wreaking havoc on Sudan. Oil revenues to Khartoum have been about $1 million a day, exactly the amount which the government funnels into arms -- helicopters and bombers from Russia, tanks from Poland and China, missiles from Iran. Thus, oil is fueling the genocide in Darfur at every level. This is the context in which Darfur must be understood -- and, with it, the whole of Africa. The same Africa whose vast tapestry of indigenous cultures, wealth of forests and savannas was torn apart by three centuries of theft by European colonial powers -- seeking slaves, ivory, gold, and diamonds -- is being devastated anew by the 21st century quest for oil.

****** LISTEN TO THIS NEXT LINE DU'ers !!! ******
Oil companies and exploration companies like Halliburton wield political and sometimes military power. <skip>

Nothing could end the slaughter faster than the President of the United States standing up for Darfur and making a strong case before the United Nations. Ours is the only country with such clout. This is unimaginable, of course, for various reasons. It seems clear that Bush, and the oil companies that contributed so heavily to his 2000 presidential campaign, would like to see the existing trade sanctions on Sudan removed, so U.S. companies can get a piece of the action. Instead of standing up, the President has kept mum -- leaving it to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to put the best face she can on his policy of appeasing Khartoum.

[Q]

50. Here comes the devil's advocate...

If the next president is a Democrat it will be by default. It's too bad that it won't be because the top contenders are offering a better agenda...especially in Iraq.

Hillary and Kerry should start listening to the American people and their base instead of Rove and polls conducted by a bought-off media. They should simply do what's right instead of politically expedient.

People can spot a true leader a mile away. It's too bad that so far the Dems are still thinking in terms of offering the lesser of two evils.

There is every reason in the world to put together a plan for withdrawal and leave Iraq as soon as possible. There's no reason to stay there beyond propping up the 'war president' and those who aspire to take his place.

[wyldwolf]

59. when the presidency switches parties, it is usually by default

[AllyCat]

6. I totally agree

We must get out of there. We are killing more people than ever before and now 1) need our troops at home and 2) are bringing more death and destruction to the people of Iraq who NEVER asked for our help. Under Saddam, they had power, water, and women could vote. We've made a total mess.

I do agree with Wes Clark though that we need to get some diplomacy in there pronto and shore Iraq up with its neighbors, particularly those we don't seem to like much. The pullout will take 18 months in most estimations I have seen. So start the pullout, get rid of idiots like Bolton who wouldn't know diplomacy from the butts, put some people in there who will work with these folks, get them talking, and get the *uck out of there.

Then work on alternative energy at home and tell the oil companies where to shove it if they protest.

And don't send me as the diplomat...as you can see, I wouldn't be very good at it.

[Don1]

40. Hey, I agree with you.

About the alternative energy thing, I am going to start a separate thread on that. Look for it...


Here it is:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2049866

[LittleClarkie]

9. That neither is an "out now" person

doesn't mean their motivations are the same. Hillary appears to be a true stay the course person, while Kerry reminds me of Dean and Clark in his "not where we should be but let's not create a bigger problem" stance.

[Don1]

20. That's a good point.

And actually one I did not think about. However, I still think they are both wrong. I went into some length as to why in the link in the op.

[Larkspur]

13. And both are hypocrites. Neither will send their kids to Iraq

[jackbourassa]

14. You realize this is the least popular option to the US public

Jesus Christ, WHAT IS WRONG WITH HILLARY CLINTON AND JOHN KERRY!!!!!

My biggest fear is that we nominate Hillary and the GOP nominate someone who promises to end the war.

Then the party which actually opposes Iraq will be forced to defend - not only continuing the war - but increasing US presense in the region.

NO MORE DLC idiot nominees. NEVER AGAIN!!!!!!!!!

[KoKo]

15. You might not be far off in your strategy concern...given what we've all

seen. :-(

[Don1]

37. I agree.

That might destroy the party for good. I fear it, too.

Maybe something better would come along after?

[Freddie Stubbs]

54. Their 'kids' are adults who cannot be sent into the military

on their parents' orders. Are you suggesting that there should be a draft?

[Don1]

60. There already is.

It's a virtual draft. If you are a poor bastard, it is what you do. If you are a rich bastard son of a Congressman, it is what you do not do. Ever look at the breakdown of economic class in the military? And now, kids in public schools are forced to give info through the No Child Left Behind Act. How about kids in private schools?

