When I Think About How Long Vietnam Dragged On

[cali]

I Despair. I can't support any politician who doesn't have a clearly stated position calling for U.S. withdrawal. I surely won't support any candidate for President who doesn't have a plan to get us out of Iraq, or who hasn't stated unequivocally that their vote for the IWR was a mistake. That's why I'll actively work against her hawkness, HRC. Anyone who pounds their chest in an attempt to be more pro defense and militarliy aggressive than the repukes, is politically dead to me.

We can't afford the slow passage of one bloody year after another. If it's not clear to them by now that the Iraq war is an abject failure, than they're either too stupid or too ambitious or too craven to deserve one iota of consideration.

[NNN0LHI]

1. Suppose for a moment that no candidate can win with "losing in Iraq"...

...as their stated position?

Would you still want a Dem candidate to do that? Even though they can't win?

The Republicans get woodies just thinking about such a scenario.

I seen a Dem candidate try that once before by the way. His name was McGovern. He was lucky to win his own state.

Don

[cali]

5. I suppose

I'll vote for the dem candidate regardless, but in the primaries I will work hard to nominate someone who has enough integrity to care more about getting us out of a disasterous war than political expediency. In 2008 (if we're still there) we will have been in Iraq for 5 years. A lot can happen in 2+ years, but if things are fundamentally unchanged, I don't see how anyone can support a candidate that espouses continuing a disasterous policy.

The argument that because McGovern lost, no candidate can oppose an ongoing and totally discredited war, holds no water with me.

[NNN0LHI]

7. Had I known you were talking about only the primaries I wouldn't have...

...even posted to this thread.

Don

[HysteryDiagnosis]

2. But hey, as long as we are over there killing terrorists who were

ready to fly airplanes into skyscrapers, all the better. </sarcasm>

[dipsydoodle]

3. For anybody who hasn't seen the video

Dear America - Letters Home From Vietnam I'd recommend you beg , steal or borrow a copy. I think it's out of print now. I got my copy used on Amazon.com and had it shipped to the UK. Video tells the whole story from start to finish using real letters from the youngsters out there read by famous actors and actresses. Conveys the whole tragedy in a very special and touching way.

[Strong Atheist]

4. Welcome to D.U.!

:toast:

[NNN0LHI]

6. Posted to wrong place

[Lexingtonian]

8. That could be a waste of time and energy

Hillary Clinton's private but publicly unstated position is that the whole Iraq thing will fail this year or early next. So she's not going to side on the pro/anti war thing. There's nothing Democrats can really do as long as Republicans have control of all the branches, and if they win Congress the leverage they have is essentially to try to defund the thing. That will take Republican defections to override a Bush veto, or a budget showdown.

The real math is that moderate Republicans are very close to giving up on the Iraq thing. But it will take collapse of the elected 'government', which means full outbreak of civil war. The right wingers think it's all over but are waiting for Hussein to be put to death before rejecting Bush as a failure. The hardcore conservatives won't give up on Bush until they think he lied to them about not withdrawing until victory comes. All three things are pretty close to happening, and with them Bush's Iraq policy- and Presidency- collapses. Actually, the decisive massive atrocity against the Sunnis that means outbreak of civil war sets the whole chain of 'government' collapse, execution of Hussein, civil war, and American withdrawal in motion. Just wait until Mukhtadr al-Sadr figures this out, or Osama bin Laden does.

I'm not thrilled about it, but I think Hillary's calculation that Iraq will be over and undo Republicans this year and next will work out.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. I'll be voting for candidates who openly oppose the war in '06 & '08.

Which means I'll be splitting my vote in '06. Green for Senator (Cantwell is a hawk who voted for the IWR and supports the occupation), Dem for Rep (Baird voted against the war).

The "not as bad" formula isn't good enough.

[cali]

10. I feel really lucky

that I don't have to make that choice. Peter Welch who's running for Bernie's seat wouldn't have voted for the IWR, and of course Bernie is solidly anti-war. I reallly would like to see the dems take back Congress, but I'd have a hard time voting for someone who supports the war.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. Cantwell has an opponent in the primary but little chance.

Cantwell has the backing of the party establishment and loads of money. This being a strongly Dem state she'll probably win, but she'll be looking over her shoulder and hopefully counting the votes on the left that she didn't get. Patty Murray, our other senator, voted against the IWR, and easily won in 2004 when it was a lot less PC to be against the war.