Why can't the Democratic Party come out against the war ?

[kentuck]

The indecision that has been bred into our Party for the last twenty years denies us the power to take a stand. We would lose the next election if we are too vocal against this war, they tell themselves. In order to be politically viable, one must be pro-war. Even if it is based on a lie and is wrong?

Yes, they will call us unpatriotic, they worry out loud. We'll simply maintain the ambiguity in order to maintain the political prestige we are now holding. We do not wish to lose that to the Republicans. We have to be like them.

War seems to cut through the Democratic Party like a knive cuts through hot butter. We might even have difficulty getting a strong majority here on DU to come out against the war?

[Son of California]

1. The Majority of the people have figured out it was a lie

Paul Hackett called it a lie and almost turned a Red district Blue.
What else do we need to know.

Dems need to stand up and say flat out that this war was a mistake and a terrible waste of money and lives. Maybe not demand an immmediate withdrawl, but probably best to propose their own reasonable time table for withdrawl, for example, caculate how long basic training takes for Iraqi troops and police and base the timeline off of that.

[sandnsea]

4. They have

But they've chosen to call is a strategy for success instead of a strategy for withdrawal, so most people don't know the details are exactly the same. Just like Hackett called for success. Kerry's plan last year called for beginning to bring home troops this summer, but it was labeled stay the course warmongering. I imagine we'll stay trapped in words for some time to come.

[leesa]

9. Well...if they are calling it a strategy for success...which typically

means WINNING, that is hardly a call for withdrawal.

[sandnsea]

11. Who has a withdrawal plan???

Nobody has an immediate withdrawal plan. Every withdrawal plan has always and still does call for elections, stable government, reconstruction, security. In other words, success. Not bases in the country, privatization, puppet government, Bush win. Just stablization and turning the country over to Iraq, success.

Whether the word is withdrawal after stability, or stability accomplished, it's the same damned outcome. So what the hell difference does the words make?

[Melodybe]

22. Cause too many "democrats" are making big money on the war machine

Cough* Diane Fienstein*cough*cough*

Look are where their money is coming from and then check and see what their spouse does for a living often you will find that they are doing plenty of business with big oil, Lockheed Martin, GE, etc, etc, etc.

They are bought out!

It's so very simple, I wish that dems here would quit excepting it as not that big a deal. They ARE WAR PROFITEERS!

Teddy Roosevelt said that war profiteering was the highest form of treason, I'll add that way too many of our elected democrats are in Teddy's eyes TRAITORS!!!

[AuntieM1957]

2. Far Too Many sitting Democrats

voted FOR THE WAR.

and for the PATRIOT ACT.

If they change their minds, the GOP says they're flip-flop'ers.

Worked against Kerry.


To me, the trick is getting out of there now. We've destroyed their country - can we really just pack the hell up and leave?

We didn't have an exit strategy, and we still don't. That's what someone needs to come up with, and I've not seen anyone from either side address the real problem.

[TahitiNut]

7. 29 of them voted FOR the Iraq War Resolution in the Senate.

... when the Senate was CONTROLLED by the Democrats! Paul Wellstone (may he rest in peace) DID NOT!

[sandnsea]

10. The real problem

is that the only time people acknowledge that Bush said that wasn't a vote for war is when they're talking about the Downing Street Memo. It would be simple enough to hold Bush to his own words, stick him with the lie of the Declaration to Congress that all peaceful means had been exhausted, and recognize that that is exactly what Democrats did with the IWR. Unfortunately Bush won't be held to any of that because it's more important to hang Democrats with "they voted for the war".

And yes, there are plans to get out of Iraq too. But again, it's more important to call Dems PNAC warmongers than to actually get the war over. Heaven forbid Iraq actually be a stable country when we leave, that wouldn't fit the left's agenda at all.

[AuntieM1957]

18. Bullcrap

the plans to get out of the war are non-existent.

If what I've seen the moron in chief say in the MSM is a plan, I'm the queen of Egypt.

And that "leftist" agenda oxymoron is bullshit.

I do not have a leftist agenda, and don't need YOU to tell me what I think.

