Why Has the Democratic Party Become the Pro-Iraqi Occupation Party?

[David Zephyr]

Is anyone here willing to post their thoughts on what I feel is a criminal silence from our Democratic Party on the both the illegal invasion and continued illegal occupation of Iraq?

More and more it seems to me as if there is a growing comfort and acceptance of the status quo in Iraq, not just by the majority of the Democrats in the House and Senate, but sadly...even here at the DU.

How small of a minority am I in now here at the DU in believing that the United States should announce its intentions to pull out of Iraq, set a time table for doing so? Please spare this thread of simplistic "cut and run" accusations which is what we who oppose this occupation expect to hear from Republicans, not Democrats.

Now that we've had the phony fillibuster fight, where's the real fight on the most important issue of our time now? Why has the Democratic Party become the pro-Iraqi occupation party?

[pocket]

1. political expedience

.

[KG]

2. become?

the dem party leadership has been wholeheartedly behind the iraq clusterfuck from jump-street, starting withleiberman and gephardt falling all over themselves to clear the way for the chimp to become a war prezdint.

[David Zephyr]

3. Became with the IWR.

Well, then there are at least two of us, KG.

[Telly Savalas]

34. More than half of the Democratic caucus voted against the IWR

House Roll Call Vote

Senate Roll Call Vote

While it's pretty appalling that they weren't all nays, it's mistating facts to claim that only a tiny minority of the Democrats have opposed the war.

Just a couple of weeks ago Lynne Woolsey proposed a measure which would have required the White House to draw up a timetable for a withdrawal from Iraq. Nearly 2/3's of the House Democrats voted for it.

Several of the presidential nominees were clear in their opposition to the war, but rank and file Democrats across the country voted against them in the primaries in favor of somebody who was presumably more "electable". So rather than hanging all the blame for the woes of our nation on a couple of knobs like Lieberman and Biden, perhaps we should hold accountable the millions of Democrats who in the voting booth enabled the hawks.

[David Zephyr]

36. "Misstating facts"?

Where did I say "that only a tiny minority of the Democrats have opposed the war?" You creating words for me out of thin air in order to argue against it is what most people would call "misstating facts".

Believe me, I know who the Democrats that did oppose the IWR were. One was my own Senator Boxer here in California.

And back to the intent of my thread? What is the stated alternative policy of the Democrats in the Senate and House to Bush's Iraqi Occupation? Answer: there is none. None.

[Telly Savalas]

39. How can the Democrats be the pro-Iraqi occupation party...

if a majority of their members and representatives are opposed to the fucking occupation? Claiming that it is misstates facts.

Edit for spelling: you're right. "Misstating" does have 2 s's.

[David Zephyr]

41. They are not opposing the occupation. Period.

Please respond to my post above where I asked you to point out where I had said "that only a tiny minority of the Democrats have opposed the war"? You made up a quote and attributed it to me in order to argue with me.

[Telly Savalas]

44. So if you don't think that it's a minority that oppose the occupation...

then why are you calling them a pro-occupation party?

[killbotfactory]

4. I believe that some honestly think the situation will get worse if we exit

right now. I disagree with them, but I can see there point. We commit a crime by invading, overthrow their government, if we leave now there is a chance Iraq will be the next Afghanistan and a big civil war will break out and lots more people will die.

Some are in the pocket of military industrial complex, or big oil. Some are just trying to forget Iraq ever happened.

[movonne]

7. You say a lot of people will die, but, but a lot are dying now and

I see that it will not stop until we get out...they do not want us there.

[killbotfactory]

10. I think we should leave ASAP

Bush has totally fucked us with his incompetence.

But I can see how people would be worried that the situation could get worse, and we could be seeing genocide or worse when we leave. Then there is the threat that Syria, Iran, and Turkey will take advantage of the power vacuum and either invade or control the country via puppet governments... etc.

[LoZoccolo]

11. I'm sure that Mr. Zephyr knows that by now...

...and chooses to pretend that he doesn't.

[David Zephyr]

13. Whatever that means.

Are you justifying our illegal military occupation of a nation that does not want us there, that daily rises up against us?

You support the military occupation of Iraq by the United States?

[LoZoccolo]

29. No, not in that post.

Whether or not you knew something before you posted as if you didn't has nothing to do with anything going on in Iraq or my opinion of what should go on there. Please try to pay attention.

[Zhade]

22. I just wonder how those folks answer when faced with the possibility...

...of a civil war breaking out WHILE WE'RE THERE.

Will they then decide it's no longer worth staying, or will they be manipulated into supporting continuing occupation to "help" the Iraqi people?

Face it, either we pull out soon or we get kicked out later. It's inevitable. We will never win. Ever.

