Why is it not OK for Democrats to disagree on the war ?

[kentuck]

Why must we have a consensus? Either we should all be for it or we should all be against it? Why Do Democrats have to have a consensus but Repubs do not? I'm sure there are a lot of Repubs that disagree with the war in Iraq? Yet, they seem to disagree more in private than we Democrats? Why is that? Why can't we just agree to disagree? I ask this semi-rhetorically.

[rockymountaindem]

1. Because everybody here is against the war.

And they expect others to agree with them. I have my opinion on the war, but I'm not going to let this drive me from the Democratic party.

[snowbear]

2. You mean "the war" as in "the Iraq war" ... right?

I think that most members here understood the reasons for attacking Afghanistan.

But who in their right mind would agree with Bush about diverting the attention to Iraq? :shrug:

Zat what you mean? Iraq? Thanks for the clarification :7 !

[Mass]

18. Nobody in the Democratic party is for this war and this is exactly

what most honest people recognize. The debate is more like:

"Bush sent us in Iraq and created a total mess that is dangerous for our country. Is it more dangerous for us to stay there and try to clear the mess or to leave?".

This is exactly the type of debate that Feingold is trying to create, and unfortunately, he has been both vilipended by one side of the aisle and hijacked by the other side.

[Elidor]

21. Alas, that's not true

The DLC believes we must stay there.

“America's work in Iraq is not yet done. We, therefore, urge you to oppose calls to withdraw troops from Iraq prematurely, before the new Iraqi government is able to consolidate its authority and defend itself against Sunni insurgents and foreign terrorists. This is not the time for casting anxious glances toward the exits.”

-from “Our National Security Challenge: An Open Letter to Democrats”
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=450004&subid=900020&contentid=253152

This letter is from March of this year and was signed by numerous DLC members.

Funny that DU's DLC Defenders haven't enlisted in the military yet.

[Mass]

22. This letter is the side of the aisle that vilipended Feingold

And I have sometimes trouble believing that Will Marshall is a Democrat anyway.

[Elidor]

24. New vocabulary word

I've never encountered that one before. Cool.

I'd go on about Marshall, but I have to be at work.

[paulk]

25. that letter was signed by ONE Senator -

Evan Bayh. And four House members. That's hardly a ringing endorsement from elected DLC members.

also from the letter -

"Our determination that America succeed in Iraq in no way constitutes an endorsement of President Bush's policies. On the contrary, the mess in Iraq offers a vivid illustration of a fatal flaw in the Republican approach to national security: a tendency to overestimate what can be accomplished with U.S. military force alone, and to give short shrift to the political, economic, and diplomatic tools at America's disposal."

[welshTerrier2]

3. OK ... i'll take a shot at that ...

Why is it NOT OK for Democrats to disagree on the war?

the answer is: it is OK !!

what is NOT OK is that the Party (i.e. at least most of our elected leaders) doesn't represent the majority view and groups like the DLC have attacked those who oppose the war ...

if some accommodation is NOT made, and some kind of democratic process to negotiate our differences is NOT implemented, we will truly all hang next year ... even if we gain a few seats, we will fall far short of what we could do as a unified party ...

but time is growing short and so far, those "at the top" have refused to share power or respond in any meaningful way to opposing views ... we don't have to reach a consensus but we do have to ensure that everyone has a voice ... and that is simply NOT happening ...

[Mark E. Smith]

4. It is only a fairly small minority ...

... of Democrats that have a problem with dissent within the ranks. I'd estimate them at about 2%. And while they happen to be more vocal, nobody out there in the big world listens to them all that much.

Pretty much a bloggy hothouse phenomenon.

[welshTerrier2]

6. i'm assuming you're referring to the DLC

they apparently do have a problem with "dissension in the ranks" ...

i'm sure you've seen the most recent quote from them about people who oppose the war being "un-American" ...

[Mark E. Smith]

9. You are absolutely obsessed by the DLC, aren't you...

It is all you ever talk about.

[democracyindanger]

13. You have no idea what this whole thing is about, do you?

Or maybe you agree that the anti-war movement is "anti-American." That it's based in the "European wing of the Democratic party," which is populated by "liberal elites."

