I'm still arguing against IWR as litmus test and...

[iowapeacechief]

...cheap-shot labeling of Dem candidates as "pro-war" and "antiwar", BUT I just read this WSJ op-ed by Walter Russell Mead, recalling the Dems' old reputation as "the war party." Mead's assessment of current party leadership hit me too close for comfort. The way he tells the history is exactly the stuff I was raised on as a youngster growing up within the (since hijacked, largely now defunct) Party of Lincoln. It's a timely read, what with Kucinich contrasting himself with five other Dem candidates ( http://kucinich.us/statements.htm#WMD ).


http://www.cfr.org/publication.php?id=6698
Are the Democrats coming back to their roots? It is still very early in the campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, but with more than 80% of Iowa caucus-goers endorsing candidates who voted at least to authorize the U.S. strike against Iraq it is beginning to look as if the Democrats are ready to put the antiwar temptation behind them in order to challenge George W. Bush for the White House.

That would be good news for the Democrats. No antiwar candidate can win a national contest in 2004. It would also be good news for the country and for the world. The illusion that a Democratic administration would abandon the vigorous prosecution of the war on terror is one of the few hopes to which America's enemies can still cling.

Historically, the Democrats have been America's war party. <...> "Vote for a Republican," people used to say, "and you get a Depression. Vote for a Democrat, and you get a war."
<...>
In fact, the mainstream Democratic candidates are mostly noticeable for the very small differences between their proposals and the foreign policies of the Bush administration. Looked at carefully, it is more style than substance<....> The war on terror is still very young, and history rarely repeats itself exactly. Still, it is more likely than not that when the Democrats get back in office, they will fight the war on terror in ways that won't be completely unrecognizable to the Republicans fighting it now.


((Everything following the CFR URL is quoted from the op-ed. --DGC))

[corporatewhore]

1. I dont care about IWR i will vote for whoever will

bring the troops home and end american colonialism. My father will go back in 2005 whether Dean Clark or bush is elected.

[lcordero]

2. here is a better labelling

"pro-lie" and "anti-lie".

[iowapeacechief]

3. Foreign-policy guru Mead sees "very small differences" from GOP

More from the same op-ed:

"In fact, the mainstream Democratic candidates are mostly noticeable for the very small differences between their proposals and the foreign policies of the Bush administration. Looked at carefully, it is more style than substance<....> The war on terror is still very young, and history rarely repeats itself exactly. Still, it is more likely than not that when the Democrats get back in office, they will fight the war on terror in ways that won't be completely unrecognizable to the Republicans fighting it now."


ON EDIT: Added this graf to original post. --DGC

[Forkboy]

4. Cha ching!

Still, it is more likely than not that when the Democrats get back in office, they will fight the war on terror in ways that won't be completely unrecognizable to the Republicans fighting it now."

[Old and In the Way]

5. Here's a post from cindyw that I think sums it up succintly.

"If you cannot admit Kerry and the Congress was lied to then you cannot say that Bush lied."

I guess I expect the Executive branch to be truthful to Congress, if not, the whole system braks down. I beleive that Bush lied to Congress about the urgency of reacting to WMD in Iraq. Nonetheless, a resolution was passed that gave the President power to wage war IF UN inspections were not working. They were working, they were finding no weapons, and Bush used the resolution to declare unilateral war without basis.

Bush lied, lots of people died...and are still dying. He broke his trust with Congress and if we had a Republican Party that was not propping up this unelected fraud, we'd have impeachment proceedings underway.

Something else, too. Let's assume President Dean or Kerry or Edwards or Clark is elected next year and they have hard intelligence that says North Korea is ready to light the nuclear firecracker on, say, Japan.

If our President goes to Congress and says that this action is imminent, would we not expect Congress to react and support a resolution if the evidence is presented? Would we be pissed off if the Republican majority decided this was a political ploy and rejected the Resolution? If we're right and the nukes are thrown, who is responsible? I would think the American people, certainly the Japenese, would hold the Republican majority responsible.

As a member of the minority party the gamble was vote against and be proven wrong or support and qualify. Choosing the former, in hindsight, would be right but if we were wrong, the Party would be as good as toast. I think our Democratic Senators played the best hand they were dealt. I guess you can choose to hate Kerry and Edwards for their vote, but I think if I had been an elected Senator, given that this administration controlled the debate and the evidence, I'd have opted to protect my constituents.

[Voltaire99]

6. "America's enemies"? But Mead is our enemy personified...

