How can we support a Democrat who supports this stupid ass war?

[mopaul]

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050228&s=corn

While these Democrats appear unable to synchronize their withdrawal proposals, other senior Democratic senators--for policy and political reasons--do not want the Democrats to become the pullout party. On Meet the Press, John Kerry refused to endorse Kennedy's plan. Carl Levin, a critic of the Bush Administration, said discussion of early troop withdrawals "is putting the cart a little bit ahead of the horse." Joe Biden has blasted the White House's handling of the war but declared he would vote for up to $200 billion to support the military mission in Iraq. He says talk of disengagement is "premature." Evan Bayh, decrying Kennedy's proposal, remarked, "I think to cut and run at this juncture would be a terrible mistake."

The Democrats' leaders in Congress have tried to straddle the issue, promoting what might be called an "exit-strategy strategy." Both Senate minority leader Harry Reid and House minority leader Nancy Pelosi have called on Bush to develop an "exit strategy." Neither has suggested starting or scheduling the removal of troops. Responding to the State of the Union address--in which Bush rejected "an artificial timetable for leaving Iraq"--Pelosi criticized the President for having "no clear plan...for ending our presence in Iraq." She then listed the "key elements" of a "credible plan": accelerating training of Iraqi security forces, speeding up reconstruction in Iraq, intensifying regional diplomacy. This was what Kerry pushed during the campaign. Pelosi said nothing about troop levels. Days after that, Kennedy noted that the schedule for removing troops should be negotiated with the new Iraqi government, with 2006 as a "goal," not a "requirement."

......AND, there are TOO MANY democratic senators and congressmen who want to avoid being called "the pullout party", and too many democrats who insist that we must 'finish up what we started', whatever the fuck that means.

How am I supposed to support Ms. Clinton and Mr. Lieberman who think the situation in Iraq is moving along nicely? How can THEY support the maniacs and their insane slaughterhouse policies?

I hope Mr. Dean will echo his anti war themes again FEARLESSLY and without worrying about silly things like protocol, appeasement, victory with honor and all that other bullshit while so many people are dying pointlessly.

[Swamp Rat]

1. I won't support ANY warmongers... and Happy Valentine's Day

:D

[mopaul]

2. who are the anti war democrats? and where are they?

show em' to me, and i'll support em'.

hilarious valentine card, now a large poster over my bed.

[KG]

3. not too many anti-war dems

the dem party is led by morally corrupt politcal cowards.

try not to expect too much from the dem party, that way you wont be disappointed.

[penna]

23. Senators who voted "NAY" to Iraq war resolution

Here is a list of the Senators who voted against the Iraq War Resolution:

NAYs ---23

Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)

Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)
The site with all the votes:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

[jbnow]

4. There is a difference

In "supporting the war" and not supporting early troop withdrawal.

I was 100% against the war and was further horrified by the shoddy planning.

But I am not sure what the next right step is either. We went in there and ravaged their country. What do we owe them? What is the best way to bring the most stability?

What we are doing isn't working, I don't support anything about what has been done there. I just don't know what would be best to do next.

It is distressing to here about what we haven't done right all along, including refusing offers to help train the Iraqi troops.

But if we are anti-war...how can we want to leave a country that was relatively stable when we got there in a state of chaos? What is right to do?

[markmalcom]

5. I'm not an expert on the logistics of these things, but

it seems to me that we could finance the rebuilding, but attempt to get OUR boots off the ground and find another "peace-keeping" type force - either the Iraqis themselves or another Muslim group - someone they would trust more than us...All indications are that OUR presence there is instigating violence.
..I don't believe that we should lose any more American lives...It was a mistake going in there and our continued presence, as stated, simply inflames the situation.

[leftchick]

10. The Logistics are, The US is Staying in Iraq "for a generation"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3107870

It is an insane idea I know, but then the whole concept of US Imperialism was thought up by the insane neo-con PNACers. These folks don't give a rat's ass how many soldiers we lose in the process of fulfilling their dreams of Iraq oil and Domination of the Mid-East.

[newyawker99]

12. Hi markmalcom!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[markmalcom]

24. Thank you Newyawker..!...I am originally from your side

of the "neighborhood", so to speak...Philadelphia born and raised...spent considerable time in New Yawk, too. Currently live in Chicago.B-)

[clem_c_rock]

13. These are all pertanant questions if the PNAC didn't exist

Unfortunately, these questions represent the official version we are given on all mainstream media. When you go down to the next level, the one where the mainstream media will never go, you can easily find volumes of information about the PNAC aganda. They don't try to hide any of it so you can go directly to their website.

