Was the Democratic Party wrong in believing we had to support war...?

[kentuck]

or otherwise, it was an automatic loss in the election? Was this a war we that we all should have opposed vehemently? If we had told the truth about the illegal invasion and the Bush lies leading up to the war, would that have been an automatic "loser"?

It wasn't just the Democratic leadership or most of the Democrats in Congress that supported the war in Iraq, but many here at DU also. We were a torn Party on the war "issue". In hindsight, it seems to me, we should have opposed it unanimously...

[htuttle]

1. Obviously

[kentuck]

3. i think it's still not obvious to many...

especially those elected to office that voted for the war, a la Lieberman and others.

[DustMolecule]

7. Lieberman is a "plant'.....

I would think that's pretty obvious by now....he doesn't espouse ANY democratic values. He merely has a "D" in front of his name (and why Gore ever chose him as his running mate.....well, perhaps Gore wasn't the man that the Dems were hoping for...perhaps things do turn out for the good, in a certain way...)

[htuttle]

9. I hate to think that so many Congresspersons are so ignorant...

...that I could see so many of these things and they could not. Even if some thought he had chemical weapons -- come 'on. We're going to be worried about a country halfway around the world owning 'mustard gas'? Right. Like *that's* worth going to war over.

So at the time, I thought that almost all of the votes for the war were political calculations -- I don't think anybody was really that worried about Saddam Hussein. It's just that so few thought that they could afford *politically* to oppose the war. And that's why they supported it. The language and the speeches (and in some cases, the conviction) followed.

There weren't too many other wars I can think of that were discussed on purely domestic political reasons. If you look at the run up to the war on Iraq, and the discussions in Congress at the time, almost all of them were based around domestic political arguments, like 'The American people won't stand for...', and 'The American people expect us to...', and so on. Powell brought *drawings* of a truck and a vial of sugar to the UN, for God's sake.

It's like the debate and decision to go to war was based on domestic votes and potential votes, and not facts, right from the start.

I just think politicians like Lieberman (and the Republicans, of course) think that supporting the war is still a good political calculation.

[Zensea]

2. Yes

also obviously.

--- In answer to the question posed in the subject line.

In answer to your other question, it's hard to say if it would have been an obvious loser or not. That depends on a lot of factors. I think if the message about the lies had been successfully brought to the forefront sooner then it might have swung the election. But a lot of people tried and didn't succeed in doing so.

Regardless of the outcome though, I think that in answer to the question in the subject line the answer is yes.

[MontecitoDem]

4. I wasn't on DU then, but I'm surprised to hear that!

I opposed it totally and completely. But I also opposed bombing Afghanistan and Gulf War 1.

I was so disappointed that the dems (other than a handful, including Robert Byrd) didn't stand up for us.

[kentuck]

6. I don't think so many people actually "supported" the war as

believed it was a political position out of necessity...Perhaps? And that was where a lot of John Kerry's support came from... Even from grasssroots Democrats, I think that was the prevalent thought. However, hindsight is 20/20...

[John_H]

5. not to split hairs but many Dems were wrong to believe

they had to pretend to support the war to further their own political aspirations, which excuses nothing.

[PassingFair]

27. There you go, JohnH

The first time I've agreed with you!
"Those People" in Congress do NOT represent me.
They did NOT represent me when they voted yes on IWR.
They did NOT represent me when they voted yes on the "Patriot Acts".
They did NOT represent me when they voted yes for Condoleezza Rice.
The do NOT represent me as the roll over, and over, an over, and over, and over....well, you get the idea.

Howard Dean has said that many in Washington are happy with being in 2nd or 3rd place. Their own compromised skins are safe for another 4 years at a time. We need to take 1st. We need to be bold. We have to be unafraid to lose, or we cannot win. We need to burst through the propaganda and skewed perception being fed to us by the media.
By a poll I put up here, 93% of democrats were against going into this "war" (by the way, has war ACTUALLY been declared?), yet our leadership rolled over and let the 'pukes steal all the covers. Time to yank them off their skanky butts.

[autorank]

8. UBETCHA it was. The war is patently absurd, unwinable.

They responded in fear to * the conqueror of Afghanistan. If they'd fought, then the crap that has occurred would have been in much sharper focus and we'd have a much stronger national debate. They blew it period. Speak from logic and from your conviction, not from stupid polls or pundit pap.

