What's scary about the IWR issue is...

[jmoss]

..that the people voting ,"IWR is my litmus test, (as in the poll being conducted right now) and I will stick to that in Nov.", will have to either vote for Nader, or write in Dean, Kucinich, Sharpton, (Clark), or mickey mouse, for that matter. These hard-liners are going to, ironincally, improve GW's chances of re-election.

What's done is done, in terms of us going to Iraq. But PLEASE don't pull away from Kerry/Edwards (and I don't buy theis crap about Kerry being anti-war--he voted that same as Edwards) increasing the likelyhood of GW getting 4 more years of Haliburton-soaked revenue. The Democratic Party needs this issue to be put to rest. If you don't support the War, don't help the Republicans who are benefiting, financially, from it!!

[MercutioATC]

1. I don't think we can afford "litmus tests" this cycle...

It's not only the IWR. If we want Bush out, we're going to have to vote for the Democrat, regardless of priorities.

We only have two viable candidates, Bush and the Dem nominee. Individual issues aside, the Dem will always be the better choice.

[DuctapeFatwa]

2. Most voters support the crusade, and both Kerry and Edwards believe

that they can do a better job of running it than bush does.

Neither should worry about the small minority who are opposed to killing the Iraqis and stealing their oil no matter what pretty words are used to describe it.

There'll be plenty of time after the election to just let the Patriot Act take care of those folks.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

3. You are a crusade of one on this crusade topic...facts be damned

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x389048

[DuctapeFatwa]

4. I just said, most support the crusade. I may not be alone in my opposition

but I certainly don't have much company.

However, I can promise you this: even if I were the only person on earth who opposed it, my view would not change.

[jmoss]

5. I appreciate your sediments..

...and we won't worry about how 3,000 people from my hometown were murdered by being burnt, crushed, blown up, etc., in about 15 minutes time.

All do respect mr. or ms. fatwa, I am not trying to put "pretty words" to what's happening in Iraq. I'm trying to help, however little I can, convince people with hard-lined idealistic views, that there non-votes, or write-ins, will all help GW get hired for 4-more

(G-d help us).

A decisive win in November for the democrats will be the FASTEST path for getting us the hell out of Iraq, where we DON'T Belong!

[IrateCitizen]

11. No, it will not be the FASTEST path, jmoss

It will be the path that will provide a lesser amount of resistance toward achieving that goal, compared with the path upon which we currently find ourselves.

The FASTEST path toward achieving that goal would be if the majority of US citizens decided that they were no longer going to give the government their cooperation, and decided to shut down the US by work stoppage and refusal to pay taxes until the troops were brought home. Of course, this is all just speculation, and the chances of it happening are about the same as the half-life of an ice cube on the sun as measured in hours....

On another note, I live in the NY metro area, and I personally knew two people who perished in the WTC. I also worked alongside another who lost his brother. I fail to see what the attacks on 9/11 have to do with this argument, unless you're simply seeking to engage in over-the-top hyperbole.

[jmoss]

18. Yeah, something like that.

"...unless you're simply seeking to engage in over-the-top hyperbole...."

Yeah, something like that.

[salin]

31. which is why perhaps we need a short-term/immediate and longer-term

sustained strategy.

First an abrupt halt to the neocons... and a slowing down of the corporatists and religious right. The major democratic candidates, I believe, will do that. I believe, that they and Gore (and Clinton had he been president) would have likely taken some kind of action regarding Afghanistan after 911. I also believe, that like Clinton, they would turn away from the neocons more and more strident call for full scale war on Iraq. In that vein, I believe they will not fall for additional escapades for which the neocons are already setting the stage (iran, syria, nkorea...) .

However, with the changed political context (post reagan/bush... and worse during the newtcongress years) in DC, I do not believe that the democratic strategic thinking is about taking back the public policy discussions and fully undoing the rw march of the past 20 years (slowed, but not stopped, under Clinton.) Thus we need longer term strategies - thinking...

First - again a shorter term triage - take congress back over... then longer term - start getting more progressives back into the party elected official pipeline... also longer term... reshaping the public discourse away from the blind faith in all things corporate... in all things religious right (just wave the abuses of power by Ashcroft to get that conversation going)... this involves media (independent and corporate... and of late there has been more movement among the corporate media... our job is too keep pushing it...) it involves more flow of information (at which we seem to be doing a better and better job of informing not just ourselves and each other - but through each of our individual networks - which collectively touches many, many people)... there is so much to be done.

