Dems and the War

[welshTerrier2]

"We won't support any candidate who won't call for a speedy end to the war" - The Nation

There will be numerous ideas discussed in the coming days about what to do in Iraq ... that there is finally at least the beginnings of a national dialog on this insanity is great to see ...

and it is certainly true that Democrats are not in control of the Congress and the WH and must use public pressure, political pressure created by bush's incredible weakness and plain old common sense to make their case ...

one thing's for sure though, another year or more in Iraq is going to result in many, many more dead Americans ... those making a case to remain in Iraq need to acknowledge that they consider such loss a necessary cost of pursuing whatever objectives they believe can be achieved ...

let's remember, no matter what your view, that for the last 2 years and 8 months since the US invaded Iraq, we have averaged TWO AMERICAN DEATHS A DAY ... to me, spending another day and another drop of American blood is unconscionable ... and it's not just those who die; for every two who die, there are another 6 or 7 severely wounded, their lives forever changed ... that's every single day ... the numbers add up fast as each and every day goes by ... calling for another year or waiting until some "you can't get there from here" objective is achieved is going to cost plenty ...

it's time to say "Enough is enough" ... and it's time to say that those who refuse to back the majority of Americans who want this war over ASAP do not deserve our support ...

The Nation magazine "gets it"!!!

source: http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1110-36.htm

The war has also become the single greatest threat to our national security. Its human and economic costs are spiraling out of control, with no end in sight. It has driven America's reputation in the world to a historic low point. In the meantime, real threats suffer terrible neglect. These include more terrorist attacks, jeopardized oil supplies, rising tension with China, the spread of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction and even natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina. All are pushed aside as this Administration pours the country's blood, treasure and political energy into a futile war. In short, ending the Iraq War is the most pressing issue facing America today. Until it is ended, a constructive national security policy cannot be forged.

Americans are well on their way to a full appreciation of the dimensions of this debacle. In an October CBS news poll, 59 percent of citizens surveyed and 73 percent of Democrats now want an end to US military involvement in Iraq. But this growing majority has made its judgment with virtually no help from our nation's leaders. Most shameful has been the Democratic Party's failure to oppose the war. Indeed, support for it has been bipartisan: A Republican President and Congress made the policy, and almost all of the leading Democrats--most of the honorable exceptions are members of the House of Representatives--supported it from the outset and continue to do so. To their credit, would-be presidential candidate Senator Russell Feingold and former Senator Gary Hart have recently made strong antiwar statements. More recently two other presidential contenders, Senator John Kerry and former Senator John Edwards, have begun to call for a shift in policy, though still in vague and reticent terms. More typical, however, are the other presidential hopefuls, Senators Hillary Clinton, Joseph Biden and Evan Bayh, who continue to huddle for cover in "the center." They offer little alternative to Bush's refrain "We must stay the course!" Nor do the party's Congressional leaders and its head, Howard Dean, once a leader of antiwar sentiment. Can such politicians, who cannot even follow a majority--in the Democratic Party, a large majority--really be considered leaders?

The Nation therefore takes the following stand: We will not support any candidate for national office who does not make a speedy end to the war in Iraq a major issue of his or her campaign. We urge all voters to join us in adopting this position. Many worry that the aftermath of withdrawal will be ugly, but we can now see that the consequences of staying will be uglier still. Fear of facing the consequences of Bush's disaster should not be permitted to excuse the creation of a worse disaster by continuing the occupation.

We firmly believe that antiwar candidates, with the other requisite credentials, can win the 2006 Congressional elections, the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries and the subsequent national election. But this fight, and our stand, must begin now.

[stillcool]

1. There was a time...

that i would not be happy with less than criminal charges being brought against those who pushed our country into war. Now, the lives of our soldiers, and the Iraqi's mean more, than my quest for retribution. I must say, this whole experience has woken up in me the realization of how very, very, different the elite, ruling class is psychologically from me. I can't imagine what the world looks like through their eyes, or what gives their life meaning.

[TayTay]

2. Technicality question: (No snark)

Isn't Gov Dean supposed to be a sort of mediator of all the Dems? He shouldn't be either supporting or not supporting plans from various Dems for this war. That isn't his job. (He can't possible be chair and pick sides.)

Sorry, this was like raising a point of order. I just wanted to clarify that point, without snark.

[welshTerrier2]

3. well, thanks ...

i appreciate your non-snarkification ...

and of course, the question you've raised was not something i specifically addressed but rather a piece of The Nation's article ...

but since you raised the issue, here are my thoughts ... btw, i'm not sure they're definitive ...

first, if the poll cited is correct, 73% of Democrats want the war brought to a speedy conclusion ... question one would be whether Dean should pressure elected Democrats to recognize the political importance, let alone the issues of democracy and representation, of ensuring that this large voting block is not alienated on this critical issue ... i, for one, support The Nation's position ... i will not be voting for those who call for more war ...

second, i suppose we keep hearing that the Chair should not dictate of define policy especially where intra-party differences exist ... it's not clear Dean has honored that view consistently ... i believe i recall that he provided a very strong endorsement for Bob Casey in PA at a time when Casey has a Democrat, Chuck Pennacchio, opposing him in the primary ... i might take the view, even in the absence of point one above, that it would be appropriate for Dean to mediate differences behind closed doors ... HOWEVER, i supported Dean for Chair because he talked about empowering the grassroots ... i think there has been far too little dialog between elected Democrats and their constituents on this critical issue ... i had hoped that Dean would lean on elected Dems to get back to their districts with much greater regularity to host public forums where ideas about the war could be exchanged ...

so, i guess my view is neither black nor white about Dean on this issue ...