[kentuck]

10. There's a lesson here for Democrats....

George W Bush was the only leader in the world that believed Saddam was a threat and he dragged Tony Blair along with him. There was no reason for the Democrats not to oppose the war on principle alone. However, when we have troops in harm's way, it is a tough political call. And I think when the voters in Iowa chose Kerry, mostly because of his military background, the grassroots was saying that we have to support the "war on terrorism". And that was when we lost the game, in my opinion. All in hindsight, I can say that.

[goodhue]

11. Yes

Yes, those in party and here on DU who believed support for war was a political necessity were wrong. Tragically so. Many of us felt so at the time, without need for hindsight.

[leftofthedial]

12. yes

the "war" is the preeminent issue and the dems gave voters no clear alternative to the repukes.

[EFerrari]

13. Yes, and this is why

I wasn't here then but, in general, we knew the "evidence" was bogus. We knew. Go back into your own emailbox and see for yourself. Or, at very least, nothing presented to us made an airtight case to invade and slaughter people. You could see BushCo slathering to go in, tip off number 1.

I remember yelling at Colin Powell when his shameful UN speech was on the tube.

The Senate knew. They had access to the NIE. It was *FULL* of qualifiers on the "intelligence".

BushCo started saying "Iraq" on Sept 12 and we all should have known better.

[TankLV]

14. Y. E. S.

No question about it.

Fucked up big time.

[sarahlee]

15. YES

n/t

[Tinoire]

16. 1. Yes Dems should have 2.Too many at DU but still a minority at DU imo

and don't you think they were hounded by the majority for their support? Those were such unified times- before the war and definitely before the primaries. What percentage are you thinking is many? I do remember the same moderate group of suspects telling us to tone it down and that they were embarrassed to be in such an unpatriotic forum but they got pretty beat up for it. Even Jiacinto ended up going to an anti-war march (though he may have gone after the war started- not sure for him).

I blame the Democratic Party very, very much but not DU. We did all we could Kentuck. We faxed, wrote letters, swore not to vote for any politician who voted for the war, handed our cell phones to total strangers and more importantly were so in force out in the streets that people were carrying DU banners to find other DUers at the protest marches. You were very vocal about it. LIHOP/MIHOP won in poll after poll despite the 'reasonable ones'.

Gosh it all seems so long ago but the war was an important reason that DU went mainly to Dean and Kucinich. We were a lot more Left at that time and I think the ones who were pro-war were so shunned that most of them quietly slunk away for a few months.

Now you have me curious to find polls.

DU tried Kentuck. We tried damn hard. I hope you're not beating yourself up thinking we could have done more. The only thing we could have done more was throw off the war supporters who were trying to dilute our message.

Now for the rest of your post, you get an unequivocal YES. The war is precisely what tore this party apart and it's a wound that won't heal for a long time because the antiwar faction is not going to cave in and play nice. Not ever again. And with every death, some of us become angrier and more unforgiving to those who collaborated.

Vichy, France all over again.

And I'm sorry but the war I can't forgive. It's made me look at some Democrats and especially the Democratic Party in a totally different way.

On edit: I just remembered, wish I hadn't, the loud accusations that you were an idiot to say that there were no WMDs or that you were anti-Semitic to bring up PNAC and the men from JINSA. But that still wasn't themajority- back in those days, most people were open-minded enough to at least listen and ask questions because few had any agenda besides unseating Bush. Gosh, I learned so much from other DUers and for that knowledge, for those discussions, I am very, very grateful.

[welshTerrier2]

28. "Not ever again"

Tinoire, your post just totally blew me away ...

i felt, and feel, that i sold my soul to move from a non-negotiable anti-war position to ultimately become a strong ABB proponent ...

i'm done with that ...

the "reasonable ones" (i love that ...) like to toss around the idea that we require purity and perfection ... and that after the support we gave to Kerry ...

there are some issues, like using the American military to invade other countries without justification, like the deaths of over 100,000 Iraqis, like torture, torture for god's sake, like getting American troops killed for a parade of changing justifications, and like the bankrupting of the U.S. Treasury while we have so many critical domestic needs, that I will never compromise on again ...

that's the problem I have with "working within the Party" ... if you can't "win" (i.e. get them to go along with your deepest beliefs), what's left? you're just supposed to sheepishly endorse candidates who are fighting against what you believe in? forget it !! been there, done that ...

the Party will expect "the left" to show up again next time while they peddle their "we're tougher than the republicans" agenda ... it just isn't going to happen ... "not ever again" ...