[Freddie Stubbs]

78. There are lots of 'poor bastards' who are not serving in the military

No one is being trrown in jail for refusing to enlist.

[Goldeneye]

16. It's not just Kerry and Clinton

that think we need to stay in Iraq. There are a number of other democrats who advocate staying for varying lengths of time, for various reasons, or until various dates pass. Clark doesn't believe we should withdraw immediately. Neither does Feingold. I don't even think the Woolsey ammendment asked for immediate withdrawal. As for sending more troops, I kind of remember Hillary saying something about it, but don't remember Kerry's statements on it. Is there a link somewhere?

[leesa]

17. He campaigned on it.

All the neocon dems want the war to go on because they know we need to steal the oil.

[Goldeneye]

22. Is there a link to a speech or something where he said it?

[Don1]

24. The Debates.

There should be a link to the debate text somewhere.

[karynnj]

34. Kerry has actually said (in his standard campaign speech)

that we need to innovate to get alterative fuels and to more efficiently use fuel so WE ARE NOT HOSTAGE to countries like Saudi Arabia. He also did say the first Gulf war was for oil. He has said NO PERMANENT bases. He criticised Bush for securing the oil ministry rather than the weapons that were under UN control, or the museums and historical sites.

I don't know what can be distorted to mean he wanted to control the oil.

[Don1]

38. Don't take this personal about Kerry.

Do not personalize the Kerry thing. This is about policy and not Kerry. I wrote that the only people this war serves are the corporate and political elite. That does not mean it would be Kerry's intent to do that, unless you really personalize the war to be defined as Kerry. It's not. The war is about dead Iraqi kids. Many of them. And corporate profit. And Americans who were lied to and many of whom are still completely brainwashed. We have to fight for the right policy here. It's not about our favorite political leaders.

[karynnj]

44. YOU made a statement that I was attempting to refute

with what Kerry said and what his positions were. I wouldn't care if you posted, "I don't like Kerry", but you posted that KERRY was for for the war for oil. Kerry demanded that Bush let the inspectors have more time. He was against going in when we did - he was actually more openly and publicly against the war than Dean at that time.

If you look at Kerry positions, speeches and history, he is not for the elite and he is most certainly not pro-war.

[Don1]

61. That's crazy talk.

I did not say, "KERRY was for for the war for oil."

I wrote this: "There is no reason for us to be there except to secure interests for the corporate and political elite."

I am going to ask you one question and one only. Did Kerry say in the debates to send in more troops or not?

[Mass]

65. NO HE DID NOT!!!

He said that the generals have recommended more troops in 2002 and that Bush did not listen to them. He never said: send more troops now. Actually, he said that we should not have entered iraq.

[Don1]

69. Please chill.

Please chill the caps. I am discussing this important issue rationally. Here is just one of several news outlets that covered Kerry's campaign to send in more troops:
Boston Globe, February 16th, 2005
"WASHINGTON - Senator John F. Kerry yesterday called for the United States to add 40,000 troops to its ground forces and improve benefits to military families, the latest in a series of signature issues from his presidential campaign that he has pledged to push in Congress."

[Freddie Stubbs]

66. USA Today: Kerry says he would send more troops to Iraq if necessary

By Jill Lawrence, USA TODAY
MIAMI — More U.S. troops and a new president could be needed to win international support for U.S. efforts in postwar Iraq, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said Sunday.
The Massachusetts senator said President Bush has created a "quandary" for the nation by failing to develop a broad coalition to fight the war, to secure Iraq and to let countries that didn't fight participate in rebuilding.

"It may well be that we need a new president, a breath of fresh air, to re-establish our credibility with the rest of the world" and bring other countries into Iraq, Kerry said on NBC's Meet the Press.

He also said that "if it requires more troops in order to create the stability that eliminates the chaos" discouraging the United Nations and other countries from helping, "that's what we have to do."

more: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-04-18-kerry-nbc_x.htm

[Don1]

68. And in 2005, too.

Boston Globe, February 16th, 2005
"WASHINGTON - Senator John F. Kerry yesterday called for the United States to add 40,000 troops to its ground forces and improve benefits to military families, the latest in a series of signature issues from his presidential campaign that he has pledged to push in Congress."

[Don1]

23. Sort of...

I probably wouldn't go so far as to call them neo-cons, though. There are only a couple of those among Dems (imo). They are more like hawkish liberals and hawkish centrists. Many of these political terms have to do with where one stands politically, too, as the definitions are in part relative to yourself.