[sandnsea]

19. I didn't expect you to agree

The only plan Bush has is to continue the occupation and I never said otherwise. And I certainly wasn't telling you what you think.

I was, however, expressing complete frustration at having confrontation to get out of Iraq repeatedly stymied over four words, "voted for the war".

[henslee]

3. They run the risk that an anti war stance'll be spun as soft on terrorism,

something that can easily be done by the right now that * has turned Iraq, a previously un-Taliban and or terrorist locale into a terrorist magnet.

[TahitiNut]

5. So what? The Republicans are soft on TREASON!

Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with the September 11th atrocity.

[Poiuyt]

12. If you ask me, the Republicans are soft on terrorism, but strong on

war against countries that haven't done anything to us. The British approached their terrorist attacks as a police matter and they've captured the people behind them. We go off invading random countries and let the evil doers of 9/11 get away.

[henslee]

13. I agree, But the opportunity for big media to mischaracterize dems will

be seized. I think now more than ever, polilticians with military resumes will be very appealing to voters.

[wli]

6. It'd be easy, point at opium and oil concerns

It's common knowledge that drug trafficking is used to supplement the black budget, and just about everyone can see the oil involved.

[punpirate]

8. Just a few words...

General Dynamics, Limbaugh, Lockheed Martin, Fox News, Boeing, Chicago Tribune Co., Raytheon, Washington Times, the Heritage Foundation, etc.

They don't want to lose campaign contributions and they don't want to set off the alarms at the right-wing noise machine.

When they start saying that Bush is the most pathological person to ever sit in the Oval Office, that the evidence for the war was fabrication, that Halliburton is being encouraged to steal taxpayers' dollars via Cheney's office, when they start saying that Homeland Security is a giant boondoggle for government contractors, that the last election was stolen, just like the one in 2000, then do it consistently and frequently, Bush's ratings will hit the sub-basements.

All they have to do is go out and find the truth, and then speak it. But, they think that won't get them re-elected.

Y'know, the problem in a nutshell is this: when Grover Norquist said that "bipartisanship is the equivalent of date rape," all the Democrats missed the point--they thought they'd forced themselves on someone. That pain in the collective anus they're feeling isn't hemorrhoids....

[Zorra]

14. "Leading Democrats" *cough* never even brought up the fact that we

had a completely inept republican administration for 9 months prior to the attack on 9/11.

A republican administration that was, in fact, so very confused and incompetent that at least one/third of the people of our nation strongly suspect that the administration was collaborating with the 9/11 Saudi Arabian terrorist enemies that attacked us.

So, why did our Democratic Leadership (Council) never once even mention this obvious fact?

This is only one reason why I really don't want to hear DLC hawks pissing and moaning about how the Democratic Party needs to echo republican chickenhawk support for this ludicrous war in order to appear "strong on defense".

Their credibility on this issue is already less than zero.

Time for the DLC to defer to the more intelligent and honest Democrats in our party. Democrats like Kucinich, Conyers, Boxer, Abercrombie, Sharpton, Dean, Feingold, etc.

Folks like this are the future of the Democratic Party, not elitist DLC warhawk republican apologists.

(Good post, Kentuck)

[wildflower]

15. I think liberals feel a responsibility to all human beings

And that makes it difficult for some Democrats to simply say, "Let's withdraw now." I myself am conflicted. I want desperately for this to end - and yet - I feel for those who would be left behind, probably in a civil war, and what effect it might have on their neighbors and the world.

This doesn't discount the idea that the Democratic leadership is concerned about polls and such. But I feel the liberal perspective on why the U.S. should stay is fundamentally different from the neoconservative one (which focuses on "us and them" and "finishing the mission").

I think the liberal sense of responsibility means liberals admit when they've made a mistake, and they want to fix something that they are partly responsible for, because it would be unfair to decimate a country and then leave that country to clean it up.

And yet, as a pacifist, I don't see how this situation can go on for one more minute. I don't know what the answer is.

At any rate, perhaps this sense of responsibility may explain the rift somewhat...?