But if we just focus on the short term... and because it alone is not likely to fully change things inthe long run, we suddenly give up - go third party, or whatever... we will have NO impact in the future short or long-term. And perhaps we will partially deserve to reap what has been sown.

[IrateCitizen]

51. I'm not sure if you meant to reply to me salin...

but if you did, then I believe that you're confused about the point I was trying to make.

If you were replying to me, let me know and I'll try and clarify my stance.

[DuctapeFatwa]

17. the regime has decreed that the 9-11 events not be looked into too closely

No doubt out of concern for the public anguish when it is discovered that the hijackers were all Iraqi children, who miraculously survived the blast and returned to their homeland where they are currently being punished.

Would you like to see some pictures?

[jmoss]

23. Would you like to explain how your comments are...

...relevant to the Debate between democrats, about the Democratic Primary?

I have been watching your threads today, and have chosen not to engage in your winless, religiously, fueled debate. Unfortunately, you engaged in mine.

Would you like to see my keepah & Tallis next!
No, I don't want to see pictures.

I'm not saying Iraqis were involved with 9/11

I'm trying to frame an argument Re: to anti-war no-votes, write-ins, Green Party, Worker's rights Party, Libertarian, Independents, etc. help out GW.

But I will ask you, if I may, are you registered to vote?

[revcarol]

22. You support Bush's view, that 9/11 and IRAQ are CONNECTED?

Otherwise, how is 3000 dead applicable to the IWR?

Bush's WAR is WAR, whether you call it WAR or OCCUPATION.

Voting for a candidate who wants to put 40,000 new troops that we don't have into Iraq will sure get us out fast!!,<sarcasm>
Voting for a candidate that is unclear about what to do, but wants to stay will get us out fast!!<sarcasm>

And staying and stealing the oil and privatizing everything in sight(neither Kerry nor Edwards have said they would change Bush's policy) is just inflaming the Arab world and recruiting more terrorists to do another 9/11.

[jmoss]

28. I don't think 9/11 & IWR are connected...

..This is getting out of hand now. I gues that's what I deserve for reaching for the 3rd rail. ;(

Once again, I am just urging all of us to consider the reality that EVERY non-Democrat vote--no matter HOW it manifests--is helping Pres. Bush out this November.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

7. Bush is the only one who ever used the word "crusade"

please don't use it in reference to anything related to this war.

[DuctapeFatwa]

25. Oh, be some other name!

What's in a name?
That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo called
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title.

[jmoss]

35. now you're just scaring me!

What is your purpose in entering in this debate?

Do you think voting non-Democrat, will help the cause in us getting the heck out of Iraq, and ending this "holier than thou" policy of preemption "where ever our Administration damn pleases" type of mentality?

[DuctapeFatwa]

38. You should be scared, Crusades are scary. And no candidate has

proposed getting the heck out.

Many have proposed utilizing both crusade revenues and long-standing Sunni-Shia rivalries to bribe other countries to join the US in its operations to bring native populations in its extra-territorial properties to heel and secure its natural resources there for the benefit of US business interests.

A couple have suggested going a step further, and running it all off on UN letterhead, and having the crusaders wear blue hats.

It is quite scary to many people, especially the victims.

[redqueen]

42. Nobody cares about the victims

:cry:

May God forgive us.

[revcarol]

50. Kucinich would have the Iraqis own their own stuff, including oil

and all the businesses that have been privatized. Reparations for the innocent wounded (caused by our occupation.) Reparations for the dead people, like cab drivers we shoot by mistake.

Halliburton, Bechtel, Dyncorp, etc contracts would be cancelled and all contracts open to competitive bidding, no secrecy.

Addressed any of your questions?

[DuctapeFatwa]

52. That's just common sense. And it is possible that he realizes

that if he does that, there will be no need to have any crusaders there, of any nationality on any letterhead, sporting blue hats or foam cheese wedges, nor will there be any wherewithal with which to bribe them.

Kucinich is on the right track in several areas, but they all involve a change to the status quo, and is therefore considered "unelectable" since the status quo enjoys wide bipartisan support, although there appears to be an increasing distaste for having bush as its figurehead.

[JHBowden]

6. A second Bush term will only embolden him.

I wouldn't be surprised if we moved into Syria or Iran under false pretenses if Nader voters give him a mandate.

The irony, however, is that if Nader voters didn't make it close enough for Bush to be selected, we wouldn't even *be* in Iraq right now.

