(Question) How much should our candidates' position on the WAR matter?

[edzontar]

I have supported Dean over Kerry largley because of this issue.

I was impressed that Dean spoke out early and clearly on why the war was a bad idea.

Now that the war has turned out to be a stinking disaster, I'd say Dean has been vindicated on the BIGGEST ISSUE of THEM ALL, and that the Senatorial-Congressional war-supporters like Kerry, Gephardt, and Holy Joe realy blew it, big-time.

I would still vote for any of them over Bush, but have decided to stick with a real anti-war candidate (I know that Kucinich and Sharpton and Graham took comparably enlightened positions, but however much I personally like them, they are not going to get the nomination).

So what do you think, friends? Should our candidates' position on the war really matter?

Should it be a determining factor in choosing a candidate, as it has been for me?

PLEASE--there is no call for bashing here--just share your thoughts, however conflicted, on this point.

[patdem]

1. It's not like we can STOP the invasion of Iraq..it's a done deal...

the question now..is what are their positions on the 'exit' strategy...'for or agin' is a moot point now. We need to ask what now?
How do we get our soldiers home and out of harms way and not leave Iraq a smoldering ruin? Of course the UN is the answer,and how to involve the UN...etc..it has all become very complicated since we were bushwacked by the invasion. It is obvious the current administration has no clue up their sleeve...I think if we can get our candidates to lay out the exit plan we would be head and shoulders above the current administration. IMHO

[Qutzupalotl]

2. It's almost a moot point

I say almost, because speaking out against the stupidity is a good thing, showing character and good judgement. However, those who voted for it were given false information and evidence. While we at DU can never imagine taking Bush at his word, many in Washington were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt...to their peril.

But it's extremely unlikely that the next Democratic President will wage a war for oil, past grudges, or any other reason besides self-defense. That seems more important to me...the question of who's an insane warmonger. As far as I can tell, none of the Dem candidates are. And to the question of judgement, it's unlikely that a Dem president would be deceived by his advisors--they'd get canned immediately when the truth came out. But if you're just a Senator or Represenative, apparently it's okay to be lied to.

[Warpy]

3. I don't fault Kerry

The whole inside the Beltway bunch were hit with a barrage of propaganda about the "secret" information that could not be shared. It was longstanding and intense. After all, don't forget the majority of folks OUTSIDE the Beltway approved of the invasion beforehand, and they didn't even get teased with all that "top secret/classified, don't ask" mumbojumbo.

Yes, Dean was courageous to speak out early. He was also insulated from the massive propaganda campaign aimed at Congress. However, good people can be wrong, and Kerry undoubtedly was on this issue. I've known Kerry since his VVAW days, and I respect his right to be wrong, especially when lied to.

My main reason for supporting Dean, by the way, is that he is the only non-DLC candidate who has a chance. The only way we'll ever get either our party or our country back is by breaking the stranglehold the DLC still has on party power. With them in place, we'll only be able to choose between GOP and GOP-lite. Dean's views are irrelevant at this point, and I know he's no liberal. He does have a good reason to despise the DLC, and that's good enough for me.

[JVS]

4. The most important thing, IMHO

Is that they have an exit strategy.

Getting us involved in this disaster is bad, but the most important thing is getting this over. I back Kucinich because that is what he wants to do. I wouldn't mind voting for Kerry or Gephardt if they were going to take us out of there either. The important thing is that we get out of the quagmire

[mike_c]

5. it's absolutely pivotal, IMO-- a make or break issue for me....

eom

[HFishbine]

6. Beyond the immediate issue

is a candidate's ability to correctly antitipate the fall-out of a given policy and to stand up for what is right even in the face of huge political cost. Dean did it with Civil Unions andhe did it with the war. It speaks volumes about his intellegence and his character.

[sandnsea]

7. What Dean said

"if the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice." Salon 2/23

"Well, I think that the United Nations makes it clear that Saddam has to disarm, and if he doesn't, then they will disarm him militarily. I have no problem with supporting a United Nations attack on Iraq, but I want it to be supported by the United Nations. That's a well-constituted body."
"My own preference is that we give the inspectors some more time-- we're making some progress there-- but that if Saddam refuses, for example, to destroy the missiles as the United Nations has demanded, then I think the United Nations is going to have an obligation to disarm him."
"My strategy for dealing with Iraq, as president, would be to contain them, to continue to push the United Nations to disarm them" Online Newshour 2/20

Dean's position is no different than those he is attacking. He brings the same solution to the situation as the rest and then somehow claims his is different. And while he says he wouldn't have authorized military action, he fails to say how he would have gotten those inspectors on the ground in the first place in order to help the UN put pressure on Iraq to disarm. He has no plan, he has no consistency, he's run his entire campaign on slamming the opposition then turns around and cries when he has to face the same criticisms. This is just not someone I want representing the Democratic Party.

[TreasonousBastard]

8. Yeah, I agree with...

those who say we're stuck with the war now, and I'm more interested in what the plans for the future are.

At this point, I don't consider Iraq the key issue, although it's been made one hell of a big one if only because of the massive costs we've amassed. We'll eventually get out of Iraq, and they will go on with their business, and Iraq should have very little effect on us in a few years, if handled properly.

I am much more interested in what's happening here. Hemorrhaging jobs, wealth and income disparities, trade imbalances, environmental disaster, debt piling up, rightwing activist courts, crumbling schools, crumbling infrastructure, health care, retirement security, disappearing college money... the list goes on.

These are the things that will affect us for the rest of our lives.

At the rate these assholes are going, the US will need assistance from Iraq in the not too distant future.