Words of peace and words of war. Lines blur between parties often now.

[madfloridian]

Words of peace and words of war. Lines blur between parties often now.

I was listening to Thom Hartmann this week. He was talking about how presidential candidates used to talk in terms of peace, not war. He had some audio clips from John Glenn and John F. Kennedy. I found the statement from Kennedy he used.

I have . . . chosen this time and this place to discuss a topic on which ignorance too often abounds and the truth is too rarely perceived-yet it is the most important topic on earth: world peace.

What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children-not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women, not merely peace in our time but peace for all time.

Towards a Strategy of Peace, June 10, 1963

And some words by a Republican president, Dwight Eisenhower, who warned us of the very situation we are in right now....being controlled by the "military industrial complex". He warned of the "Atoms of Peace".

Should such an atomic attack be launched against the United States, our reactions would be swift and resolute. But for me to say that the defense capabilities of the United States are such that they could inflict terrible losses upon an aggressor--for me to say that the retaliation capabilities of the United States are so great that such an aggressor's land would be laid waste--all this, while fact, is not the true expression of the purpose and the hope of the United States.

To pause there would be to confirm the hopeless finality of a belief that two atomic colossi are doomed malevolently to eye each other indefinitely across a trembling world. To stop there would be to accept helplessly the probability of civilization destroyed--the annihilation of the irreplaceable heritage of mankind handed down to us generation from generation--and the condemnation of mankind to begin all over again the age-old struggle upward from savagery toward decency, and right, and justice. Surely no sane member of the human race could discover victory in such desolation Could anyone wish his name to be coupled by history with such human degradation and destruction.

President Eisenhower's "Atoms for Peace" Speech December 8, 1953

He certainly did not sound like the Republicans of today.

I realize our Democrats are fearful of offending the third of the nation who still believe in the idiocies of the Bush presidency, but they talk so often of war. Maybe they don't mean to do so, but they all talk of Iran as our next terrible enemy.

I thought of something written months ago...

Neoconservatism... is it being revived in the Democratic Party that first brought it to life.?

Heilbrunn argued that a new generation of Democratic “pundits and young national security experts” are trying to revive the Cold War precepts of President Harry S. Truman and apply them to the war on terror. “The fledgling neocons of the left are based at places such as the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), whose president, Will Marshall, has just released a volume of doctrine called With All Our Might: A Progressive Strategy for Defeating Jihadism and Defending Liberty … Their political champions include Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman and such likely presidential candidates as former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner and Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, who is chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC).”

One of the more upsetting comments came from one of our major candidates. I know there are nuances and context...but the words stand out starkly.

The You Tube video:
Fighting the New War

On Monday, Aug 20, 2007, Hillary Clinton spoke to hundreds of members of the VFW, which is holding its annual convention in Kansas City, Mo. She mentioned that "new tactics" in Iraq were working (the surge), but said that the best way to honor U.S. soldiers is "by beginning to bring them home." "It's working. We're just years too late in changing our tactics," she said. "We can't ever let that happen again. We can't be fighting the last war. We have to keep preparing to fight the new war."

Again on this op ed, I know there are nuances and more points I am not covering...but the words at the beginning are startling. If one does not read past them they don't see the pleas for diplomacy.

The Next War

It's always looming. But has our military learned the right lessons from this one to fight it and win?

Testifying before Congress last week, Gen. David H. Petraeus appeared commanding, smart and alive to the challenges that his soldiers face in Iraq. But he also embodied what the Iraq conflict has come to represent: an embattled, able, courageous military at war, struggling to maintain its authority and credibility after 4 1/2 years of a "cakewalk" gone wrong.

The problem is that Petraeus was not appearing that commanding to those of us who knew the report had to be cleared through the White House. Yes, our military is courageous. But General Petraeus lost a little of his soul, and he did not present a true case.

I have wondered how long this horrible disaster in Iraq will be allowed to continue.

