Should Pro-Iraq War Democrats be Purged from the Democratic Party

[Chicago Democrat]

Poll question: Should Pro-Iraq War Democrats be Purged from the Democratic Party

[IronLionZion]

1. So we can be like the Republicans? silly rabbit

What happened to the big tent party that welcomes diversity? I only joined the Dems because my moderate views are not welcome in the Republican party, but everyone is welcome in the Democratic party!

Republicans are the ones that say march to our tune or fuck off.

[mattclearing]

5. I think they certainly deserve our rebuke.

Starting a war due to a fear of being called "Soft on Terrorism and National Security" is unacceptable.

I don't know about a purge, but some principles we should not bend on. War as a last resort is one of them.

[genius]

11. Change the DNC membership system so they lose power.

THe selection for the DNC is a joke. The votes (NOT anonymous) are on file for years and retribution supposedly comes to those voting wrong.

[Nordic]

16. But they're the ones who are like republicans

and they are either

a. stupid

b. panderers

so I say YEAH KICK 'EM THE HELL OUT

Or just form a new party and don't let 'em in. (my favorite)

[Seabiscuit]

22. Exactly. They (the DLC members) are the "Republican-lite".

[Seabiscuit]

21. Here's what happened:

"What happened to the big tent party that welcomes diversity?"

The takeover of the party by the corporate-backed DLC happened, that's what. They oppose gays, minorities, civil rights, civil liberties, small businesses, small farmers, etc., i.e. traditional "liberal" values in favor of sucking up to corporate interests.

They are the ones who voted for the IWR. They are the ones who have lost seats to Republicans for the past 10 years, and they are the ones who have lost the Presidency two elections in a row, by trying to appeal to rednecks (a losing strategy) while protecting their corporate backers.

We can't take back our country until we take back our party from the DLC. They must go!

I say vote the bastids out. If you want to call that a "purge", so be it. I call it "reform".

[LittleClarkie]

37. I didn't notice Kerry, someone you identify as DLC

Opposing "gays, minorities, civil rights, civil liberties, small businesses, small farmers."

In what instances has he done that.

And do you have specific examples of where the DLC has opposed those things?

Harsh allegations. Do you have facts to back them up? If so, I'd like to see it for myself so that I might make my own decisions on these things. Specific publications I should read?

[FightinNewDem]

53. No, Seabiscuit

What you want is a purge. Your way or the highway.

I have to assume that you are young and naive about the realities of politics. Otherwise, your attitude is closer to fascism than you realize.

[Julien Sorel]

60. Still waiting for those facts LittleClarkie asked for.

Going to be producing them any time soon? Or will you simply continue posting rants, totally unsupported by evidence?

[Gman]

2. Purge this!

Nobody decides who to "purge" from the party. Someone is a Democrat because they've declared theirself to be one.

[Pepperbelly]

4. That is a CREEPY f*cking pic. nt

[w4rma]

10. The website

http://www.liegirls.com/ :D

[Romberry]

3. Needlessly divisive question/poll

Wanna purge? Try sticking your fingers down your throat. Reasonable people can disagree about the Iraq war and a number of honest to goodness Democrats did feel it was the right thing to do. I disagree with them but I would not be willing to conduct a Republifascist-like purge.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. Fat chance. They're the ones doing the purging.

And, they're doing a helluva good job of it. I'm purging myself to the Greens.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. We Are A Big Tent....Don't Go...

If somebody supported the war because they truly believed Bush Team*'s lies they are to be pitied not purged...

[Ian David]

8. Many of them were fooled

I know that AT FIRST I supported the war. I was a little fooled, too.

And then I saw the looting, and knew we were NOT there to help the Iraqis.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. you believed your president

shame on him for fooling you.....

[LittleClarkie]

50. My belief had an expiration date

Colin Powell did much to, if not convince me that we needed to go to Iraq, then at least convince me to hold my tongue until I saw what happened.

That was why, when I finally woke up politically I gravitated to Clark, though I really knew little about him. He said exactly what I had thought when we started the Iraq war, that this administration did NOT have a blank check dated 9/11. When the mission suddenly went from WMD to "liberation" because it spun better, that was my wake up call.