One thing that comforts me is the knowledge that, while Americans are generally so blind to the reality of the world that they foolishly think the same military that illegally invaded Iraq can help restore the country, the Iraqis themselves - and most of the world - aren't nearly as stupid.

Iraqis will determine our timetable of withdrawal, one way or the other - just like in Viet Nam.

[David Zephyr]

28. Excellent observation, Zhade.

So what is the alternative policy of the Democrats in the Senate and House of Representatives to the Bush Iraqi Occupation Policy? You guessed it: there is none.

[Solly Mack]

5. "They were for it before they were against it"

would be the talking point of the GOP once the DP came together to say "Get out"

I'm not excusing....I'm simply saying what would happen.

That's the bed they made....and the one they're sleeping in...lumps and all.

In other words, politics.

Frankly, everyone who voted to give Bush powers...any powers for any reason under whatever justification they have( and I don't care what excuse they use either)... they were wrong to do so. Very wrong....and they share in the blame for everything now.

[David Zephyr]

6. They are just as guilty, Solly Mack.

There's no excusing it. I agree that "they share the blame for everything now."

[Solly Mack]

12. If they had just painted themselves into a corner, that would be one thing

but people are dying....this game of politics is costing lives and destroying people.

I find that unacceptable. And you're right, there is no excusing it.

[Zhade]

23. All they have to do is repeat the following words...

"Our President lied to all of us."

Pound that message home, and pretend they didn't know Iraq was no threat (hell, I knew, so I know they did), and they have cover.

The longer they go without saying it, the more it looks like CYA when they finally say it.

[Solly Mack]

25. Exactly. Just have someone prepare them a nice statement

teeming with patriotism and reeking of apple pie...and claim ignorance by saying Bush fooled them

[Zhade]

26. I mean, we KNOW the ignorance would be bullshit...

...but I'll settle for it, for now.

This war MUST stop. It's claiming so much blood and treasure from too many.

[Solly Mack]

27. Not sure I'll ever forgive those who yielded to Bush

but someone in Congress has to take a stand against the war....a real stand...even if it does cost them their free health care and retirement

[Zhade]

32. Indeed. We're on the same page.

NT!

[theboss]

8. I think we are screwed if we stay and screwed if we leave

If we go, the country plunges into civil war, tens of thousands of Iraqis die, and eventually either some Saddam-lite character takes over (which would probably be ok for the US from a strategic standpoint) or a radical Islamic government takes over (which would be very bad for the US from a strategic standpoint). If we leave, the people suffer badly and the US has a 50/50 chance of being screwed strategically.

If we stay, Iraqis suffer though probably not as many die. US soldiers die. And maybe there is a 1 to 2 percent chance that Democracy takes hold. These odds suck too. But are probably slightly better for the Iraqi people and probably better for our strategic interests.

Neither is a good solution though.

[redqueen]

9. 14 PERMANENT bases... we're not leaving... not for a long, long time.

A lot of the crap you see in DC is orchestrated to make it seem as if there are still two parties.

There mostly is not. Most of the craven whores in DC are of the corporatist party, and will do whatever is necessary to show their fealty to whatever industry needs a favor.

[MadHound]

14. You've got that right.

Welcome to our two party/same corporate master system of government. 'Pugs and Dems are merely putting on a mummers play, we know it all too well, good cop/bad cop.

[David Zephyr]

15. When it comes to Iraq, there's no difference between the two parties.

In this you are most correct, redqueen.

[redqueen]

17. In Iraq... that's just ONE area... how about no willingness

to buck the healthcare industry and big pharma, in order to give us national healthcare?

how about no willingness to buck the banking GODS, in order to gives us the ability to file bankruptcy if our medical expenses suddenly overwhelm us?

how about no willingness to buck huge corporate megacorps, in order to make offshoring home offices strictly for tax-evasion purposes ILLEGAL?

how about no willingness to buck the system in order to make a stink about the lack of an audit trail or any paper trail whatsoever for most voting machines?

how about no willingness to buck the corporate payola circuit in order to give us CLEAN, publicly-funded elections?


There are SO MANY ways Democrats are virtually indistinguishable from Republicans... up to now I've held on to the things whch differentiate them... I may just say fuck it and go green next time.

[David Zephyr]

30. Ah come on, RQ! Didn't you see Harry Reid "fight" the GOP recently.

Of course, I am speaking of the phony fillibuster "fight" which was orchestrated to make many in the base of the Democratic Party actually believe that our Congressional Democrats were "fighters". Ha! Many here fell for it, too. Sadly so.

[redqueen]

33. No... I tried not to watch.

I read enough about it to make my blood boil, though.