[karynnj]

32. Kerry is not a neocon and he campaigned on a 4 step plan

that would get us out without leaving chaos. He has talked about how it is getting progressively worse and has stated what he would recommend on MTP in Jan and the NYT in July. One key is he wants no permanent bases.

His proposal is not far from even from Feingold - Feingold wants a target date but would not leave till various plitical things happen - things that sound like Kerry's goals. Kerry is focused on actions, as is Feingold - but Feingold wants to set a publisized date by which we want to be out. There are pros and cons to this - it could push people to do things to meet the date or it may create disappointment and anger if it is delayed.

[wisteria]

26. Kerry has not mentioned sending in more American soldiers!

He has suggested that Bush work with other world leaders willing to take on and train more Iraqi troops. This would provide them with more protection and insure they are well trained and ready for battle.

[Don1]

28. Didn't you watch the debates? n/t

[wisteria]

42. Yes! And he stated Bush got it wrong by going to war with not

enough troops. That is why we are in the mess we are in over there. Bush ignored the military recommendations for a larger fighting force going in! Going In!!!!!
Kerry has not proposed sending more of our troops in now, just a better plan to train more Iraqi troops so they can defend their country.

[Don1]

63. Why would you send more troops in to kill more kids?

The occupation itself is what causes the insurgency. The insurgency lengthens the war. The length of war is directly correlated with the deaths of the kids. Stop the killing and leave!

http://www.yourtaxdollaratwork.com

[Don1]

70. He said both.

He said we should have started with more. And he was also for more troops later, too.
February 16th, Boston Globe
"WASHINGTON - Senator John F. Kerry yesterday called for the United States to add 40,000 troops to its ground forces and improve benefits to military families, the latest in a series of signature issues from his presidential campaign that he has pledged to push in Congress."

[karynnj]

71. Adding 40,000 troops is not the same as sending them to Iraq

I read the full speech at the time. Kerry said then, as he has since that the total number of soldiers in the armed services is currently too low. They are depending too much on the National Guard and having a backdoor draft by extending tours of duty. He also said people who served were being sent back for second and third tours.

He did say Bush disregarded the millitary on force size needed to win and secure Iraq. He said both that it was not a last resort - and Bush should not have attacked AND that given that he did it, he did it poorly.

[Don1]

73. Nope.

While facing very low recruitment numbers, where do you think these soldiers would be sent by the current Commander-in-Chief?

[Mass]

64. You right, Kerry did not say anything of the sort, but they cannot be

bothered with the truth.

[Don1]

67. Who cannot be bothered with the truth?

Boston Globe, February 16th, 2005:
"WASHINGTON - Senator John F. Kerry yesterday called for the United States to add 40,000 troops to its ground forces and improve benefits to military families, the latest in a series of signature issues from his presidential campaign that he has pledged to push in Congress."

[karynnj]

72. Please try to parse the Globe lead sentence

it DOES NOT SAY that 40,000 troops should be sent to Iraq, but that the US shold have 40,000 more ground troops. In Kerry's speech, the concern was the military was stretched too thin and the NG was carrying too great a load - which seem prescient today!

[Don1]

75. Read the whole article.

Not NG. 30,000 full-time Army and 10,000 full-time Marines. Where do you think El Presidente would deploy them?

[karynnj]

79. I didn't say the new soldiers were to be National Guard

The problem is that with the current millitary numbers, too many NG are in Iraq and they are staying for as long as 2 years!

Kerry's intent was as stated was to keep the same number of soldiers in Iraq, without the incredible extensions of their tours and to leave more NG in this country. I would support this more if Kerry were President for the very reason you give.

I think if Kerry were President, we would already be seeing some troops returning. His goals and his steps were far nore pragmatic than Bush's

[Don1]

82. Look at the ramifications.

Kerry called for 40K more troops while the BushCo war was raging. It is doubtful that Bush would do anything but use these troops for Iraq, so I still think that what I wrote in the op title is correct: "Kerry and Hillary Are Wrong." I realize that if Kerry were President, he might move troops out to be replaced by international forces. However, it might even be too late for that and it is really a tangent from the main point. The main point is that regardless of Kerry's intent on recruiting more troops, regardless of Kerry being better than Bush, regardless of Kerry being an all-around nice guy, Kerry's policy itself is wrong. We seem like we might even be in agreement on this. Are we?