[hector459]

17. YES!!

eom

[ElsewheresDaughter]

18. YES and some have had the balls to admit it

[sendero]

19. I think...

... it would have been a hard sell, but a possible one.

Dems should have stalled the authority as long as possible, with the explanation that the inspectors need more time.

As they got more and more time, we'd then say "if there are WMDs, why can't we find them"?

I don't think it would have been a slam-dunk sell the the American public, they simply are too uninformed to make rational decisions (Saddam did 911? right, fool). But it could have been done if there was any real leadership in the party.

At the present time, their isn't IMHO.

[mattclearing]

20. Who knows? Let's quit the hand wringing.

Worrying about whether we should have voted for the IWR (we shouldn't have) is so two years ago.

[Q]

22. Yet...we seem to keep repeating the same mistakes over and over...

...because some (like you) think that it's 'hand wringing' to study and learn from the past.

It was the 'move on' and 'get over it' factions in the Democratic party that stood in the way of any real progress towards a united front against Bush and the PNAC gang. They're the ones that wanted 'proof' before they could believe that Bush intended to attack Iraq...even though he was amassing troops on their border while saying he had no intentions to attack.

Kennedy, Byrd, Kucinich and others knew what Bush was up to from the very beginning. But the New Democrats had control of the party and they were to have their way. They wanted war as much as the Bushies.

[mattclearing]

25. Don't lump me in with them. I was out there marching against the war.

Were you out on the Mall in January 2003 when it was 25 degrees out and windy?

Don't ever insinuate that I am in the pro-war crowd.

My point was that it is over. I think people get it. Dean is seeing little opposition.

They are actually fighting the nomination of Gonzales, and Social Security is a non-issue according to Reid.

Perhaps you should pay more attention to the present, rather than trying to dredge up the fights of the past.

[welshTerrier2]

34. i think you're missing the point

first, i respect your point that you opposed the war ... second, to the extent the base post looks "back" rather than forward, perhaps i agree with you in part ...

but i think there's a much larger point worth discussing ... what has the Democratic Party said about Iran? what have they said about Syria? what have they said about the use and abuse of American military power? what have they said about the need for regional negotiations instead of Sunday's dog and pony show in Iraq? i took from the base post an implication that the Party is "playing the macho game" (i.e. my guy's tougher than your guy) and that it cost us votes ... yes, perhaps it was phrased as a look back ... but the same things regarding the Middle East are still happening today ... and the Party is taking the same non-positions ...

perhaps we don't need to get fixated on where we've been ... but there sure as hell is plenty to talk about regarding the Middle East and U.S. military policy ... and frankly, i haven't heard much, if anything, that i've liked from the Party ...

it's getting harder and harder to see that there's any policy at all ... so, there you go ... you wanted a focus on the present; that works for me ...

and btw, Dean is not the issue ... i haven't seen Dean taking a strong leadership role on Iraq ... I heard what Kennedy had to say but didn't hear anything regarding a change in course from Dean ... everybody wants to say that this guy or that guy is calling for an "exit strategy" but very few have called for withdrawal ...

[mattclearing]

38. You're absolutely right. The Dem leadership hasn't articulated an agenda.

And that is the source of much perceived weakness come election time. Whenever elections come around, our officials are suddenly scrambling to figure out how we feel about these issues.

Syria? Iran? I know John Kerry probably has positions on these things personally. I don't know that Dean has a point of view regarding them.

Who determines the direction of the party? When all is said and done, who has the final say?

For Republicans, it's generally that breakfast club thing they have.

Who decides where we are? Is Bill Clinton up late deciding how we feel about foreign affairs? Jimmy Carter? Hillary? Ted Kennedy?

You bring up an excellent point about what our officials want to do.