In summery: Iraq has nothing, Repeat, nothing to do about democracy. It has nothing to do w/ the good of the Iraqi people. There was no exit plan developed because they never planned on leaving. 14 permanent bases proves this. A massive, permanent communications network proves this. The complete disbanding of the Iraqi army from the get-go proves this.

Iraq was all about US economics (domination of Middle Eastern oil) strategic footprint for future millitary events (IE. the invasion of Iran and Syria).

The PNAC explicitly speaks of all this. They put their agenda for all to see, they are following it to the letter. Why do people then buy the official story were given?

[jbnow]

16. I'm not buying the official version

They knew we weren't in danger and the reasons for going were economic. I knew we would go after Iran switched from the dollar to the Euro for their oil.
I was also chilled by articles like these:
http://www.harpers.org/BaghdadYearZero.html
Baghdad Year Zero
Pillaging Iraq in pursuit of a neocon utopia

Whatever they do I don't trust their motives and that isn't what I am talking about.

But I can't judge those who don't think we should quickly pull out as pro-war. It was that simple about whether we should go in, but not whether we should quickly pull out.

[ICantBelieve]

15. I agree...

I don't know what to do right now either. That's why it was unfair for the Republicans to criticize Kerry durning the campaign for not having a "plan" to get us out of Iraq. There's no way someone could have a plan without getting involved and taking baby steps to get us out. Nobody KNOWS start to finish how to make things better over there.

Wes Clark's plan is to involve the other countries in the region. General Clark thinks the main problem we're having there is that Iran and Seria don't want us to succeed in Iraq because they're afraid that if we're no longer encumbered in a mess in Iraq, we'll have troops ready to attack them.

General Clark's "plan" might be a good first step. But how could you possibly know what the next step is until you've seen what happens when you start taking positive steps?

It's not very caring of us to mess up their country and then just walk away. We have to help them get back on their feet. We broke it, we bought it. Now, there may very well come a day when the best thing we can do to help them is get the f*** out and let them fix the mess themselves. Then, perhaps, we could help them financially.

However, given that we've got a bunch of PNAC a**holes running it over there, there's no way to know if we've reached that point or not. How could we know? We haven't taken any positive steps to try to see if we can do the right things. It's very frustrating. And it's very tempting to say "Let's just get out!" But, it's not time yet. If we could have some DECENT leadership over there, we just might find that we could do some good.

Now, if the question is, "With the current leadership, what should we do?" Well, then the answer must be, "GET OUT NOW!" because these PNAC chickenhawks don't have the slightest clue how to help Iraq get back on its feet.

[clem_c_rock]

18. I don't believe they want it back on it's feet

at least in anyway that would be beneficial to Iraqi's.

It's all about keeping Iraq for economic and logistical reasons.

[ICantBelieve]

20. It depends on who "they" are...

I believe that Wes Clark wants it back on its feet. I even believe John Kerry does. And just about all the Democrats, actually. And maybe even John McCain. Now, the PNACers?? No. Don't EVEN GET ME STARTED!!!

[clem_c_rock]

21. Yes the PNAC guys. And unfortunately they call ALL the shots right now

[ICantBelieve]

22. Like I said, DON'T EVEN GET ME STARTED!!!

[jimshoes]

6. If the US would pull out of Iraq tomorrow

the only people who would be upset are the military hardware suppliers. Their bottom line is the only reason we are there in the first place.

[Disturbed]

7. Facing reality.

The U.S will not withdraw the bulk of troops from Iraq. 14 military bases are being built and will house around 100K trops. There will be a draw down in two years to around 75K to 50K troops that will stay for another 4 years. There is absolutely nothing the Dems can do about that unless they refuse en mass to fund the troops. They will NEVER do that. Iraq is going to be a vital strategic area and no amount of protest will change the Bush Juna agenda.

[sandnsea]

19. For 3 months

Then the far left would be screaming about the human rights violations in Iraq and how we should DOOOO SOMETHING. :eyes:

[IrateCitizen]

8. Understand the difference between these "Democrats" and us...

All of the Democrats you listed above are not agents of change within government. They are all supporters of the status quo. And a significant part of the American status quo is a foreign policy based on militarism and with the primary goal of perpetuating global hegemony.

If you're expecting the likes of Biden, Bayh, Pelosi, Reid, et.al. to propel change in our foreign policy, you're going to be waiting until hell freezes over.