[zulchzulu]

21. A few levels of thought on this...

I personally believe we need to leave...not immediately...but under a timetable offered like Russ Feingold's.

I also support what people like Kerry, Clark, Dean, Feingold and others have said in 2004...more troops in to secure the country, train Iraqis to become defendable of their country and have an exit plan to leave.

That was 2004. Stories like the DSM and other revelations make staying in Iraq a foolish effort and the efforts to bring more troops with better armor seems fruitless.

I'm not sure about Hillary, but I'd venture to guess that Kerry is more within Feingold's reasoning on the war.

[Don1]

27. I think I understand your points.

Your points seem much more short-term practical, though, rather than being principled. The fact is that this war is immoral. People are dying daily. The only way to stop that is leave (immediately or almost immediately).

In the long run, I believe that this move would in fact be more practical, too. The Iraqi citizens would appreciate it and so would their neighbors.

A statement could be made to save face, too: "Because of our assistance in bringing elections to Iraq and our help building a framework for healthy democratic debate, Iraq is now ready for independence. The Iraqis have the capability and freedom to govern themselves and so we will begin our withdrawal immediately and in a manner and at a schedule which is safe for all involved. If the Iraqi people so desire, UN peacekeepers can be deployed to the country to help this process. The Iraqi people are ready to finalize their own government, so that it is a government for the Iraqi people, of the Iraqi people, and by the Iraqi people. Let freedom ring. Blah Blah Blah"

See?

[wisteria]

43. I agree!!!! n/t

[fairplay]

25. Dem. leaders who want to stay the course,

Dem. leaders who don't want to set a date certain for withdrawal, Dem. leaders who what to send 400,000 more troops.....should be asked when their kids are signing up. Last time I looked Kerry, Biden, Clinton all have young healthy looking sons and daughters. When are they signing up? As Cindy Sheehan said....they don't have skin in the game. I'll vote for Hillary when I see Chelsy driveing a suppley truck in Iraq!

[Don1]

31. Why would they do that?

when they are busy going to the Dominican Republic to recruit soldiers...

Seriously, if these people really believe in the war, then why aren't they making personal sacrifices? It is a good question.

[newyawker99]

57. Hi fairplay!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Don1]

62. Yes, hello and welcome!

It's good to hear your opinion on this.

[politicasista]

30. We need to put the blame where it should be and help the victims

These are dangerous times in America with Katrina and Iraq. Let's support the dems who are speaking out and offering sympathy and help for the victims instead of tearing them down.

[Don1]

35. I'm not sure if I get you.

When you say victims, what do you mean? US soldiers, Americans, Louisianians, Iraqis?

I agree that we need to help the victims. Not stopping the slaughter of Iraqi children is passive violence. It is complicity with BushCo.

We cannot let our Democratic leaders send in more troops to kill more children. We need to speak up.

These are the victims (WARNING: graphic):
http://www.yourtaxdollaratwork.com/index.html

[karynnj]

45. You are so right

[Dr Fate]

39. Like 'em both- but I agree.

I dont care how they solve it- but I say no new troops unless they bring back the draft.

[kodi]

46. they can both fuck off. send their own family if it means so godamned much

.

[Don1]

55. I agree. n/t

[xchrom]

49. the iraqis must work out iraq's problems.

the civil war is inevitable -- no matter how long troops stay.

the country has no real consensus -- and won't have until certain issues are worked out -- and i think they will have to fight it out.

i'm not saying it isn't ugly -- but as bush has so efficiently demonstrated -- we humans are sometimes very ugly creatures.

[Don1]

53. Right.

The thing I wonder about is whether or not BushCo is intentionally destabilizing the country, to make it easier to control. Sort of like divide and conquer...

[Mairead]

51. Thanks and a big bump

You bring up an excellent point. Politicians are playing politics with people's lives instead of being the managers and problem-solvers we're paying them to be.

When are we going to start holding their feet to the fire? Why aren't we doing it now? Are we too stupid? Too juvenile?

[Don1]

52. Hmmm...

Maybe we just have low expectations based on previous results. Some people, too, if not really stupid, are virtually stupid because of all the brainwashing in the news media. There is that article flying around called "Waiting for a leader." Perhaps, when we see one, everyone will hop on board. We need one like what's-his-name from the UK, Galloway?