-wildflower

[Poiuyt]

17. There is a considerable feeling of "We broke it, we must fix it"

But now I think that our mere presence in Iraq is aggravating the situation. When we leave, the situation will resolve itself. I believe there is going to be a civil war when we leave (if there isn't one right now anyway) no matter what. The socio-political structure if Iraq kind of dictates that.

[gratuitous]

16. That's a damn good question

Because when the inevitable "then why did you vote for it" questions arise, Democrats can simply say that, like the rest of the country, they were lied to by a reckless administration. It's real easy. All you have to do is grow a spine and cultivate a conscience.

But that's apparently asking a little too much of some of our leading Democratic lights.

[ngGale]

21. Totally agree with you ...

the DSM give all the Dems a perfect out. I was lied to, but none will say it. They won't even say the word lie and I'm really tired of hearing, misled. Except for Conyers and a few others, no spine.

[jzodda]

20. I voted for the war before I voted against it

Sound familiar?

First off many of them voted for the war so that creates some problems

Next they do not have any alternate plan at all. You need to have a plan that gets us out of there while at the same time not abandoning the Iraqis to civil war and anarchy. VERY hard to do it would seem

Thirdly many Dems have lost their balls to put it bluntly. They sound like they can go any way on any issue.

"I voted for the war before I voted against it"

That quote pretty much sums up all the problems

[H2O Man]

23. Important question.

It seems like the majority of democrats are against the war. That said, it leaves only the "leadership" that is hedging on the issue, being concerned when it suits them, and supportive when it benefits their agenda.

I'm reminded of a quote from the Citadel book "The Thousand Days," where JFK says, "We don't want to be like the leader in the French Revolution who said, 'There go my people. I must find out where they are going so I can lead them.' " (page 15)

Yesterday, I drove on NYS Rt 8, through the village of Mt. Upton. It's a small community with a large number of veterans. At the south end of town, a veteran had a large sign reading: "Honor The Troops -- Bring Them Home Now!"

Our fearless leaders need to pay attention to what direction the country is heading, if indeed they want to "lead" us.

[bread_and_roses]

27. In Mount Upton! Now, that's something...

...I know the area. It's about as Red as it gets, I do believe. Certainly, it's one of those "town that time forgot" areas out there. The agency that I work for has a staff person in Oneonta who covers that area. From what I hear, it's an area where everyone literally knows everyone else, and all their business, and people are VERY cognizant of "what the neighbors think."

"Our fearless leaders" indeed...why does anyone wonder that we question their motives? Over half of the citizenry seem to be questioning this war...and they are silent. The majority poll for choice, and they tell us we should give it up. The majority want Universal Health Care, and they are silent. The majority support strong environmental protections, and they are silent. People are out of work, and they are silent. The inner cities rot, and they are silent. The "War on Drugs" succeeds only as a racist means of social control, and they are silent.

Into that vacum of silence the Right spins away.

[H2O Man]

29. Oneonta is a nice place.

It is a democratic island in a republican sea.

Last summer I spoke a few time with some friends from Mt. Upton who had served in Vietnam. One had known John Kerry from that time period, including activities opposing the war. My friend was supporting Bush, which I though was odd, considering that Kerry had fought in the war, while Bush refused to participate in a war he felt was a noble cause.

By early fall, he had changed. He had spoken to a young soldier, the son of a friend, who told him about how the troops were being betrayed by this administration. My friend realized that the country needed to get this administration out of office.

We may never reach a point where we agree with republicans on John Kerry .... in fact, democrats don't agree on Kerry, Dean, Biden, etc. But we may find that we share common ground with a growing number of republicans, including veterans, about the need to bring our troops home.

[KG]

24. because the dem. party leadership are morally corrupt political cowards

totally clueless and out of touch. the dem. party is spiraling downward toward total irrelvancy.

really, don't expect help from the dem. party on important social issues and you won't be disappointed.