The current set of Democrats don't seem to have much of a feel for foreign policy...it is more of "Let's not do what HE wants to do."

That is not a policy, and the Republicans know it and beat us like a drum with it.

[kentuck]

43. And you are correct....

This is not a problem that is "behind" us. It still is something we must deal with and get "behind" us. We have to oppose future calamitous decisions of Bush and the Repubs. We have been weakened by our lackluster support for the war. We would have been stronger and would have taken the moral position by opposing it from the beginning. But, war is always a very devisive issue for the Democratic Party. There is no easy solution. However, in hindsight, we should have opposed it on moral grounds. The nominations now before the Senate are actually continuations from the Party's decision to suppport Bush in his "war" and makes us weaker if we support these present nominations. We need to take a stand and regain our footing, in my opinion.

[mattclearing]

52. What I'm saying is that we need to do more than oppose.

We need to articulate a real alternative.

It's not just "Don't do what he wants to do."

It should be "We want to do this."

Even if we don't want to do anything about Syria, I'm sure there are things that we can think of that will help the situation.

How about (and please bear with me on this, because I'm going to open up the Israeli/Palestinian issue) we call for a real international forum on the Israeli Palestinian issue, including all Muslim, Israeli, and otherwise concerned heads of state to try and discuss solutions to the Western/Muslim nation crisis?

This is just an example. Tom DeLay said something about Democrats finding more and more ways to say no today.

Why don't we start making Bush say no?

[kentuck]

57. I agree that we need to do more than simply "oppose"...

we need to offer alternatives.

[welshTerrier2]

59. we need to offer a framework NOW

we can't wait for the next IWR (IRAN War Resolution) or the next SWR (Syria War Resolution) ...

this problem characterizes the "re-active" approach to everything the Party does ... "we won't know what we think until our next nominee tells us" ...

absent a "story" that is repeated over and over, we will have no power ... we must define who we are and what we think, say on foreign policy and the use of the American military, and then repeat it over and over and over and over and ... well, you get the idea ...

do you think there are more than 5 people in this country who have a clue where the Democratic Party stands on using the American military thoughout the Middle East ???? the Party is all over the map and has not communicated a clear and consistent position ...

we need to build a framework on this issue (and all issues) NOW and start EDUCATING the American public on what we believe ... if we wait for the next election, or even the next piece of legislation, we've already lost ...

[IrateCitizen]

31. But advocating the end of the occupation is so... TODAY!

And I still don't hear this being said by the majority of leading Democrats in Congress. :grr:

It seems most of them are more interested in trying to justify their mistake than they are in correcting the wrong.

[welshTerrier2]

37. "trying to justify their mistake"

i see it as much worse than that ... i don't think they see their Iraq policy as a mistake ... they are leaving the door wide open for bush to go into Iran, Syria or anywhere else ...

i think those in charge in the Party have bought into the "we have to out tough them" school of politics ... if that's the case, don't look for the Democrats to stand in opposition to bush's eternal war ...

the bottom line is, they aren't trying to justify anything ... they still believe they've found the holy grail of politics ... they've come to believe that "strength and power" trumps "diplomacy and peace" ...

Democrats should be EDUCATING Americans now about why we cannot invade other countries ... they have no interest and no intention of doing any such thing ...

[CWebster]

21. Yes, of course

It was an obviously manufactured case.

The problem Kerry has is it bound his hands--it was the moment where he lost everything - while Dick Durbin, who voted against it, is quoted as saying it was the best vote he ever cast in his entire career.

[JNelson6563]

23. Yes!

Cowardy idiots.

[mdmc]

24. YES

:kick:

[welshTerrier2]

26. automatic loss = no CLEAR differences with bush

here's how i see it ...

BEFORE politics are considered, the Democratic Party should have had a process in place to really ascertain what Democrats, all Democrats, thought about Iraq ... the FIRST decision should have been whether the policy was right or wrong and exactly how it needed to be changed relative to what bush was doing ...

if you make decisions primarily to fit into a "political slot", you stand for nothing ... voters can quickly sense that you lack commitment to your positions ... this is deadly ...