I followed Clark until he fell out of the race, and then sort of sat there politically until about April. I found the article that triggered phase two of Erica's political awakening. It was an account of what was going on in Guantanamo. The article quoted the military as saying that everyone who was there deserved to be, but that they'd been there for almost two years with no due process and were not considered to be covered by the Geneva Convention because they weren't on American soil and were terrorists rather than soldiers in a war. As if due process was something we grant ourselves because we're cute, and not something that is due any human being. As if we were going to hold these people until the "war on terror" was over. And when was that going to be?! That's like declaring war on air! (or drugs, for that matter)

That drove me into John Kerry's arms, esp. after I went to Clark's old site and saw that he was advocating we jump on the Kerry bandwagon. Eh, ABB. I dutifully got a round Real Deal sign like my avatar, if only to announce to my Republican neighbors that I was NOT down with what was happening in Iraq.

I didn't know much about Kerry, except what I'd heard about his personality, which was that he had the charisma of styrofoam ("That good?" said one source.) But as I looked up articles, read books, and just generally researched my new candidate. I warmed up for real when I saw him do it first. He was in a group of veterans, and you could just see him loosen up around them.

Then I found out about Iran/Contra, BCCI and his anti-war stance back in the day, and I started to fall in love. I started showing up at HQ with goodies, whatever I thought they could use. Then I started actually working on the campaign. I even took off work for the last 5 day GOTV. I have never, never done that for anyone. I'd barely been in a Dem HQ before, except for maybe a token hour.

The first debate and then "Going Upriver" have cemented me in place. I ain't goin' no place.

As for Kerry's vote, I think he was in the same boat we were at about the same time. He should have known better, but from his writings on terrorism and his reaction to 9/11, I think he really wanted to see something done, and he foolishly believed the president. Whatever evidence they drummed up for the Congressmen must have been relatively convincing. But even so, he had this to say at the time:

"I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. And the administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein ... I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days -- to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out."

He did, and he was. Others may have been playing politics, but I believe Kerry honestly thought he was doing the right thing at the time, and didn't think his actions would necessarily lead to war. I read in a subsequent article that yes, he'd foolishly trusted the administration but that no, he would never do that again.

Others may have seen through the bullshit, and with his history, Kerry should have too, but I still remember the climate just a year ago. You could not say a mumbling word without getting "why do you hate America" slapped in your face. Many of us have since woken up.

Shant be fooled again. Not going back to sleep either. I wonder how many of us there are. Not enough, I suppose... yet.

[Dangerman]

61. Kerry was nuts!

I should have voted for Dean.

[AntiCoup2K4]

62. why would ANY of them believe a lying pResident from a family of criminals

And Democrats in Congress should have known that, not the least of which would be Kerry with his whole BCCI/Iran Contra investigation.

[AntiFascist]

19. Was just going to say.....

Democrats would be much better off trying to appeal to the Greens and other doves outside the Democratic party. People are already speculating about Democrats going the way of the Whigs.

[yurbud]

12. give them a last chance

to grow a spine.

Wait till we have a majority again and start fixing Bush's damage. Better yet, let most of these guys retire out--or trade them for some moderate New England republicans.

[Nordic]

18. no way, they just HAD their last chance

Bush should have been the easiest president to beat EVER.

The man is a hopeless fool, a corrupt gangster and everything he touches has literally gone up in flames.

He should have received about 1% of the vote.

The Democratic Party is an utter failure. As far as I am concerned, the party is DEAD. Why can't people see this?

[Zhade]

13. Purged? No. Educated out of their ignorant backing of an illegal war? Yes.

You cannot be for the truth and for the Iraq war. The two ideas are mutually exclusive, since the IW was based almost entirely on lies.

[Seabiscuit]

23. Tell that to John Kerry.

He's not willing to listen. He proved it during this campaign.

He is part of the enemy within, the DLC. They ALL must go!

[LittleClarkie]

34. Two points and a comment

This from Kerry's Senate speech on the IWR

"When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. And the administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein.

Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.
In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days -- to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.

If we do wind up going to war with Iraq , it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent--and I emphasize "imminent'' -- threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs. "

Second, I need to find the thread that asked the question: "How is John Kerry the DLC candidate." The consensus seemed to be that he was not.

Comment: This is why I'm a moderate. Certain parts of the farther left and right scare the crud out of me. Y'all are too much alike. Purges? Enemies within?

The divisive ones are the Republicans. We're the inclusive ones, remember?

[Radical Activist]

49. Tell it to Howard Dean

I know this will piss people off but if you support the continued occupation, like Dean does, it means you support the war. Dean's proposal was to get more foreign troops and stay in Iraq for several years. That's the same plan proposed by Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt and others who voted for the war.