[redqueen]

29. I wouldn't be surprised if we're in Syria no matter who is Pres

Who cares about the Nader voters when good Democrats on the hill couldn't be persuaded to speak up for the voting rights of the thousands of disenfranchised Americans wiped from the polls illegally by Katherine Harris?

Doesn't it seem kind of silly to harp on and on about those who made their conscientious decision, when just a modicum of concern and action on the part of those you're working so hard to elect could have turned things around based on vote fraud?

[IrateCitizen]

8. The problem lies in the basic question that people ask

I used to fall into this trap as well.

Most people who put forth one issue (whether it is IWR or something else) as their litmus test, ask, "What candidate most closely represents my views?"

If electoral politics were an arena with some degree of honesty and integrity, then such a question would be valid. But electoral politics is a cesspool. It always has been, and it is a rare soul indeed who is able to enter that cesspool and climb out WITHOUT smelling like shit. And those who do are often perceived as too "unyielding" due to their propensity for exposing unpleasant truths rather than being content with spraying perfume over the stench.

Therefore, the question I ask myself NOW is, "Which choice provides, in the end analysis, the lesser amount of RESISTANCE to advancing the goal of a better society?"

Electoral politics is not the place to look for purity. The only place in which we can really seek out purity is within our personal sphere -- and even that is questionable. When you seek purity within electoral politics, then you're not really making it about the "greater good" -- you're really making it about what YOU want, personally.

The onus is not on politicians to fight for what YOU want. The onus is on YOU to fight for what YOU want. This means that if the system is not doing what you want, you really only have two choices -- to passively cooperate with it (and therefore passively endorse it), or to refuse to give it your cooperation. Of course, noncooperation has consequences, some of which can be rather unsavory.

For example, if you are against the invasion and occupation of Iraq, you can write letters to your representatives in Congress and write letters to the editor in order to try and persuade others. You can even go to a demonstration and march against it. But if the policy continues, then you are faced with the above choice. If you choose to refuse to give your continued cooperation, then the choice is relatively simple (if not easy) -- refuse to continue to pay your taxes that finance the occupation. Even better yet, encourage other like-minded people to do the same.

Of course, the backlash against such a noncooperation will be rather unpleasant. The system will inevitably do what it can to coerce you into passive cooperation -- including legal action and possible jail time. But if you truly feel that the cessation of that policy is non-negotiable, that has to be a price you are willing to pay. You must be willing to sacrifice your comfort and luxury for the achievement of that goal, if you hold it in such high regard.

But you can't go on projecting your outrage on a politician who is simply doing what politicians do. The only thing that does is to remove your own responsiblity and project it on to others -- not a very noble nor "pure" undertaking, IMHO.

[Iverson]

9. You didn't mention voting Green.

Some may do that for a solid anti-war vote, if the Green Party advances a nominee, that is.

[jmoss]

10. That's my point--Green party votes, are voting for Bush

....please don't pretend the math will dispute that.

[IrateCitizen]

12. No, Green Party votes are Green Party votes

Unless Bush is running on the Green Party ticket.

What CAN be argued, however, is that if a person casting a vote for a Green Party candidate would otherwise likely vote for a Democrat, then that voter is contributing to LESSENING the chances of a Democratic victory.

However, it is not the same as actually pulling a lever for Bush.

[jmoss]

14. all do respect, how many Green-Party supporters..

...have a love for the GOP next on their list (the oil-drenched, world chaos, causing, GOP). I'm not being literal when I say Green Party is a vote for Bush! :spank:

[IrateCitizen]

16. But there are more than enough people who ARE literal

So spreading that falsehood does not help improve the quality of debate. Rather, it inevitably degenerates into a shouting match with only the most implacable foes on each side standing at the end.

[Iverson]

15. Oh, I know the folklore.

I see it screamed on an almost continuous basis.

[zoeyfong]

46. It doesn't really matter; those votes were not going dem anyway.

Personally, i'm not voting for kerry no matter which 3rd party runs.
The assumption that nader/green/3rd party votes would automatically go to the dem if that party wasn't running is wrong. Most of us would like to vote dem, but at a certain point we decide that we can no longer support the dem candidate. The total number of dem and repub votes will be the same, regardless of whether i vote nader, green, write-in, or don't vote at all, because there is no way i am voting for either bush or a dem pro-war candidate.

[IrateCitizen]

19. Question for you, Iverson

Which do you consider to be a GREATER impediment toward ending the policies of militarism and imperialism -- the Democratic Party, or the Republican Party.