Politicians like these don't represent us. They never will. What they DO represent, however, is a slightly LESSER impediment to the realization of change than those on the Republican side of the aisle. That is really their sole redeeming quality, with regards to the formation of national policy.

Therefore, we have to keep the heat on them. We have to engage primaries in their districts. We have to join and cultivate organizations that are based on a "neo-rainbow" strategy to organize outside of the Democratic Party while promoting and fielding candidates to run as Democrats or independents, depending upon the situation. We have to bring disparate people together around common interests rather than giving in to wedge issues. We have to either boot these bums out and replace them with people more in line with our common values, or make their lives such living hell in office that they have no choice but to advocate troop withdrawl.

[Padraig18]

9. Maybe because we're not foolish, single-issue voters?

Ya think, maybe?

:eyes:

[tinanator]

11. by being stupidly complicit and unworthy of support ourselves

that is if we are stupid enough to allow two pro war parties to call the tune as "Rome" burns. If you are for this imperialistic genocide, than have the decency to vote Republican.

[karynnj]

14. Both Kerry and Kennedy have said they are not that far apart

When Kerry was on MTP, he said he was not for a fixed time table and not for pulling out some soldiers immediately - 2 "NO" answers - then he talked about what he and Kennedy agreed on - esp no long term bases/operation which both feel is fueling the insurgency. I think Kerry termed their different as one of process.

When Kennedy was on MTP a few weeks later, Russet played only Kerry's 2 "NOs" and asked if they were at odds on this. Kennedy said they weren't far apart, which Russet disputed.

I actually think their views might become more similar as the chance to do any of the things that could have left Iraq in a better state disappear - because Bush doesn't do them. Kerry during the campaign was asked what he would do,given that Iraq was as it was, if he became President. If Kerry's 4 proposed actions would have been done over a year ago when Kerry first felt they had to be done (train troops quickly and safely out of country, really do basic reconstruction, internationalize and set elections)we would likely be out of Iraq.

Judging from Kerry's comments at the Rice confirmations, he was critical of the administration for dragging its feet on training and mentioned that there was a huge need for diplomacy between the various Iraqi groups so that after the elections things didn't blow up. Kerry answer on MTP the day of the elections was interesting. He essentially repeated that how the aftermath of the election is done is critical and is Bush's last chance to get it right. (He then was savaged by the right for not declaring this a huge unexpected victory.) I loved his response that "It went as expected"

Possibly, the biggest cause of any difference in Kerry and Kennedy's positions is that Kerry formulated his as if he would be President. This gave him the ability to assume having decision making control. He obviously still feels that plan is the most likely to make the best of a bad situation and seems to want to articulate it in hopes of persuading the Bush administration to move in that direction. (I doubt he BELIEVES they will, but they are even less likely to follow Kennedy's get out now request either.) To some degree, Kennedy (and Meehan) with their calls for withdrawal, almost give Bush the opportunity to move towards KERRY's plan while publicly denouncing KENNEDY's plan. A sign of this would be really having France and Germany train troops on a very expedited basis. This might happen only if the administration feels the political cost of the war is too high.

If they moved to following some of Kerry's advise, his name would definitely not be credited. During the campaign, Bush's position (in theory, not action) moved towards Kerry's. The general Bush asked to review the situation has sounded more like Kerry than Bush. Kerry seems motivated by his recognition that the region and the world can't deal with Iraq becoming a failed state and cares about consequences. Kerry's outrage that it was the wrong war and that it was being fought badly seemed very genuine.

I think Kerry and Kennedy are both two of the good guys and that they have been and are allies. Although there are differences, their views are much closer to each others than either's is to Bush's. (The question seems to boil down to whether the likely status of Iraq if we left now is significantly worse than some possible future status that we could help bring into existence. The question is actually harder than in Vietnam, where the conclusion was predictable - it would become one country with the communist / nationalists North's form of government. We were just delaying, at huge cost in VN lives and US lives, the inevitable. I don't think anyone knows what will happen if we leave Iraq tomorrow.) I do wonder if Kerry got really tired of comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam.

[sandnsea]

17. Because we aren't black/white thinkers

Because the choices aren't PNAC global domination or disbanding the military.

Because not every Democrat thinks exactly the same on this war and can't be put into neat little categories, as much as the far left wants that to be the case.

Because the author of this article is, putting it kindly, distorting what people actually said.

Because Dr. Dean wouldn't and won't be supporting immediate troop withdrawal either and I've actually never heard him say that he did.

I'll never understand what ears the far left listens with any more than I understand what ears the far right listens with.