The fact that Dean opposed the invasion earlier than most is nothing but bragging rights now. That doesn't mean much when we have soldiers over there being killed.

If you really want to purge those who are for the Iraq war, meaning those who support the continued occupation of Iraq, you would be left with a small number of people like Kuicinich and Sharpton.

[Seabiscuit]

51. Huh???

"The fact that Dean opposed the invasion earlier than most is nothing but bragging rights now. That doesn't mean much when we have soldiers over there being killed."

nothing but bragging rights????

Shit, man, he stood on PRINCIPLE! The dems in Congress who voted for the IWR showed NO SPINE - only concern about how they'd appear - during a climate of fear stirred up by the neocons - to the folks who elected them. Why couldn't they have stood with Senator Byrd and delay the vote until after the October recesss and do some hard investigation into the phony intelligence the White House was feeding them about WMDs and ties to Al Queda? After all, all they were giving up with that vote was their most important and crucial power of all - the power to declare war! That was a betrayal of the people's trust of the highest order!

Throughout his campaign and during the debates Dean made it clear he never would have invaded Iraq given the poor credibility record of the Bush administration, the results of the UN weapons inspectors, and given the fraudulent nature of the nuclear yellow cake claim and the fraudulent nature of the supposed ties between Saddam and Bin Laden which had been exposed prior to the invasion. Saddam was effectively contained. He distinguished himself from Kerry on that issue. And it is the MOST IMPORTANT issue about Iraq. This war is a violation of the U.N. Charter, and therefore a violation of the U.S. Constitution, and therefore a WAR CRIME. And throughout this war the Bush administration has been committing war crimes and human rights violations (Abu Graib, etc., ad nauseum). THAT's the issue - Dean has always been right on this most important issue, and Kerry has always been dead wrong.

Just last summer, when Tim Russert gave Kerry a final last chance to stand on principle by asking him whether he'd still vote for the IWR with the benefit of hindsight knowing now that there were NO WMDs, NO Saddam/Al Queda ties, and NO imminent threat to the U.S., Kerry TOTALLY BLEW IT and said "Yes." This, from the same man who, in the prior poster's quote stated that the only reason he would approve going to war with Iraq was to disarm Saddam of WMDs. His position on Iraq has never made any sense whatsoever. Because he compromised principles which Howard Dean NEVER did.

In the end, the neo-cons pointed the spotlight on Kerry's painting himself into a corner on Iraq by declaring that Kerry's position was virtually indistinguishable from Bush's. And they were right: Kerry supported the war, and the occupation, even though all the reasons he based that support on were proven false; all Kerry was really saying is that he would have done a "better job" than Bush in executing the war - bringing in NATO allies (who rightly opposed the war, and would never have joined in) and doing a better job militarily (e.g. make sure the troops had the equipment they needed). Shit, man, how the hell does one do a "better job" of committing war crimes???

So Kerry offered the voters no real choice between the candidates on the Iraq war issue. That alone was probably enough to insure his defeat on Nov. 2.

And you attempt to trivialize this most important issue about the war as "nothing but bragging rights now"?

:wtf:

As a secondary issue, what does a newly elected President do who inherits an illegal war? Well, first, the prior President blew up their water and electrical systems and pretty well laid to waste their infrastructure upon which their survival depends creating massive unemployment, disease, and death. We as a country therefore owe it to them to help them rebuild what we destroyed. It was Howard Dean who first articulated a position on that issue. He called for approaching the U.N. and NATO, and not only giving them control of the constitutional and electoral process in Iraq, but also having them take over security with U.N. troops in exchange for our kicking Halliburton and other American war profiteering companies out of Iraq and letting the U.N. and NATO countries together with the Iraqis themselves handle the reconstruction contracts.

The other candidates you mention merely plagiarized Dean's position on this issue except they usually extended their estimate of the time it would take to accomplish the above. Dean's position wasn't counted in "years" - he emphasized that it should begin immediately and be completed ASAP.

Finally, you misrepresent Dean's and my position about Iraq when you mischaracterize our positions with the phrase: "if you support the continued occupation, like Dean does, it means you support the war."

That's utter nonsense. How you can look at yourself in the mirror while twisting Dean's and my position on Iraq into "support the continued occupation" and "you support the war" is beyond my comprehension.