It is not just the Iraqis and our military and their families suffering. The suffering is also in the hearts of those of us who know our country did a terrible thing in invading a country who never harmed us, killing their civilians and destroying their infrastructure. And the worst part is blaming them for not "standing up" so we can leave.

The rote way in which both Democrats and Republicans use these talking points which Bush uses must be killing part of their souls also. They can't not possibly believe what they are saying.

Politics, logic, fear? Not sure. But decent people can not keep up a facade of approval.

[Droopy]

1. What I want to hear from the Dem candidates who voted for the war

"We were wrong."

Somebody told me that Edwards has said that, but I haven't seen anything about it in print, and as far as I know Clinton, Dodd, and Biden still haven't fessed up.

[madfloridian]

2. Yes, Edwards said it in an op ed. Very clear.

I don't have it at hand.

[Droopy]

3. I'll take your word for it. n/t

[madfloridian]

5. Here is Edwards' op ed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/11/AR2005111101623.html

"I was wrong.

Almost three years ago we went into Iraq to remove what we were told -- and what many of us believed and argued -- was a threat to America. But in fact we now know that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction when our forces invaded Iraq in 2003. The intelligence was deeply flawed and, in some cases, manipulated to fit a political agenda.

It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002. I take responsibility for that mistake. It has been hard to say these words because those who didn't make a mistake -- the men and women of our armed forces and their families -- have performed heroically and paid a dear price.

While we can't change the past, we need to accept responsibility, because a key part of restoring America's moral leadership is acknowledging when we've made mistakes or been proven wrong -- and showing that we have the creativity and guts to make it right. The argument for going to war with Iraq was based on intelligence that we now know was inaccurate. The information the American people were hearing from the president -- and that I was being given by our intelligence community -- wasn't the whole story. Had I known this at the time, I never would have voted for this war."

"Too many mistakes have already been made for this to be easy. Yet we must take these steps to succeed. The American people, the Iraqi people and -- most important -- our troops who have died or been injured there, and those who are fighting there today, deserve nothing less.

America's leaders -- all of us -- need to accept the responsibility we each carry for how we got to this place. More than 2,000 Americans have lost their lives in this war, and more than 150,000 are fighting there today. They and their families deserve honesty from our country's leaders. And they also deserve a clear plan for a way out."

[Droopy]

6. Thank you

I appreciate you digging that up for me. :)

[EstimatedProphet]

11. I personally saw Edwards say it

He spoke in Alliance.

[superkia]

20. This is from Dennis Kucinich in 2002 before voting against the war.

Here is a part the OP made me think of:

We have reached a moment in our country's history where it is urgent that people everywhere speak out as president of his or her own life, to protect the peace of the nation and world within and without. We should speak out and caution leaders who generate fear through talk of the endless war or the final conflict. We should appeal to our leaders to consider that their own bellicose thoughts, words and deeds are reshaping consciousness and can have an adverse effect on our nation. Because when one person thinks: fight! he or she finds a fight. One faction thinks: war! and starts a war. One nation thinks: nuclear! and approaches the abyss. And what of one nation which thinks peace, and seeks peace?

Here is a link to a Kucinich speech in 2002:
http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2002/03/00_kucinich_speech.htm

Here is a link to a Clinton speech in 2002:
http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=233783

Couple of things from her speech:
In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation.


GREAT EXPERIENCE, SHE SHOULD DEFINITELY BE PRESIDENT!:sarcasm:

[madfloridian]

22. Very good statement by Kucinich.

I fear our party is experiencing a sort of Stockholm Syndrome.

[superkia]

23. He had the wisdom and courage to say that back in 2002.

He was trying to avoid the deaths of human lives for oil and profit, as the others joined in on that mission. Its truly sad that people look past him because he has continued to show integrity in his fight to stand up for the citizens of this country. Exactly what our elected officials are SUPPOSED to do!