I wonder if there will come a time when enough of us have left for 'greener' pastures for the Dem party to notice, and make some changes.

[Spectral]

18. I think you are absolutely right. It was all about the bases

The Dems never raised a serious objection as a party to the war. Certain people came out, but the party tended to vote for the war, in increments.

[not systems]

20. Exactly... it is the illusion of opposition...

that they seek to maintain.

Going just far enough to make sure that the illusion
remains but never far enough to bring the farce to a
grinding halt.

[David Zephyr]

31. Illusion.

And it is beginning to appear as if many Democrats are in a delusion that their party has any alternative policy to Bush's Iraqi Occuaption whatsoever.

[Zhade]

24. Personally, I think the Iraqi people will have a say in that.

I think their conversations will consist of continued bombings and rocket-downed aircraft.

[OneBlueSky]

16. on the major stuff, they're all on the same page . . .

when it comes to the important stuff -- war, and controlling the world, for example . . . Republicans and Democrats are reading from the same script . . . with a few notable exceptions . . .

[jonnyblitz]

38. yup, both parties dance with who brung 'em to washington

war is good for business.$$$$$ gotta love those DLCers..:puke:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. Sheer, unapologetic, craven, pollwatching, cowardice.

But, they are politicians with their eyes firmly set on money and votes.

[Zhade]

21. Both parties have been pro-imperialism for some time.

But I do agree, it's sad to see in action how party establishment status quo sentiment infects the rank-and-file, like a creeping disease.

It's the "win at all costs" mentality, which is the party's way of manipulating grassroots' desperation about getting back into power to get what the party elite want. It's an utter disgrace, and too many good people are falling for it.

[Telly Savalas]

35. A majority of Democrats in Congress are with you.

Here's the roll call on the Woolsey Amendment which would have required the White House to draw up a time table for withdrawal:

http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.asp?year=2005&rollnumber=220

[welshTerrier2]

37. Senate Dems have sold out on Iraq ... but not DU'ers ...

i totally agree with your entire post except for your observation that DU'ers are accepting the status quo in Iraq ...

i've taken polls and regularly start threads on the tragic support shown by Senate Dems for bush's occupation of Iraq ... my sense is that a high percentage of DU supports either OUT NOW or some version of NEAR-TERM WITHDRAWAL ...

if you take your own poll, put me down for OUT NOW ... no matter what intentions some DU'ers may have for "fixing Iraq", it's time they acknowledged that it is never going to happen with neo-cons in power ... just how long are these misguided souls willing to wait ... the Senate Dems have been totally complicit in bush's Iraq occupation ... if they want the continued support of the progressive community, they'd better find a little enlightenment very soon ...

if not, both major parties will enter 2006 with large gaping holes in their big tents ... this is a very dangerous time for the Democratic Party ...

[David Zephyr]

40. Excellent observations, welshTerrier2

You write: "no matter what intentions some DU'ers may have for "fixing Iraq", it's time they acknowledged that it is never going to happen with neo-cons in power ... just how long are these misguided souls willing to wait ... the Senate Dems have been totally complicit in bush's Iraq occupation ... if they want the continued support of the progressive community, they'd better find a little enlightenment very soon."

[SmokingJacket]

42. As far as I can tell, you're not in the minority on DU.

There might be a fair number of people in the the broke, now fix-it crowd, but I'd wager there are more people who are calling for sooner-the-better withdrawl.

I suspect the Dem party has adopted what it thinks of as an effective "position of powerlessness." I, like you, disagree.

[David Zephyr]

43. Well, I am hoping that you are right, SmokingJacket.

I would truly hope that the DU, of all places, would be a strong voice for ending the illegal occupation of Iraq.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[noiretextatique]

47. bottom line...it wasn't the USA's problem to fix

we weren't invited to fix it, and the justifications used for fixing it were all based on lies, and finally...the people who live there don't seem to want us to fix it. frankly...i think we've done quite enough and need to leave immediately and let the UN clean up the mess.

[David Zephyr]

49. Well put, noiretblu.

:thumbsup:

[David Zephyr]

48. You're funny.

Thanks for the laugh...and your name calling.

[leesa]

46. Because they, or their corporate masters are making loads of $$$

[Deja Q]

50. The me-too party won't look so good either if *co goes down because of DSM

But as 50% of the population or so are tired of politics, it won't make a difference.

[pinto]

51. I support an exit plan with a timetable. That's a good advocacy point

within the party, in the country and in the world.

While the wheels of justice grind slowly in relation to the illegality of the war, and "who did what, when, where to get us here" remains to be resolved within the party, the country and the world - the "exit" issue seems a real good opportunity to support positive change on all fronts.