[Radical Activist]

57. You're talking about the past and you're confused

Yes Dean was right to oppose the war earlier than most. Yes it was wrong of some Congressional Democrats to cave in and vote for the war.
Does the fact that Dean opposed the war over a year ago get us out of Iraq today? No.
Does it make any US troops more likely to come home sooner because Dean did the right thing over a year ago? No.

Today, in the here and now, and in the future, what was said in the primary no longer effects the lives of the soldiers who are fighting and dying because we can't go back in time and stop the invasion from happening. What matters is where we go from here. You can condemn Democrats who voted for the war and you can praise those who opposed it all day long, but the question now is, what do we do now? That is what matters, not crowing about who was right and who was wrong.

On that crucial question Howard Dean gave the same answer as Kerry, Edwards, Lieberman and Gephardt. After the invasion happened they ALL said we should bring in other nations. They ALL said we should include the UN. And they all said we had to stay in Iraq for a prolonged time to finish the mess we began. Even Howard Dean said that during the primary. When Russert asked Dean TODAY about Iraq Dean expressed support for the President's goal of having elections in January and using that as a way to get us out. He didn't call for an immediate withdrawal or for turning it over to the UN. He said he supported what the President is currently doing with the elections.

I think you're a little confused about where Dean stood on the issue of occupation. After the :wtf: in your post you stopped talking about Dean and you started talking about Dennis Kucinich.

Dennis Kucinich opposed the war well before Dean spoke out against it, he did not plagiarize.

During the primary Kucinich said we should get the UN in and the US out in 90 days. Dean said we would be in Iraq for several *years* and criticized the quick withdrawal that Kucinich called for. Dean did most certainly NOT call for a quick withdrawal from Iraq like your post claims.

Kucinich was the first to talk about kicking out Halliburton and giving control of the contracts to the UN. Edwards, Dean and others picked up on that issue later, but only Kucinich was willing to totally give up control to the UN.

I think you're projecting your own views about Iraq onto Howard Dean. Dean didn't hold the positions you just named, but Kucinich did. If you don't believe, go back and reread the transcripts to the debates because you have definitely confused who said what.

[Radical Activist]

58. "we can't do it immediately"

is exactly what he said today on MTP.

[Forkboy]

14. No way...they're fun to poke with pointed sticks!

[Chicago Democrat]

15. I agree, but first thing is ... the liberals need to be in power

[Wild Rabbit]

17. That would make the Republicans very happy. NT

[Seabiscuit]

24. The Republicans are already very happy...

...with the DLC giving them everything they want, including a totally inept Presidential nominee.

They work together with the DLC to defeat mainstream liberal democrats, and they do it effectively.

Either we take back our party by purging the DLC scoundrels, or we form a new one. The current Democratic Party is political dead meat in the hands of the DLC power brokers.

[IronLionZion]

28. Repubs are like pigs in mud

they're loving the infighting, waffling, and disorganization that is killing the Democrats.

It's true that we need some backbone and strong message to win, but if we kick out people who disagree then we are no better than the Republicans who kick out anyone who doesn't march in lock step.

[Seabiscuit]

30. OK, don't "kick" them out, "vote" them out and vote in people with spine.

People like John Kerry and Joe Lieberman have had too many years to grow a spine and refuse to do so. This country can't afford to have the DLC hand all political power to the PNAC year after year.

[IronLionZion]

31. yes, voting is the way to do it.

That's why grass-roots participation and primary elections are so important. I think special interests have way too much power in our government. And it's not even a partisan thing, because the sometimes the same corporate interests influence both parties and some independents.

[Seabiscuit]

35. So you agree. Unfortunately the word "purge" was used to begin this

thread, and that raises images of the Hitler and Stalin "purges".

People apparently are interpreting that word differently in this thread.

My interpretation is to "vote" out the spineless reps who have handed the Bushies everything they want. They don't represent the party they're affiliated with. They represent right-wing elements in this country, which are distroying this country from the top down and destroying our position and credibility in the world today.

Principles must come first. And that requires "spine". "Umbrella" considerations should never trump principles.

[zonmoy]

46. perhaps

but we may need to be just as fanatical as the fanatics that have taken over the other party in order to win.

[DjTj]

20. Nobody is Pro-Iraq War...

...just like nobody is Pro-Abortion.

[Donna Zen]

26. please pardon me

but I disagree with the statement :"nobody is pro-war." War is a means to a political result; because the political result that bushCo desires can only be gained through war; they ARE pro-war. "Give us all your resources" can never be achieved through diplomacy.