[ToeBot]

25. As soon as the Americans leave the whole area will go to utter hell,

If the Dem's are the party seen as pushing this agenda they will be blamed for letting the civil war happen. And no, I don't think the UN is able or even willing to take on the responsibility. If the situation gets as bad as only the Middle East could, it would be the end of Democrats, probably forever. On the other hand, I don't think there is a chance in hell that a stable, effective government will be formed in the foreseeable future. This is the ultimate quagmire. Welcome to armageddon, the christians have been praying for this for close to 2000 years. They will have their Apocalypse.

[B Calm]

28. In the mean time, we bust down our neighbors door, rape and torture

his wife, shoot his children, throw his grandmother out the upstairs window and trash his house. Our neighbor pleads with us to get the hell out of his house! We say sorry can't leave yet, got to fix what we broke first, then we punch him in the face..

[MadHound]

26. More of the two party/same corporate master system of government at work,

C'mon, these are many of the same people who voted for the war, why would they want out of it while there is money to made for their corporate master?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

30. Cowardice. Better to play it safe than save lives.

They fear pissing off the "middle" by appearing not to be bloodthirsty enough. And, even worse, losing the corporate cash that pays for their precious seats and vacations.

[zippy890]

31. dems need strong anti-war message

We need to get all US combat troops and military presence out of Iraq now. Only then will the suicide bombing stop - its because of a foreign military occupying force that generates such actions.

I am very upset with the democrats failure to demand US miltary out of Iraq - with bush's poll numbers decling on iraq issue, I cannot understand why the dems don't see how many americans hate this war.

[Nevernose]

32. Because they'd HANG US FROM THE NEAREST TREE

If the Democratic Party were to come out, as a whole, in vocal, unceasing opposition to the war, it would be a good thing. But the media would hang us, and there is a certain right-wing element that would hang us both figuratively and literally.

Then again, wasn't it Benjamin Franklin who said "Either we all hang together, or we all hang separately?" Well, we're being hung separately right now.

These congressmen and senators and presidents (especially presidents) in Washington know goddamned good and well that what we're doing is not only morally wrong, but unwinnable and not profitable. But at heart they're mostly a bunch of cowards who are content to let a bunch of right-wing assholes on AM radio continue to frame the debate.

[kentuck]

33. Bingo !

Well, we're being hung separately right now.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

34. Maybe if we did a search on their donators/pac money

we'd know why they aren't coming out against the war. They are in office to protect big biz interests and not ours. It's also possible that some are being threatened and blackmailed. I wouldn't trust the tactics of the sociopaths in charge as far as I can throw them.

[Lexingtonian]

35. I would agree if I thought it would do anyone any good

but I don't see it.

The trouble is this war had a small amount of legitimacy. I see it as, say, 10% the legitimacy of something like WW2 or the Korean war. Republicans would have us pretend it was 90% or 100%. Us proposing that it was 0% is 'quantitatively' much closer to the truth, but qualitatively it's as extreme a denial and distortion as the Republican pretension.

I think the liberal Democratic leadership line is correct- let Republicans own this tar baby, let them prove by actions and outcomes what the reality about it all was and is.

I really don't know what the anxiety is that says our side should moralize and preach about this. 70% of Americans were for doing this in early 2003. Now that number is half that. What is there to say that people don't already know???

Our job is simply to keep on pointing out that the serious rationales for the whole thing were extremely narrow, and that the Bush people claimed a lot of things then and have utterly contradicted themselves in actions.

The ambiguous merits:
-They removed Saddam Hussein from power. However, this has amounted to substituting the pestilence of Stalinist dictatorship for a plague of tribalistic civil war and anarchy.

The unambiguous failures:
-They said they knew how to do it right and it would be easy. Neither was true.
-They said Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons. That proved all fabrications, lies, and misjudgments.
-They said they'd bring "democracy" to Iraq and elections were held. Yet tribal warlords still run everything and will for the foreseeable future.
-They said they'd bring "freedom" to Iraq. What they installed is a puppet government that runs death squads and torture chambers and prison camps while writing a constitution that everyone knows cannot and will not be implemented.

[kentuck]

36. Where do you see "10% legitimacy"?

When it is all based on lies?

[Lexingtonian]

37. For all the hyperbole

about "rogue states" and "Axis of Evil", the Cold War simply isn't quite mopped up until the guerilla entities and alliances on both sides have been defeated or toppled or surrendered or quietly given up.