HOWEVER, recognizing the realities you cited, that the Party was divided on the right approach, I think the politics of Iraq were handled very badly ... focussing solely on the politics, the Democrats seemed to yield this issue to the republicans ...

the Democratic Party still hasn't gotten over its "macho fixation" ... what's that you ask? it's the idea that Democrats are perceived as weak on defense ... so we got a steady diet of "reporting for duty", sending more troops to Iraq, hunting down and killing bin Laden ... the problem was, though, that the expectation of voters was for the "opposition party" to oppose ... as a result, the Democratic position came across as vague and muddled ...

the result of this was that, not only did the issue not help Kerry, but just when so much national attention was focussed on Iraq and the Democratic Party had a real national stage to share its vision, Americans were left with no vision ...

think of it this way ... if you go around and ask 50 people on the street what is the basic deal with republicans on foreign policy and terrorism, i expect you'll get a very clear and very consistent answer ... if you ask the same question about Democrats, you'll get a very fuzzy inconsistent answer IF ANY ... and there's the problem ... the Democratic Party has not reached voters with their message on foreign policy and the use of the American military ... during an election where the country is at war and terrorism is on the minds of many voters, this is a perfect formula for losing ... and it loses not just an election but it solidifies a view held by many that foreign policy is for republicans and domestic policy is for Democrats ...

the "we can be even tougher than the republicans" hasn't gotten any traction at all because "old reliable" is already working that corner ... while there may really have been significant differences hidden away in the wonky details of Kerry's Iraq position, they were never politically viable ... they came across, rightly or wrongly, as "bureaucratic tweaks" of bush's "we're gunna go get 'em" cowboy strategy ...

the right path for the Party was, AND IS, to stand up for peace and diplomacy ... the position would have had soul ... it would have had passion ... it would have saved lives ... it would have allowed Democrats to channel billions into domestic programs to help Americans at home ... it would have allowed Democrats to push for regional negotiations which is the only possible solution in Iraq ... and politically speaking, it would have met the expectations that voters had from the Democratic Party ... when voters think you're wearing the other team's uniform, they assume you're endorsing the other team's position ...

being "tough on defense" does not mean advocating war ... Democrats don't seem to understand this yet ... Kerry kept talking about "war as a last resort" but never convinced anyone he was opposed to the war ... i know what he said; it didn't communicate well ...

[CTLawGuy]

29. yes

our very system of government counts on Congress to act as a check and balance on the president. That's why the Constitution gave Congress the sole power to declare war.

Morally, Democrats (and Republicans) had a duty to keep war power from the president until they were satisfied that it needed to be used, until they could verify the intelligence used. We are NOT supposed to just give the president whatever power he wants, ESPECIALLY when people's lives are at stake, and hope he uses it wisely. If thats the case, why have Congress involved at all?

Politically, the Democrats took the wrong course. I have a maxim that says "every time you agree with your opponent, you make him stronger." By agreeing with Bush on the war, we help to give the war credibility among the voters. If no one opposes the war in government, why should any voter? The problem now is, the Republicans will always be more "pro-war" than the Democrats, so if the voter deems it important, he or she will always go with the Republican. So by agreeing with the war, the Dems set up their own failure.

[Toots]

30. I seem to remember both Clintons backing Bush* up on his data

When the ex-President says it is just like Bush* says it is there is little wiggle room for the rest of the Congress. I do believe they should never have given away their power to declare war and send American troops off to battle even if it were justified. For that they were Wrong

[Norquist Nemesis]

32. No, not at all

The real problem is the ones who did support it are STILL saying removing Hussein was a "good thing and the world is safer" instead of saying, "Bush LIED. Based on those LIES from Bush regarding Hussein's posession of WMDs, it is in fact the President of this country that has made American and the rest of the world less safe than we were prior to 9/11."

[KoKo]

33. Do you mean by "War" Iraq Invasion? I supported going into Afghanistan

just like most DU'ers and Democrats did. Even though I'm inclined to be a LIHOP/MIHOP supporter.

But, Iraq was just plain wrong. I don't remember any DU'ers thinking we should go into Iraq. So when you say war it's confusing because there's a difference between going into Afghanistan with UN approval and a multi-national force, and Invading a Sovereign Country with a "coalition of the coerced" so that you can test run "Doctrine of Pre-Emptive Strike."