This is an either/or question -- no third choices allowed.

[Iverson]

21. answer for you, IrateCitizen

I consider the Republican Party a GREATER (sic) impediment.

[IrateCitizen]

26. OK, follow-up then...

(and I'm sure you see where I'm going with this...)

Do you believe that a Green Party candidate has a realistic shot at winning the election? If not, and if your vote would otherwise go to the Democratic Party nominee, would you not be lessening the chances of removing this greater impediment?


Please keep in mind that I am not trying to coerce you in any way here. I find the state of electoral politics to be as abhorrent as you do. I am simply proposing the postulate that we are currently stuck with this abhorrent system, and therefore have to deal with it in the way that lessens resistance to our progressive beliefs rather than expecting it to somehow represent them.

[Iverson]

30. OK, follow-up then.

No, I do not believe that at the national level a Green currently has a realistic shot at winning an election.

Yes, I do see where you're going with this, but since you haven't insulted my intelligence or character or called for my banning or behaved in any way like a four year old, I can't say that I mind.

[IrateCitizen]

37. Isn't thoughtful, rational debate a wonderful thing???

It's too bad that it's just so, well, 1975....

:sigh:

Now, if I may continue down this path, do you believe that a greater good would be served by voting for the Green Party candidate as opposed to voting for the the Democratic candidate, the one who is most likely to remove the greater impediment to progress -- while the Democrat still represents an impediment himself, albeit a lesser one than the GOP?

Furthermore, what actions could you, personally undertake to help advance the policies and principles in which you believe? If you are not doing everything you can to advance those principles, do you then feel it is fair to project your outrage and disgust onto another?

[Iverson]

40. That's what I tell my students.

I mean that I tell them that rational exchange is a good thing, and rarely do I say that it's 1975.

Your second paragraph first: I am doing what I can, and I must ask you to trust me on that rather than have me submit a laundry list for approval, which I suspect is not the point. In theory, I could always be doing something more up to the point where I drop from exhaustion. I do not consider that to be the reasonable test, so I can say that I am doing all that I reasonably can. I am pretty sure that I do not project disgust onto another. I express disgust sometimes, and disagreement often, because that is part of the human condition. It isn't paid for with outside approval.

Your first paragraph now: You have offered a fairly thoughtful rewrite of the "lesser of two evils" argument, and I understand it completely. If we look only at your criteria, then your implied answer is the single reasonable one. However, everything is embedded in a context. I think that not only is your point true, but also that the long-term consequences of our actions have meaning. For example, the degraded choices that we currently have derive, in part, from an unremitting rightward shift in the public discourse. It is equally true that advancing that rightward shift will continue to degrade the choices, and you (or your surrogate) will come to me next election cycle with the exact same reasoning as you have now, and the same immediate context.

You're a smart cookie. You can see where I'm going with this. Plus I have class now.

[IrateCitizen]

45. I do share your concern 100%

For example, the degraded choices that we currently have derive, in part, from an unremitting rightward shift in the public discourse. It is equally true that advancing that rightward shift will continue to degrade the choices, and you (or your surrogate) will come to me next election cycle with the exact same reasoning as you have now, and the same immediate context.

Believe me, I completely share your concern in this area. But then again, that is why I decided to support Dennis Kucinich wholeheartedly throughout the nomination process -- because his presence automatically frees up space for the more "mainstream" candidates to move more toward progressive populism without being portrayed as "wild-eyed radicals" by the mainstream media.

I have similar thoughts on a Ralph Nader candidacy this year. If his goals are what he SAYS they are -- to attack Bush on a second front by taking positions that the Democratic nominee could never take -- then it could be a good thing, because it could allow the Dem to move more toward progressivism while still being able to claim the "moderate" label. But then again, I believe that Ralph Nader, despite all the good things he has done, has succumbed to the force of his own ego to a degree, which makes me maintain a kernel of suspicion toward him regarding his true motives.

Your second paragraph first: I am doing what I can, and I must ask you to trust me on that rather than have me submit a laundry list for approval, which I suspect is not the point.