[karynnj]

81. You saw Galloway make a fool of Coleman

a thing Coleman seems to do all by himself in virtually every Senate hearing I've seen him in. What other than the fact that he has a rapier wit and is very anti-war do you know about him? A mention of his name to a group of English friends (left of their center), did not result in accolades!

[Lexingtonian]

56. what you are really fishing for

is an explanation, right?

Look, there are two or three facts of primary importance if you're a leading Democratic politician.

1. If you propose something that is a real and realistic solution, the Bush people will prefer to fight you and your idea rather than defend what they are actually doing (or, not doing). You are shut out from actually influencing decisions, everything Iraq from Democrats is in practice an issue of partisan power in the public arena. There are simply no war supporters that can be appealed to on the basis of reason at present.

2. The people whose opinion decides the balance of power, about the Iraq dispute and in the '06 elections (and given continued Indie lack of energy, the '08 elections), are the moderate Republican voter bloc. There's no point in fighting moderate Republicans- that just works to antagonize them to no productive effect. The political position to take to avoid conflict with moderate Republicans is a personally definite, politically semipassive stance in favor of the general concept (just like moderate Republicans are doing).

3. I think Kerry is getting this right, positioning part of the top of the Party to where moderate Republicans find no reason for offense. Hillary's logic is roughly the same but she's been less adept and thinks moderate Republican women need to be more openly confirmed in certain kinds of beliefs...which I think is a misjudgment.

4. It's not a smart move to be associated with the 'anti-war' crowd at the moment. The 'anti-war' crowd looks too Sixties-ish and insufficiently mainstream, and its political position is, for all the virtue and power of its emotional strength, insufficiently rational or fact-based for actual policy. The anti-war movement is great at getting at Republicans impervious to reason, at undermining Bush and the GOP generally, but it doesn't have any serious role in issues of governance.

[Don1]

58. I respectfully disagree.

Strategy
As far as strategy, I strongly disagree with this premise:
"The people whose opinion decides the balance of power, about the Iraq dispute and in the '06 elections (and given continued Indie lack of energy, the '08 elections), are the moderate Republican voter bloc."

This is not true. Always in polls, approximately 1/3 identify as Dems, 1/3 as Repubs, and 1/3 as Independents. The Independents are not moderate Republicans. The moderates in the Republican bloc are moderate Republicans. For example, when a poll was conducted about views on Pat Robertson's assassination wording, 80% of the people were against it. That was the Dems, the Independents, and the moderate Republicans. The most reasonable breakdown of the percent would be 33% Democrats + 34% Independents + 13% moderate Republicans. Now, if you look at Bush approval ratings right now, they are the following from Rasmussen:
Dems – 18%
Reps – 78%
Inds – 37%

This again shows that the people to convince are Independents and not moderate Republicans. The gain is 63%x34%=21% as opposed to 22%x33%=7%. Therefore, capturing this bloc is a much bigger fish than the moderate Republican.

Furthermore, the number 1 reason for Independents' "lack of energy" in not voting is always due to not seeing a difference in the two parties. That is in the polling, too.

Finally, always trying to capture the moderate Republican will only serve to continually move the Democrats rightward.

Values

We need to do what is right. Killing 50,000 Iraqi children is wrong. We need someone like Galloway to stand up to the political elite on this one. He kicked butt. Everyone will recognize someone like that as a leader and that person will win.

Enough political maneuvering already. Stop the killing. Someone else in the thread was right: Newt Gingrich would have shut down the government by now.

[WildEyedLiberal]

74. Can this useless thread die already?

I'm glad some DUer feels the need to post red herring bullshit attacking Dems when there are obviously bigger issues going on today. People have explained Kerry's position several times on this thread, yet the OP obviously has an agenda of which the facts get in the way. When did Democratic Underground turn into Handwringing Radical Leftist Underground? Did I miss the renaming ceremony?

[politicasista]

76. LOL!

:yourock:

[Don1]

77. More important things?

To who? Read the thread if you want. Don't read it, if you don't want to. Your choice.

I was responding to those claims about Kerry's position today that you claim are incorrect. It is important to note that Kerry did call for more troops just like Hillary.

Obviously, you do not like this fact and so wish the thread and me to be silenced. The majority of DU as polled is against this "more troops" policy.

[karynnj]

80. More troops WHERE?

There is a very big difference between:
- More troops to salvage a stretched too thin military
and
- More troops in Iraq

[Don1]

83. Answer...

Wherever El Presidente deploys the troops, which would be Iraq now and some other crazy place like Iran or Korea later.