And, yes, we Dems should have talked about it. Check out Naomi Klein's excellent article about what Kerry could have done differently over in "Editorials Forum." It's really worth a read...one of the best explanations of where the Dem strategists went wrong and what we need to to about Iraq going forward. Maybe you saw it...but if not..it's worth a look. :hi:

[kentuck]

35. I think this is important because it carries over to nominations, etc..

Because "we" took the wrong position on the war - a weak noncommittal- it weakened our Party overall. We must regain our position by opposing "torture" and all those associated with it. It is an opportunity for our Party to reclaim the "moral" high ground and get back on the right track. The were steam-rolled by Bush and the Repubs and they need to take a stand...and soon.

[annabanana]

36. We couldn't get out the "Iraq isn't Afganistan" message quick enough.

Another victim of "liberal" media..
We gots to get the fairness doctrine back.......gots to.

[kentuck]

40. I don't think this was necessarily a problem with the "media"..

This issue was all over the media and if the Democrats had vehemently opposed it, it would have gotten coverage. However, I think our Party changed after the Iowa primary, when Kerry won, and many in our Party took the votes in Iowa as proof that we were taking the right approach on Iraq and, like a snowball, the support for Kerry congealed within the Party and over the next primary states. Wesley Clark had the right message at the time but after he was defeated, most of us threw our support behind Kerry. Dean also had a different message. But it was the Party regulars that made the decision for Kerry, in my opinion, and most followed.

[annabanana]

42. Clark and Dean were both destroyed by the media...

And their alternate Correct message was marginalized.

[kentuck]

46. I don't recall that Clark was destroyed by the "media"...

And many will say that Dean set himself up for failure after the Iowa primary (caucus?) We know that the media blew it out of proportion. But that was after the primary in Iowa. It did not cause him to lose Iowa.

[ScreamingMeemie]

51. No, but most primaries are not a cake walk for one candidate. Bill

Clinton didn't win the first caucus either. Media manipulation. Especially in hindsight...when some admitted to overplaying the negativity. They had a job. They did it. :hi:

[ThorsHammer]

47. Good point

IMO, everything was hazy back then, and most everyone supported going to Afghanistan to get Osama. The war hawks were able to take advantage, and create a "link" between Iraq, 9/11, Al-Qaeda, etc, which enough people fell for. In hindsight, opposing Iraq back then may very well have led to a victory this past November.

[sampsonblk]

39. Absolutely

110%. We are paying for it now.

[BlueInRed]

41. Yes, and many other issues as well

I think Democrats should have voiced their reservations all along, even if it was simply to put real restrictions on the "Iraq resolution". But 9-11 seemed to make everyone believe Bush was invulnerable on all issues, all the time. I sure think that Republicans would voiced their reservations if the situation was reversed. (Imagine for a minute that 9-11 happened on President Gore's watch and think of how the Republicans would have reacted if Gore had then proposed attacking Iraq.)

[Tippy]

44. Was the Democratic Party wrong in believing we had to support war...?

They sure were...all they could think about was the next election...so they wrapped themselves in the flag and prayed....Instead of standing up for what they had to know was right and moral decision they folded.

[ctaylor]

62. cynical

I know I am cynical about politicans lying to get elected, but do you believe that all Democrats who voted for the war thought it was wrong but did it to get elected?

I'm sure some did, but I'd like to believe that some of them thought it was right.

Better questions would be:

1. "Was it wrong to support the war?"
2. "Was it a mistake to support the war in light of what we know now but could not have known then?
3. "Was it politically disadvantageous to have supported the war?"
4. "Were the reasons for supporting the war poorly explained to the world and/or the public?"

Does anyone know if there were Democrats in congress who supported the war for idealistic reasons that might be in a good position to say "I told you so" right now when everyone is feeling good about the election?

If they DID all think it was wrong and vote for it, then don't we need to find new politicians?

[Pepperbelly]

45. yep but, not be cliche, hindsight iIS 20/20.

At the time, I remember distinctly not wanting to believe Bush's lies and at the same time, seeing very little information countering the son of a bitch as the media cheer-led us right the fuck into it.