No, you are right in perceiving that I am not requesting a laundry list. But I do postulate that very few of us come close to truly doing what we can to make the world a better place, because we are captives of our own comfort. For instance, a person I would hold up as truly doing everything he could to advance his beliefs is Phil Berrigan. Now, just imagine if everyone who felt passionate about war and peace issues would be willing to make the kinds of sacrifices in support of the greater good that Phil Berrigan did? If a scant 5% of the US population was against continued militarism to the point that they staged general strikes and refused to provide their passive cooperation, such a show would bring our system to its knees. And while the inevitable result would be a violent backlash by the system, what would then happen if those people stood even MORE defiantly? Perhaps they might be able to inspire another 5% or even 10% to join with them? Perhaps their non-cooperation would remove sufficient power from the system that their demands would HAVE to be met, otherwise the system itself would be placed in peril?

I've started working the GI Rights hotline with a local group of Quakers, and it's been an enlightening experience. The woman who heads the Peace Witness is an older lady who has been involved with military counseling since the Vietnam era. She's also been a tax resister on the grounds that she doesn't want to fund war. In the short time of working with her group -- and trying to read as much of the stuff she has on her shelves on these issues -- my mind has been ripped open and forced to consider these issues from a slightly different perspective. And it's one that probably raises more questions than it answers, but it raises DIFFERENT questions than the ones I used to ask previously. Hence, my airing of them here.

[jmoss]

36. I see republicans as impeding progress towards peace

....that's as direct as I can be.

We have had 2 Iraqi wars, framing 8 years with Pres. Clinton.

As long as the name Bush is the head of GOP agenda, we're in trouble.

[IrateCitizen]

39. Personally, I'd disagree with you on this...

We have had 2 Iraqi wars, framing 8 years with Pres. Clinton.

I tend to believe that we actually had just one long Iraq war, bookended by two land invasions. Considering the effects that the bombings and sanctions had on Iraqi civil society, I don't see any way to characterize it as an ongoing war campaign.

As long as the name Bush is the head of GOP agenda, we're in trouble.

I don't kid myself that Bush is the one calling the shots. He's a mere figurehead. The whole problem is much more nefarious than just one person.

[WitchWay]

56. They play good cop/bad cop and wage wars...

I think there is a lot of hypocrisy on this issue. The war protests were bigger under Bush, but Clinton wasn't much better in terms of policy -- just smarter about it.

I think that under the Clinton, the democrats actually get lazy and irresponsible about wars. For goodness sake--wesley clark is behind Bombing MEDIA in serbia, which is a war crime.

[GreenArrow]

13. the problem is,

to paraphrase John Muir, when you attempt to isolate IWR, you find it attached to everything else.

[Mairead]

20. Yes, the problem is that everything is connected

and the only solution is to cut the Gordian Knot, not try to unravel it bit by bit or try to hide it behind a shoji screen.

Let's cut the sucker! Vote for Kucinich. It's our only hope for meaningful change short of blood in the streets.

[IrateCitizen]

33. As much as I am a supporter of DK, I don't agree Mairead...

Vote for Kucinich. It's our only hope for meaningful change short of blood in the streets.

Personally, I don't think that there is any hope for meaningful change OUTSIDE of blood in the streets. Not that I am advocating any kind of violent revolution here -- in fact, I am dead-set against such dead-end paths. Rather, the only way that meaningful change will ever come about (as it ever has) is through widespread refusal to cooperate with the system. Of course, the system requires cooperation to validate its power -- so it is bound to hit back violently in order to coerce people back into acquiescence. The real change comes about when people STILL refuse to cooperate, and the system is therefore forced to either ascede to their demands or to lose its power.

I think even Dennis realizes this to an extent. I mean, just look at the hatchet job that was done on him by the business community in Cleveland during his tenure as mayor. Personally, I think that such tactics absolutely pale in comparison to what the ruthless gang of thugs currently operating the GOP would pull.

[redqueen]

32. Attached to silly, meaningless things like integrity and empathy

for other humans.

Who cares about that, right? Just WIN!

/sarcasm

[GreenArrow]

41. I think we're on the same page on this

I was trying to say that the IWR vote isn't a single issue. Rather it's emblematic of and connected to a whole range of stupid, backwards, dishonest, selfish and generally destructive policies.

[redqueen]

43. You're coming through loud and clear to me

This cannot be divorced from the issue of one's character. Why that's not important to some people I will never for the life of me figure out.

[West Coast Democrat]

24. A candidate saying s/he wouldn't have voted for IWR ......

doesn't automatically mean that candidate is overall more liberal than the others. Dean has participated in "New Democrat Network" events along with many of the other candidates. Dean has tried to win moderate Democrats along with the more liberal anti-war Democrats.