...as is his mentor, the loathsome Kissinger. Shamelessly they call for Pax Americana, but it is at the root of our present misery.

Today we find ourselves loathed in a world less than thrilled by our armies galloping along its streets. As we try to build McDonalds in Baghdad, the natives, funnily enough, would rather kill us than eat our slop, work at Wal-Mart, and pray to our televangelists. Could it be that our cruise missiles and house-to-house searches grow less beautiful the further Tom Brokaw is removed from the scene? History's pretty clear on this inevitability: whatever else they are -- efficient tax collectors, proselytizers, policemen, foremen, middlemen, "civilizers" -- empires are assholes.

Mead is preaching poison to excitable quarters of the Democratic party, where a fashionable warrior mentality has for years been taking grip. No mystery why: the interests for whom the world is run roughshod will happily accept either Democrat or Republican at the helm of the armies, provided the armies are dispatched to secure the desired prizes. Mead's merely here to give our once-liberal weightlifters their steroids.

He can go to hell. From Vietnam to the Middle East, the policies of the establishment men on the Council of Foreign Relations have dug graves for millions. People of conscience and understanding should refuse to take counsel from these devils. Defy their fear mongering -- or risk becoming like them!

[zoeyfong]

7. if democrats are the "war party," who needs them?

Party platforms are fluid, and regardless of past bogus wars supported by democrats, the citizenry has the right to point out the error in this, and the need to find the backbone to resist unjustified rushes to war, and to build this plank into the democratic party platform.

[Old and In the Way]

8. In all my years, I've never seen the Democratic Party make war

a central theme in their campaigns. It just seems that the people who end up fighting in the wars are Democrats.

I can't recall Carter doing any wars, Carton had Kosovo, but that was a NATO action that had a humanitarian basis. What we need is a President who will hold the countries that ferment terrorists accountable and use international cooperation to bring criminal terrorists to justice.

The War we need to declare a domestic one that makes alternative/renewable energy energy a priority and investt in jobs to rebuild this country's infrastructure to reflect this strategic change.

[wyldwolf]

9. but...but... we should vote on "principle" - NOT to win!

Even though we'll scream the loudest when we LOSE! </SARCASM>

Agree completely with the post. We can't win being anti-war. Sad but true.

[Iverson]

10. unfortunate mentality

To assume that winning with principles is impossible is to cravenly abandon one's defining characteristics. I know, I know: if you call it pragmatism and sneer at those with principles, it'll fly.

Never mind our military's deliberate targeting of civilians, eh? No doubt there are more important considerations.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

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

[Iverson]

13. personal comment uncalled for

Your incorrect estimation of my habits is irrelevant.

If you have a better apologia than "it's popular, therefore necessary," I welcome it. However, wishing someone else's rebuttal into irrelevance doesn't make it so.

[krkaufman]

12. All-in-one

Historically, the Democrats have been America's war party. <...> "Vote for a Republican," people used to say, "and you get a Depression. Vote for a Democrat, and you get a war."

It's nice of the Republicans to offer an all-in-one package, nowadays; both a war and a depression (tick...tick...tick...)

[wheresthemind]

14. There is more then one issue in this election...

and I plan on factoring all the issues into my vote. And that does not only mean single votes, because that is ridiculous, no one will vote right one ANYTHING.

People with a 93% progressive rating their entire career really makes me happy. ;)

We just got to remember, its easy for people with not voting record to criticize when they never had to be put in that position and NO candidates except Al and Dennis were consistent in their opposition to the war.

[iowapeacechief]

15. Unless Kucinich becomes our nominee...

...I look for Mead's assessment to prove regrettably prophetic. ("Had a Democrat been president on Sept. 11, 2001, a combination of political calculation and personal conviction would have almost certainly pushed the administration toward a vigorous prosecution of the war....")

I believe most of us want to create a future of better choices. The issue here is about short term and long term, not either/or. We get what we prepare for, and the morning of a September 12 is too late for a president to wish he had an effective secretary of peace at the cabinet table.

Whatever past-warrior credentials may be "needed" to win--and whatever less-than-best "short term" military "solutions" might be chosen in future crises--our party's leaders should embrace the potential for better choices that is already envisioned in the Department of Peace proposal (HR 1673). If or when Dennis falls in behind the 2004 Democratic nominee, that standard bearer should pick up the DoP banner and carry it boldly into the White House.

Let this be the year we start to prove Mead's view obsolete!