[IronLionZion]

25. if you want to purge someting, take some laxatives

allowing disagreement is what makes the Democrats better than the Republicans. Democrats are uniters not dividers because we don't purge.

[mandyky]

27. What is with all this purge talk???!!!

We are Democrats, not fascist GOPers

[IronLionZion]

29. exactly,

the GOP wants us to purge and fight amongst ourselves. If we become intolerant of diversity, then we are no better than them.

[clutchcargo]

32. I am glad to see that not all Dem's have lost their minds--

All this talk of purges and new parties is exactly what the re pubs would want----Then when we all split our votes between two or three candidates or parties-they win even bigger and gain larger majorities in the congress allowing them to do whatever they want--If they get 60 voted in the senate they can break any filibuster and pass ANY piece of legislation they want-- -Who wins in that scenario--NOT US

[JohnKleeb]

56. I dont know, I really dont

[Doomsayer13]

33. That's right NARROW our Base

that'll win us a lot of fucking elections.

[IronLionZion]

38. YES, what we need is fewer votes for us and more for the Republicans

that'll show em! :eyes:

[greenohio]

36. Excellent post. Surprised there isn't more burn the DLC repsonses.

Maybe its because its the weekend.

[Cheswick2.0]

39. only because you chose to purposely misunderstand what people

are saying. No one has called for any purges at all. Just to send the organization called the DLC into oblivion. That has nothing to do with purging people. I have to wonder what your motivation is in continuing to insist otherwise.

No one has called for a purge of pro iraq war democrats.

[greenohio]

41. Ches! Hey, I've miss ya. I felt we were growing apart.

So if the DLC was to rename itself to the "we're really progressive club" you'd be happy cause I don't think that will make much difference.

[Cheswick2.0]

40. no one has called for a purge of anyone

why do you DLC apologist keep pretending otherwise?

[greenohio]

42. Not true. Besides, isn't demonizing fellow Dems just good enough?

If they are part of a particular organization, aren't they open season for being called traitors and repuke wanna-be's. Aren't they "trojan" republicans. Isn't that what I've read?

Cmon, get on the "demonize/cast out the DLC" bandwagon. Its fun!

[Radical Activist]

43. Does that include those who support the continued occupation?

Like Howard Dean, Kerry, Edwards and Hillary?

[fujiyama]

44. Is this what passes for creative and constructive

discussion on this board now?

This is absolutely ridiculous. Talks of purges. Why don't we kick out all those reps and senators to the right of Kucinich! That'll show 'em.

Whom it will show, I have no idea, but it will show 'EM.

[zulchzulu]

45. They should be shot at point blank range with confetti and marshmellows

If they are cute, they should have to play strip poker. We are going to get to the bottom of this!

[NoPasaran]

47. Where is all this talk of "purges" coming from?

The Democratic Party doesn't even have a Control Commission, much less a Gulag.

[Donna Zen]

48. Purged: No

Just don't make me vote for them. I'm seriously feeling injured after having to vote for not one but two pro-war Dems. Why? The vote for war showed poor judgment, and a lack of political courage.

If any Democratic president had lied to the congress and the American people about going to war, ALL of the republicans would have been up on their feet and screaming "liar" 24/7. The mollycoddling Dems were either too afraid to do the same, or just plain ignorant.

Enough is enough.

I swore I wouldn't vote for anyone who voted for the Patriot Act. Aside from money and time, I gave K-E a piece of my soul. While I cannot gain that back, I'll be damned if I do it again.

[Seabiscuit]

52. Arianna Huffington's take:

In this week's column, she writes:

"Anyone raising the idea that the party needs to "move to the middle" should immediately be escorted out of the building. Better yet, a trap door should open beneath them, sending them plummeting down an endless chute into electoral purgatory—which is exactly where the party will be permanently headquartered if it continues to adopt such a strategy."

"The party needs a chairman able to drive a stake through the heart of its bankrupt GOP-lite strategy and champion the populist economic agenda that has already proven potent at the ballot box in many conservative parts of the country."

I, for one, agree.

[JohnKleeb]

54. Umm y'all who are saying the DLC were all for the war resolution are

mistaken.
I can think of four DLC members who were against it.
Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan
Rep Tom Allen of Maine
Rep Jim Moran of Virginia
Rep Earl Blumhauer of Oregon

[JohnKleeb]

55. of course not

Purging is an inherently undemocratic idea.

[struggle4progress]

59. Just what we need: a smaller, more fractured party. eom