[OzarkDem]

4. Peace is a dirty word

to our Dem leaders today.

[ljm2002]

7. Like the word "liberal"...

...the word "peace" has been degraded by the warmongers across the political landscape. It is bizarre. Dennis Kucinich proposes a department of peace, and everyone thinks he's wacky. What a concept! Why would we want peace! Why, we could level any country we wanted to -- turn 'em into glass I tells ya! Yee-haw!

Sorry. It just gets to me sometimes.

[madfloridian]

13. You are right about those words...peace, liberal, even universal health care..

They are all dirty words now, and our party should be the one to speak out about it.

[Whisp]

18. and Kucinich's 'department of peace' is hilarious

according to some other dems in many places too.

go figure. so sad.
we've been so brainwashed into the war thinking that real peace and how to attain it has become a joke.

[puebloknot]

8. K&R nt

[mogster]

9. Good post

It illustrates how the war rethoric is almost inevitable in todays politics, how confrontation has become the very means with which we relate. What happened to diplomacy, negotiations, talk - and at worst: containment? Legal war is an urgent solution to an urgent problem, defensive in nature.

[demoleft]

10. Well: some said Sarkozy was not to fear. Some said he could be even considered a Dem in the USA...

"France warning of war with Iran", BBC.

'French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner says the world should prepare for war over Iran's nuclear programme.
"We have to prepare for the worst, and the worst is war," Mr Kouchner said in an interview on French TV and radio.'

BBC, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6997935.stm

And Al Jazeera:
'The French foreign minister has said the world needs to prepare for the possibility of war against Iran over its nuclear programme.

Bernard Kouchner said in an interview broadcast on French television and radio: "We have to prepare for the worst, and the worst is war."

He also said France wanted the European Union to back new sanctions against Iran, outside the of the UN Security Council, to pressure Tehran to give up its nuclear ambitions.

Iranian leaders have insisted Tehran only wants to use nuclear technology to produce electricity.'

Al Jazeera, http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/97755432-04B2-4703-90B0-C38A1DD6683F.htm

So you see, the so called "democratic" front of war involves real conservatives and dangerous people here in Europe.
I think it's enough to demonstrate Europe is divided again.

So it's up to real US Dems to stop the war machine.
K&R!!

Ciao madfloridian

[madfloridian]

12. Hi, demoleft.

Remember this statement? Actually Sarkozy is sounding pretty much like many of our Democrsts now.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1312

"The newly elected president of France, conservative Nicolas Sarkozy, would be seen as “a moderate Democrat over here.”

“I'm not joking,” Dean said. “I think we ought to give Sarkozy a chance. The French people have spoken. We don't know a lot about him, but we know he's bright, he’s apparently supportive of America, which is certainly a welcome change from President Chirac, and let’s just see how this works.”

We never did figure just what how he meant it...tongue in cheek or what?

[madfloridian]

14. Stan Goff, Huff Post..."What goes unsaid"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stan-goff/ping-pong-you-are-the-_b_64533.html

"What gets left unsaid when we substitute "changing course" for "bring them home now"?

(1) What goes unsaid is that the Democratic Party doesn't want to bring the troops home. They want to continue a permanent troop presence in the region. This will be part of whatever new "course" they chart. They are beholden to war profiteers and so-called defense contractors. They are beholden to the big business interests that require access to fossil energy that is not theirs. They are fully in support of maintaining the imperial rule of the US, which includes the post-Cold War redispostion of the imperial military (or esle that military would stay its ass at home) into strategic Southwest Asia.

(2) What goes unsaid is that the elected representatives of the Democratic Party -- the many who are too ill-informed and stupid to comprehend this big picture, even as they serve it -- will follow their dicks, as we say, and do anything to avoid being called the people who "backed down" in the face of "terrorists" (a male thang).