[kentuck]

48. Now we have to use our 20/20 hindsight to our advantage...

Do you agree? :)

[Pepperbelly]

yep and here is the thing that I have noticed ...

And we cannot let them get away with this ... they are revising history to make the war's justification about liberation, democracy and nation-building rather than WMDs and terrorism. The corporate media superstars seem content to let this happen.

I sincerely hope that the Democratic Party doesn't allow this to happen.

[htuttle]

50. They are letting it happen -- they're encouraging it

...Since if they can justify the war after the fact, then they justify their own short-sighted, politically motivated support for the war at the same time.

[Tippy]

54. I agree but

Once the horse has been stolen what is the point in locking the barn door...What we need to do is electing people we know will have the strength to do what is right....

[ScreamingMeemie]

49. 60% percent of the American public think we were wrong to go into

Iraq. The majority of DU was against it, until the primaries. I think we would have stood just as good a chance with a well thought out platform regarding the war. Our major problem is there was no defined answer in that respect.

[yazsir]

53. It should've been rejected on the merits.

I say forget the political considerations. The courage of convictions is trump.

It seems we're a bunch of losers, sitting around picking our noses, muttering "At least we're not as big a loser as THAT guy over there."

We're not the politicians, we're the people. We have the luxury, even the duty, to be ideological. Forget the race and concentrate on how you run.

If anyone supported the war for cynical, political reasons then it's a negligible difference between them and Them.

[kentuck]

55. I agree yazsir....

and welcome!

[CWebster]

56. If you recall, there never was an overwhelming mandate

to attack Iraq. The Bush junta was pounding those war drums around the clock and even in the tide of 911, could barely scrape up support. Even with all the lies, exaggerations, negative images and threats, even the biased polling results couldn't come up with majority support for the Invasion WITHOUT the Inspections continuing and with broad international support.

So right there was the golden opportunity to react--but instead they chose the centrist route of increasing capitulation. Capitulation to the point that Republicans could say boo and the Democrats would cower with the accusation that they were obstructionist or partisan.

Damn right we are obstructionist and just as partisan as the underground who opposed the Nazis. Damn right.

[rainy]

58. Most dems were against giving the pres the power to go to war but they

were afraid the public would support Bush and war and voting against it would make them look bad for opposing the war. This discussion was taking place right before an election and most thought it would go away and they could talk about the real issues. They were all cowards if you ask me, they spoke against it but voted for it. It was quite depessing. The few, Byrd, Kennedy etc.. were heroic in their opposition.

[yazsir]

60. So because you are lukewarm,

... and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth. Revelation 3:16 (NASB)

Or, out of office, at least.

[robbedvoter]

61. Still is wrong. But we won IN SPITE OF IT. Were robbed.

Just a reminder.
Wellstone had to die - so the secret wouldn't come out: his numbers jumped as soon as he declared he'll vote against the war. GOP also maligned Shroeder - for the same reason.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

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

[Blue_Tires]

66. wow....pretty big cheerleader for all of this

was it worth all the (civilian) lives lost and money spent???

if bush is in love with spreading 'freedom', then he can start here in the U.S. by restoring some civil liberties and making sure relatively clean elections free of fraud are run here

[arcane1]

67. so if one were against the invasion of Iraq

it must mean that we are cheering for the extremists?

pretty crappy logic if you ask me

[Mountainman]

64. We should have made more noise about the lies that led us into war

This was a ball game drawn up by the repukes and we never had a chance to win. We should have refused to play.

[Blue_Tires]

65. and it still WRONG now

for some people in the party to think we need to drop all opposition and play kiss-and-make-up with Bush now that there has been an 'election'

[KnowerOfLogic]

68. Yep; should have opposed it and exposed it from day one. nt

[killbotfactory]

69. yes. bigtime.

the goddamned cowards thought it would make us look weak on national security.

[G_j]

70. wrong as the day is long n/t

[KissMeKate]

71. that wasnt the only reason the Dems supported war

Defense contractors looking for corporate welfare also contribuyted to democrats.

The democrats had to be loyal to their corporate donors.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

72. Yes. And, it's well past time they started opposing the occupation.

But, that would call for courage and integrity, sorely missing items amongst the "leadership" of the Democratic Party who'd much rather play politics with lives.