[zoeyfong]

47. True, but outright murder is where i draw the line on dems leaning right.

[West Coast Democrat]

49. Well, it's a but over-the-top to accuse Dems of "outright murder"

Kerry and Edwards made a mistake at IWR, but they did not ultimately make the decisions of the commander in chief.

[DuctapeFatwa]

53. They have each made their own decision to continue it if elected

What may be murder to an Iraqi mother is merely some very nice numbers on the quarterly statement to the population reduction and defense industries.

Both Kerry and Edwards are shrewd politicians who have a clear understanding of the American voters' unslakable thirst for Muslim blood.

[West Coast Democrat]

54. It will have to continue in some matter or other

even if the UN takes over the occupation, it's been started--it can't be undone, and Iraq can't simply be left in chaos.

[DuctapeFatwa]

57. "Debating imperialism is a bit like debating the pros and cons of rape"

Arundhati Roy

http://www.hindu.com/2004/01/18/stories/2004011800181400.htm

[West Coast Democrat]

58. Please don't make unnecessary and offensive comparisons

thank you

[DuctapeFatwa]

59. Would you rather hear "White man, lay that burden down?"

I believe I chose the less offensive of the only appropriate responses to your colonialist zeal.

[West Coast Democrat]

60. Excuse me while I "Ignore this User"

I never claimed to have "colonialist zeal." Your over-the-top comparisons are unnecessary in this discussion.

Iraq is not NEARLY the only issue this election season. You can go on trying to convince me otherwise, but it won't work.

And...I'm a Clark supporter.

[zoeyfong]

65. Sure, it's not the only issue; some people still think it was a good idea,

other people just don't care. But for those of us who do care and see it as tantamount to murder, there really is no way we can vote for those people who helped make the war happen.

[DuctapeFatwa]

61. I wouldn't dream of trying to convince you of anything. Hence, post 57

http://www.strike-free.net/ge/ds/chronicle/news25.htm

[zoeyfong]

64. Human bodies blown to smithereens can be offensive. That's why we

shouldn't do it, rather than just try to avoid talking/hearing about it.

[zoeyfong]

62. In my honest opinion it was a deliberate solicitation of murder.

That it happened half way around the world and went by the name of war does not change the fact that innocent people were knowingly, deliberately, unnecessarily killed. People can turn their heads but that will not bring back the dead. I do not buy for one second that anyone was misled. Many people were willfully ignorant; they saw no evil because it was not politically expedient to see the evil that their own hands were committing. Hate to be overly dramatic, but, well, people are dying on the orders of the US government.

[MurikanDemocrat]

27. That's only a minority in GD Primary, not the majority of Democrats

The majority of the rank and file of Democratic voters are not making the IWR a litmus test for their choice of candidates or votes. The Iraq war is not even the primary issue on the minds of most Americans.

AND, insofar as the American public is concerned, the fact that Bush LIED about the intelligence and reasons for going to war with Iraq are more prevalent than the fact that the IWR even exists or who voted for it. Bet on it.

[zoeyfong]

48. Yes, but we've seen what a few percent here or there can do.

And the people who don't care about the war or who were supportive of it are more likely to be leaning right and possibly vote bush, or not be really motivated voters and just not vote at all.

[ShimokitaJer]

34. What's done is done?

Such a simple way to dismiss so much death and expense. Maybe it's enough for you that we all forget about Iraq and move on, but many of us would rather focus on making sure that what was done will not be done again.

While Kerry and Edwards have criticized Bush's handling of Iraq, neither have ever said that they believe going into Iraq was a mistake or the wrong thing to do. On the contrary, the war in Iraq was in perfect accord with the methodology of the "progressive internationalism" championed by the New Democrats' Progressive Policy Institute, which insists that the US must be free to act unilaterally and preemptively.

Perhaps you can accept that from a Democratic candidate, buy I can't.

[zoeyfong]

44. Or..you could say Congressional dem enablers helped bush' s reelection .

So dem voters not supposed to help bush by not voting for congressional dems who are bush-helpers? Not a very inspiring choice. I would rather commit a sin of ommission than commission, so i am not going to vote for either bush or bush-helpers.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

55. 4 MORE WARS! It's MY WAY or the HIGHWAY!

The very people that would like to get rid of the totalitarian Bush administration seem to be hell bent on forcing their own on us. If we resist they will vote another way NOT out of prinicple but out of spite.

[zoeyfong]

63. Tell it to kerry/edwards and those who will only vote for the "electable."