(3) What goes unsaid is that the Democratic Party is more interested in appealing to some mythical and static "center" to win elections than it is in preventing more mass death, disfigurement, and dislocation in Iraq. If there is a secular definition for "sin," this surely fits it. Ambition that literally walks over bodies... human bodies, all ages, ethnicities, nationalities, and sexes."

[madfloridian]

15. The Ping and the Pong parties More of what is left unsaid.

"What do all of these things together leave unsaid?

The intentional bewilderment of the population and the mystification of reality that accomplishes that bewilderment are like a plant in a garden. Ten percent of the mystification resides in the seed, in what is things-said-directly. 90 percent of the mystification resides in the composition of the soil, the analog being what remains unsaid.

What goes unsaid is that there are two parties of the dominators that play bad-cop/good-cop with all of us. One is the Ping Party, and the other is the Pong Party, and we are the ball, batted back and forth perennially. When the population just begins to become radicalized, as it is doing in the face of this criminal war that has exposed so much of the system itself, threatening to bounce off the table so to speak, the Pong Party will reach way out to the side to keep the ball in play. They will allow Matthews and Olbermann to say the things that got Donahue canned four years ago by the same network, MSNBC; and Joe Biden will come aboard as the fine Pong Party method actor he is, reflecting our frustration and our grief and our anger back to us, and make soothing noises that leave so much unsaid, and tap us back across the net."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stan-goff/ping-pong-you-are-the-_b_64533.html

[bring_em_home_bush]

16. K&R em

[madfloridian]

17. Would the war be okay if it weren't failing?

"First, they are saying that the war is a "failure."

Second, they are saying that "the American people" elected Democrats to "change course in Iraq."

Third, Biden is saying that his plan is the "third way."

First response: Would the war be okay if it weren't failing?

Second response: Wanting to get the US troops out of Iraq is far more specific than "changing course."

Third response: This talk of a "third way" is a way to foreclose that specific option of withdrawing US forces from Iraq... right by God now.

Let's unpack this a bit further, starting with this "failure"-meme.

What does not get said when we say the war is bad because we are losing? Or not winning?

(1) What goes unsaid is that the United States of America is a nation that has reserved to itself the right to invade other countries."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stan-goff/ping-pong-you-are-the-_b_64533.html

[madfloridian]

19. Shameful! Ken Salazar and the CNN anchor are shaming Iraqis for not "standing up"

And I can not bear it when they do that.

It is stupid talk. Stop it.

[HardRocker2005]

21. peace is for pussies. ..... sarcasm. nt

[madfloridian]

24. More about the neoconservative strain in the Dem party now. Raiding "red" zone

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1534

"In June 2006, PPI president Marshall opined in the Democratic Strategist that Democrats needed to “raid the red zone” and win over Republican voters. “Security will continue to dominate national politics for the foreseeable future. It is axiomatic that the American people are not likely to give power to a party they do not trust to defend their values and keep them safe,” Marshall wrote. “Democrats therefore must close the national security confidence gap that has dogged them since the era of Vietnam protests. This requires reclaiming, not abandoning, the party's venerable tradition of muscular liberalism—the Truman-Kennedy legacy that helped America win the Cold War. Updated for new threats, it offers the best answer to the challenge of Islamist extremism today.” Marshall suggests three specific tactics: “We must put security first—and mean it … Second, Democrats must convince the public that we are ready to take over the fight against Islamist extremism … Third, Democrats must recognize that since 9/11, patriotism has become the most potent values issue in U.S. politics” (Democratic Strategist, June 22, 2006).

They are taking over from the Republicans. Hillary is tied to this group strongly. Who else is? Will they speak up that we have no right to the middle east?

[madfloridian]

25. The "New War"....the "Next War"

they sound so awful to me. There have to be better ways to talk about the future.

I find it amazing lately that certain in our party cater to the fear created and recreated by the right wing....and ignore the many many voices that deny that fear should be part of our life.

Guess it depends on who you get money from.