The Democratic way of doing it is relatively clean and careful and moral, but it isn't quick and it only deals with foes and minimizes American violence. Under the Clinton Administration there really was a lot of settling matters well- eliminating Soviet and post-Soviet regimes commitments- in Warsaw Pact countries and the Baltic republics and the Caucasus and the Yugoslav confederation problem. Containment of China. The EU has picked up the slack in that department since.

The Republican way of doing the job is messy, ugly, callous, and amoral. But it is quick and brutal where violence is called for. Iraq was in a selfchosen 12-year low intensity military conflict with the U.S. which was getting psychologically intolerable and morally indefensible to continue. The Clinton peoples' strategy was to bypass a lot of problem allies of the Soviets (which Hussein was) and let them wither away by internal economic and social forces and various amounts of external diplomatic/military containment and subsidizations. This deliberate bypass/political containment strategem has worked pretty well in getting other Soviet associates far from the Russian borders out of the Cold War alliances and roles- Cuba, Sudan, Angola, North Yemen, Albania, Egypt, Pakistan, Vietnam. It didn't work effectively on Iraq because Hussein had an unfortunate combination of a militaristic culture (the Sunnis), a traditionalistic population that tolerated being cut off from the world, and oil exports. (Unfortunately, Chavez is attempting to recapitulate that recipe too closely in Venezuela.) So Republicans are doing dirty work, and doing it badly, but the most recalcitrant remnants of Stalinism are being extirpated. No, they have no idea what to replace it with properly and never have; the locals simply have to figure it out for themselves.

There's also a second side to this ugly and callous way of doing this work the Republican way- it ruins obsolete alliances and regimes and fealties on the American side rather effectively. Post-Franco (i.e. post-Imperial) fascist Spain came to an end in the wake of Iraq and the new democratic socialists have made it a proper EU nation. Post-Thatcherite (i.e. post-Empire) neocolonialist Britain is dying and the consequences of the Iraq misadventure appear to be the blows that finish it off and drive it into becoming an EU nation, rather than a 'special trans-Atlantic relationship' country, also. Likewise with Poland's last post-Soviet elites and governance and nostalgic fealty to the U.S. Italy is similarly drifting out of post-Fascist reactionary control and from love/hate of Americans to a rational relationship based in primary commitment to the EU. In the rest of Eastern Europe and East Asian countries (Phillipines, Thailand, Japan, South Korea) and bits of Latin America there's a similar motif/dynamic- Rightish regimes that have held power since WW2, with Cold War fealties and Cold War debts and colonial/feudal/imperial roots, are pushed into failure-or-change; involvement in Iraq seems always a last straw phenomenon in their politics and breaking their back.

So there's a minimal legitimacy to the Iraq matter in toppling a residual Stalinism, as I see it. There's also an indirect utility in the thing going wrong in the way it has- it has decisively freed a lot of countries friendly with the U.S. of their residual internal imperialism/colonialism (by co-indulging it in Iraq) and broken them out of their corrupt or subordinated Cold War relationships with the U.S. Internal residual imperialism and colonialism in the U.S. appears likely to be mortally damaged by the Iraq misadventure as well- though bits will stick around and remain politically alive/used until the last Cold War residues are taken care of.

There's a ways yet to go, of course, in this post-Cold War d/evolution. The American alliance structure in the Middle East is going to change in the aftermath of Iraq (and Sharon's slow creation of a Palestinian state). There are a couple more Eastern European countries to fall out of the post-1989 American orbit and a bunch of ex-Soviet republics and the likes of North Korea and Cuba to drop out of the post-Soviet one. All of those look like pretty peaceful affairs at this point.

And at the end of the process, we have all the Capitalist (colonial/feudal/imperial) regimes and all the Communist (militarist/dictatorial) regimes and much of the military and political remnants of the Cold War expunged from the face of the planet.

[spanone]

38. Because they are Politicians first and 'caring people' second.

Politicians have to balance their hearts with their political contributions which makes them highly suspect.