Democrats waver in unifying stand against war in Iraq

[bemildred]

Spin.

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Democrats say a long-standing rift in the party over the Iraq war has grown increasingly raw in recent days, as stay-the-course elected leaders who voted for the war three years ago confront rising impatience from activists and strategists who want to challenge President Bush aggressively to withdraw troops.

Amid rising casualties and falling public support for the war, Democrats of all stripes have grown more vocal this summer in criticizing Bush's handling of the war. A growing chorus of Democrats, however, have said this criticism should be harnessed to a consistent message and alternative policy -- something most Democratic lawmakers have refused to offer.

The wariness, congressional aides and outside strategists said in interviews, reflects a belief among some in the opposition that proposals to force troop drawdowns or otherwise limit Bush's options would be perceived by many voters as defeatist. Some operatives fear such moves would exacerbate the party's traditional vulnerability on national security issues.

The internal schism has become all the more evident in recent weeks even as Americans have soured on Bush and the war in poll after poll. Senate Democrats, according to aides, convened a private meeting in late June to develop a cohesive stance on the war and debated every option -- only to break up with no consensus.

StarTribune

[ovidsen]

1. Oh great.

Let's be divided and conquered. Again.

[bemildred]

3. That's not really it.

This is intended to manufacture an excuse for the
dishonest obstructionism of the so-called Democratic
leadership. The Democratic Party membership is clear
and unified, but the leadership favors the war policy
and does not want to represent us, hence this bullshit.

[ovidsen]

5. Hope you're right.

Perhaps you caught me in a pessimistic mood. I wish I could be as certain as you are that the Democratic Party rank-and-file is is indeed not only unified, but unified against the DLC and its ilk.

But I have my doubts. Maybe that's what happens after one relocates to South Carolina.

[bemildred]

6. Well, I don't know that we're all unified against the DLC yet.

I would wager that 80% of nominal Democrats have never heard of the DLC.

[ovidsen]

9. Very good point.

Mention the DLC around here (Bluffton SC) and you get "huh?";(

[paulk]

11. "The Democratic Party membership is clear and unified"

Oh, come on. It's not even unified here at DU, much less out in the real world. The party is reflecting it's constituents; even among those who opposed this war there's no clear consensus on what to do now.

And to say that the party leadership "favors the war policy" is the worst sort of demagoguery on your part.

[bemildred]

13. Tough shit.

There has been a strong and outspoken anti-war movement since
well before we invaded, and it has had almost zero representation
from elected politicians. Show me the democrats out there at any
time marching to support the war? What debate there is now is
over how soon to leave. There are only a handful of Dem politicians
that have spoken up for any sort of planned exit. The official Dem
public babble at this point is all about a "strategy to win".

As for your name calling, that is not an argument, but rather the
admission that you lack one.

This is a paragraph from John Kerry's statement before the invasion:

With respect to Saddam Hussein and the threat he presents, we must ask ourselves a simple question: Why? Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing weapons that most nations have agreed to limit or give up? Why is Saddam Hussein guilty of breaking his own cease-fire agreement with the international community? Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don't even try, and responsible nations that have them attempt to limit their potential for disaster? Why did Saddam Hussein threaten and provoke? Why does he develop missiles that exceed allowable limits? Why did Saddam Hussein lie and deceive the inspection teams previously? Why did Saddam Hussein not account for all of the weapons of mass destruction which UNSCOM identified? Why is he seeking to develop unmanned airborne vehicles for delivery of biological agents?

http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html

Every one of those statements is a lie.

[movonne]

8. I cannot believe this is the Dems, what has happen to our party..

I feel the ones that want to keep this war going are making a profit off this war...and to want to keep a illegal war going is sicking to me.

[acmavm]

2. Whatever their stated reason the truth is that they will not change their

stance on Iraq for two reasons: 1) because they are corporate whores in politics for what THEY can get out of it, not to represent anyone except themselves and 2) because they voted for the war in the first place and they refuse to admit that they were WRONG.

[rodeodance]

4. the 'weak on terror' is a label that none want.

......Some operatives fear such moves would exacerbate the party's traditional vulnerability on national security issues.....

[bemildred]

7. When I was a boy, the conventional wisdom was that

Democrats get us into wars, and Republicans
get us out of them. So much for tradition.
The "traditional vulnerability on national
issues" is 100% propaganda.

[paulk]

12. who's propaganda?

Polls show that it's still one of the only areas where the public puts the Republicans ahead. Apparently a lot of people out there believe it.

[bemildred]

14. I don't believe polls. Polls are propaganda.

Edit: For what it's worth, the notion that the Dems are
"weak on national defense" came into public discourse around
the same time we had Raygun foisted on us and the great
rightward swing in politics began. Like all good propaganda
it has been repeated endlessly to the point that everyone
accepts it, but it is founded in no facts or history about
the Democratic party. To be sure during the Vietnam days the
Dem membership was much against the war, but you will not find
at any time any large number of Dem politicians that would take
a public stance against any of the dozens of big and little wars
we have fought, and heaven forfend anyone suggest the national
security state itself is a useless and pernicious boondoggle.
In other words that notion is propaganda, and propaganda that
the party itself does not challenge.

[wli]

10. Republicans: weak on false flag attacks n/t

[coffeenap]

15. How about this as a unified stand:

IMPEACH THE DAMN LIAR--he tricked us into a false war and we are going to get the hell out!!!!(Yes I know all about not having the votes to impeach or get the process started, but tough shit! Say it anyway--ALL TOGETHER NOW!!!)