Or maybe you like having Republican-style slurs hurled at you by what are supposed to be fellow Democrats.

This tacit defense of Marshall's statements has gotten boring. Fine, fine, you think people against the Iraq War are anti-American. We got ya.

[welshTerrier2]

14. well, if you'd really like to do some honest research with me ...

why don't we both march over to DU's search engine and check out my last 25 or 50 posts ...

prior to responding to your post in which i think i fairly pointed out that the DLC hardly tolerates "dissension in the ranks" based on the endless hostility they've shown for those who fight for peace, i'm not sure i've even mentioned the DLC ...

in fact, i believe my only two posts on the subject were in response to your bashing of the left ... the rest of my posts, feel very free to check, included such topics as: India hiring right-wing lobbying firms to get special treatment on nukes, the tragedy in Darfur, Sunnis being slaughtered by Shia death squads, US Operation 'Quick Strike', a discussion of an old speech by Kerry re: Iraq, Roberts refusing to recuse himself from a case involving bush and cheney while they spoke to him about a position on the Court, a tip on how to post pictures on DU and even an article about Doc Gooden being sought on felony charges ...

DLC bashing? that's all i ever talk about? check it out for yourself ... DU's search engine is very easy to use ... let me know if you need any help ...

now, how about you? left bashing today? other topics? what have you written about today?

i saw your Nader thread ... don't you think that's getting a little old? surely you can find other things to write about ... and in this thread, you want to bash the left as being some kind of fringe ... do you think that maybe you should be reaching out to this imagined 2% ... first you complain the Nader voters damaged the Party (i wasn't one btw) and then you peddle this two small to make a difference nonsense ...

anyway, fess up ... what did you post about today?

[babylonsister]

5. I think most everyone on DU is for peace.

You will find differing opinions and different answers on ways to accomplish this. It's a neverending question and answer. Sigh...

[stillcool]

7. People disagree here alot....

as do my husband and I. The problems arise when I insist I'm right and he must see things my way or...that's it. And then I get a grip.

[existentialist]

8. It is OK to disagree.

I even disagree with myself, change positions frequently, and really don't have a strategy as to what to do.

Except I clearly believe that it was a major error to invade Iraq in the first place.


That the purported grounds were mostly lies--although I do agree that Saddam Hussein is a bad man.


That the war has been waged incompetently and corruptly, and is still being waged incompetently and corruptly, and that the greatest responsibility for this lies with the civilian leadership (or at least with the civilians in charge--to call them leaders, well, I can't consider them to be leaders).

But as to what to actually do about it? I have scarcely a clue except to try to get some competent people who can openly and honestly talk about it together.

Why not here?

We're at least as intelligent and capable as the present administration.

[longship]

10. It's fine to disagree.

Unless you're the DLC who, like every reactionary right wing group, equates disagreement with lack of loyalty, lack of patriotism, etc.

I do not understand this because the DLC needs liberals more than Democrats need the DLC.

[AuntPatsy]

11. Good question. I see many agreeing to disagree though quite

often on this message board though...

I think many feel that if we don't openly stick together regarding certain issues, we appear weak to the outer fringes of our society.

I don't agree with that, I believe open debate should be mandatory amid all parties and encourages by all members...

When you have such, it keeps corruption from settling in to securely, sort of like what has occurred inside the Republican party these days..

Is that what the Democrats like to happen to this party?

[fujiyama]

12. The war is the major issue

and has turned out to be one of the worst foreign policy decisions in US history.

Most of us understood correctly from the onset that this had nothing to do with national security - that this war wasn't fought to keep this country safe, find nonexistant WMDs, or bring "democracy" to the Iraqi people.

It shows an incredible lack of judgement to still support this. In the GOP, they have ONE major voice that says we should consider leaving. That would be Hagel. While there have been a few other peeps from various GOP reps, overall the party is marching lockstep with the president.

On the other hand, in our party we have the likes of Harold Ford stating that he "loves Bush" and believes Bush should take no blame for the outcome of this war. I personally don't recall any republican reps saying they "loved Clinton".

