Should the Democratic Party's Nominee in 2008 Have Opposed the Iraqi War?

[David Zephyr]

Poll question: Should the Democratic Party's Nominee in 2008 Have Opposed the Iraqi War?

Should the Democratic Party's Nominee in 2008 Have Opposed the Iraqi War?

I think that this is a fair question to debate here.

Our Party's chair, Howard Dean, clearly has been vindicated for his courageous and out-spoken opposition to the illegal military invasion of Iraq before 2003. A great many of the Democratic Party's elected officials also opposed the war and voted against the Iraqi War Resolution giving the President the power to wage war in Iraq. Still, others including many Democrats with long and established records fighting for civil rights, the environment, and progressive causes voted in favor of the Iraqi War Resolution.

The American public overwhelmingly now concedes that Bush's war was a "mistake" and a costly one at that.

My question is simple, but deserves discussion.

Would a Democrat who opposed the War in Iraq be better positioned to run against a Republican, such as John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney). Or will it matter at all by 2008?

Are there advantages for our Democratic candidate if he/she opposed the war? What are they?

Are there advantages for our Democratic candidate if he/she supported the war? What are they?

Explain.

[Skinner]

1. At this point, I don't think it matters whether you opposed the war back in 2002/2003.

What matters is how a candidate feels about the war *today*.

[blondeatlast]

6. Yes, and many potential candidates were not "forced to the mat" about it.

With all due respect to them, Howard Dean and Barack Obama weren't in a position to vote for IWR.

[William769]

2. I want to look to the future of what a candidate is going to do.

If I always looked to the past, I probably wouldn't vote.

[OHdem10]

3. What is most important--

The Candidate must be able to articulate with clarity and
straightfowardness exactly their position and be able to
explain cogenly why they take that position. Equivocation
will not work in 08.

[iamjoy]

7. The Why Is Important Too

And they have to be honest.

For example, Bob Graham (not that he'd be a candidate) opposed the Iraq War because he thought it would take resources away from the war on terror. I believe he is on record in 2002 saying that.

But if some one supported the war and can give a good reason (articulate their position well), I'm okay with that. I don't think I'm okay with "the President tricked me."

I am wary of people who never had to cast that vote and have no public statements from 2002 looking at the results of the war and going, "oh yeah, I opposed it, I wouldn't have voted for it." I wouldn't necessarily say they are deliberately trying to deceive us, but perhaps they aren't being fully truthful with themselves.

[TangoCharlie]

4. 2003 vote is fading in importance

I voted no.

Bush's war was a mistake? Agreed, but which Bush? To me, this thing started with GHWB in 1990-1991, simmered at a low boil during WJC's No-Fly-Zone enforcement, and GWB just wanted to finish what Dad started.

At this point, if Dems can agree on a vision for a successful outcome, and find the person who can lead the effort toward that outcome, then there's a winner. So what's a good end-game here? "Cut/Run, letting Sunnis pour in from Syria and Shiites from Iran, and turn Iraq into a killing field? Stay the course, be policemen, keep the lid on, die slowly? Partition the place, give each chunk to a "strong man" who will rule like Saddam (in fact, Saddam may be "the man" for the Sunni chunk).

Yeah, the two Bushes got us into a helluva mess, and GWB is too bull-headed to admit mistakes, but we have an interesting puzzle to solve, if we win an election and inherit this problem.

Regards.

Oh, and "howdy".

[David Zephyr]

9. Welcome to the DU, TangoCharlie!

Your first post. :hi:

[FrenchieCat]

5. I voted yes. Insight and foresight are very important!

If 23 senators understood the significant blunder of authorizing Bush with powers to go into Iraq via a blank check, then our next presidential candidate certainly should also have had that insight. Hindsight is not a virtue, last I checked.

[chimpymustgo]

8. And armchair quarterbacking isn't the same as having to make the actual calls.

It's time to look to the future. What's the plan for now and the future. Time to move forward

[FrenchieCat]

11. I'm sorry, what does Armchair Quarterbacking mean exactly?

Can you provide a better detailed description of that? I mean, are you talking folks that were not in agreement with Bush stance on Iraq? Should they have just shut the fuck up until what they thought became more popular or should they have agreed with the Prez till the polls showed that this was no longer the stance to have? :shrug:

Op asked a question, and I responded.

Beyond feeling like you've got somekind of right of telling others what they need to do and what they ought to think, maybe when you saw my post, you should have "moved on"..... without comments.

[Peace Patriot]

10. The more important question at that time may be whether or not they

support the war on Iran--after the Bush Junta manufactures their phony "Gulf of Tonkin" incident, or after Israel attacks Iran and requests support.

70% of the American people want the Iraq War ended. Yet all we hear about are "redeployments" to nearby emirates.
84% of the American people oppose any U.S. participation in a widened Mideast war. Yet, if Israel is at risk (even if by its own foolish action), will any Democrat risk opposing a widened war?

I would certainly prefer a candidate and president who opposed the Iraq War. But how that vote went is somewhat irrelevant. We have worse problems, among them the refusal of the Bush Junta to back down, even as to a "redeployment," and wild, out-of-control assertions of executive power. Hell, it wouldn't surprise me to see Bush call up a Draft on his own. And what would the new Democratic Congress do? At best, we'd see a knockdown dragout between the House opposing it, and a Lieberman-controlled Senate "rubber-stamping" it. A paralyzed Congress. And with Bush just doing whatever the Bush Cartel and the war profiteers damned please. What's to stop them?

Another question is: Will we have a choice, given that rightwing Bushite electronic voting corporations now control all election results in the country, using TRADE SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming code? If we have not restored transparent vote counting by the '08 primaries, and have not, in particular, eliminated the secretly coded central tabulators, anyone who didn't support the Iraq War will be defeated before we ever get to the general election. And if we're in a war with Iran by then, the same rule will apply. Anyone who opposes it will be eliminated from the competition, and only pro-war choices will be permitted. So, in short, the choice will be a few sops to the poor and more war, or no sops to the poor and more war. Take your pick.

Prior to rightwing corporate control of all vote tabulation, peace-minded leaders were eliminated by assassination (JFK, MLK, RFK and very likely Paul Wellstone), and, in one recent case by a doctored sound tape (Dean). My point is that, up until now, we simply have never been permitted that choice. And now, with direct corporate control of vote counting added to all the corruption, the chances of a peace-minded candidate getting the nomination are zero. We are dealing with corporate war profiteers who have a stranglehold on our government, not politics.

Finally, I want to say that we do have a precedent of a war "hawk" changing his mind and running for president to stop a war that he at first supported--and that is Robert F. Kennedy. He at first supported LBJ's escalation of the Vietnam War (even though his brother had tried to head off that war before it started). No doubt, Bobby was sucked in by the "Gulf of Tonkin" incident (in 1964, a year after JFK's death.) But, after study of the matter, and in view of his commitment to social justice, by 1968 he had changed his mind and saw that the war must be ended. Some of us still voted for Eugene McCarthy in the California primary, June 5, 1968, because McCarthy had come out against the war sooner, and had driven LBJ out of the race--although we all knew that Bobby was the one to carry the antiwar banner to the White House. He was a very charismatic leader.

So, sure, I'm willing to support someone who has changed their mind about that vote--depending on my judgment of their sincerity. But I believe this: No peace-minded candidate will be permitted to gain the White House. And, until we restore transparent vote counting, we cannot even get "redeployment" to the corrupt oil kingdoms.

[Boo Boo]

12. It matters. Ultimately it speaks to judgement and/or character. /nt