With no consensus on the war, the party looks weak, and has absolutely no visible and clear agenda.

[tnlefty]

23. Just had to mention him didn't you? Ford had a fundraiser in town

last night (I think) and the pressure to just shut up, support him and vote for him is ridiculous. I don't think that Ford has an ice cube's chance in hell of winning FrankenFrist's seat because he's not going to pull in the libs who have formed an evergrowing Indy/Green voting block, and he's pissing off too many straight ticket voting Dems with those 2 items you referenced.

Then of course all you'll read or hear about is how a democrat can't win in the south.:eyes:

[wli]

15. fear of getting Wellstoned and/or anthraxed n/t

[mrfocus]

16. Somebody should remind Republicans of their 'support for the war'

Seems like the most important qualities for today's Republicans are
-- total amnesia
-- abject lack of shame
-- ability to tolerate lethal doses of hypocrisy

"You can support the troops but not the president"
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

" President…is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."
-Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA)

"American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy."
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."
-Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W. Bush

"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning...I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."
-Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years"
-Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"
-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
-Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)

"This is President Clinton's war, and when he falls flat on his face, that's his problem."
-Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN)

"Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world. The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly."
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

[newyawker99]

27. Hi mrfocus!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[garybeck]

17. because the democratic party is trying to destroy itself. n/t

[Douglas Carpenter]

19. Democratic Party is in danger of destroying itself by spinelessness

on the issue of the war.

I believe we can forgive those who made a mistake earlier. But at this point in time, it is sure madness not to at least acknowledge that it is was a terrible mistake that America will pay for dearly; perhaps forever.

Bush's approval rating is falling into the toilet--mostly because of the war--The unnecessarily cowardliness of many Democrats not to speak out--might well become one of the most tragic acts of political suicide in history.

[Cocoa]

20. there's debate in both parties now

thanks to Hagel and Feingold, Iraq is going to be a major issue in both 2008 primaries.

[blondeatlast]

26. I think the only disagreement now is WHEN and HOW to get out.

Many of us feel that we should just pack up and leave, we're just making things worse; others believe we need to clean up a nasty mess we made.

I'm in the first camp, but I can understand the latter's position, too.

The only disagreement we have as I see it is when and how.

[Hidden Stillness]

28. Yes, This is Exactly My Opinion, Too

I think there can be disageement to the degree that it lent depth to the issue, and revealed aspects of things that one perspective alone would not. Most people who have really thought about it already have separate opinions of the (at least) two wars that Bush has started, and how they were started and conducted. Afghanistan was a true response to the Sept. 11th attacks (remember them?), and should be continued--it surely must be an impeachable offense that the real war was dropped just so Bush could go play this endless game of "Rich Boy Has All the Power" elsewhere, and I also have an opinion that the last thing in the world Bush actually wants to do is to capture, and piss off, the former Bush family business partner bin Laden. I think bin Laden has given orders to others to release probably thousands of documents proving a no doubt inflammatory business collusion between the Bushs and the "enemy of America." We will never find bin Laden--it will expose Bush and family.

Even though there is getting to be clear majority support for ending the Iraq war as a total failure and "illegal war"--getting to be just like Viet Nam--I think there is room for disagreement as to how to do things. I am not sure that just pulling out would be the fair thing, after we caused the whole problem. We did not guard their electrical, water, roads, etc. infrastructure, their National Museum and its ancient treasures (how many Republican contributors now own the contents of the Iraq Museum?), and we disbanded their police force, army, their entire commercial structure, replacing it with American price-gouging--and after all this destruction, now we want to cut out, Bye-bye! I think of it this way: Imagine I broke into your house, started breaking everything, throwing everything around, stealing things, then suddenly I said, "Wait a minute, this is immoral--Bye-bye!" I don't think so. Get back here and clean up the disaster that you made, and pay for it. This is what I think we should do, our part that we caused there. Also, don't get out until the U.N. or other forces are safely there and running things. I think there was room for differing opinions on points like this, since there was still basic agreement--Iraq never should have happened and Bush should be impeached; Cindy Sheehan deserves a Nobel Prize or at least a nomination.