Has any DNC Chairman candidate called for withdrawal from Iraq ???

[welshTerrier2]

without rehashing the debate about whether policy issues is or is not relevant, does anyone know whether any of the candidates for DNC Chair has stated unequivocal opposition to continued military presence in Iraq?

what i'm trying to identify is not someone who has just been critical of bush's handling of Iraq ... not someone who just thinks we should "plan for the peace" ... not someone who would not have invaded in the first place but thinks now that we're there we have to finish the job ...

the question is: has any DNC candidate called for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, either immediately or in the very near-term, because there cannot be a successful military solution to the crisis ???

if so, please provide a link documenting the candidate's statements on the issue ... thanks ...

if not, how can the Democratic Party really consider itself a "big tent" ???

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[welshTerrier2]

2. your username is my response to that ...

welcome to DU, incredible !!!

one has to wonder whether the process of becoming a candidate is so tightly controlled that opposing views become impossible to present ...

whether policy considerations are or are not relevant, it seems most unfortunate that those opposed to the invasion either have chosen not to be candidates are were not permitted to be ... either way, what i believe to be the majority view among the Democratic rank and file, that military operations in Iraq have failed and will not succeed no matter what changes are made, will not be reflected by the next Chairman ...

is this failure to represent the majority view on such a critical issue indicative of the lack of openness to the grassroots under the "big tent" ???

[welshTerrier2]

3. hmmm ... no takers except for mr. tombstone ???

does anybody know ??

[cali]

4. I don't think any of them have

called for an immediate withdrawal of troops, and honestly I'm not sure what dems in general believe about this. I think only a handful of dem politicians have suggested we withdraw. It's possible that some are waiting to see what the elections and their aftermath bring.

[welshTerrier2]

5. marty meehan

meehan is a congressman from massachusetts ... he just returned from Iraq and I understand he called for "setting a timetable" for withdrawal ... I haven't read the specifics of what he said yet ...

i suppose waiting two more weeks is OK although I wonder whether calling for withdrawal now as opposed to then might have more clout ... frankly, i think all hell will break loose during and after the elections ... and the Democrats will be "non-players" if the Shia kick out the U.S. and bush complies ... then, Democrats will have said nothing and done nothing to shape this important policy ...

it's like they're not even on the field ... maybe the Party's mascot should be an invisible donkey ...

[madfloridian]

6. This is pretty close.

MR. RUSSERT: What should George Bush do right now about Iraq?

DR. DEAN: Well, my view for a long time has been that this is a terrible mess, and the best we can do is try to get out of there with some reasonable semblance of stability in Iraq. And we can't do that immediately. I actually support the president on the idea of having these elections on January 30th. I don't think there's any good time to have an election. These guys in the White House have really messed up by not anticipating any kind of an insurgency whatsoever. We're going to live with that insurgency as long as we're there. The only chance we can get out in a reasonable way without leaving a much worse national security situation than we found one in is to have these elections, and to try to allow the Iraqis to run their country.

MTP Dec. 12, 2004

[genius]

7. In the debates, he said he expect to be there for years.

I disagree with his approach. We broke it. We are not the ones to fix it. These elecitons are a sham to get our puppet to run Iraq. We need to get out now and let those who did not break it, fix it. We can offer support of money and goods. But no more soldiers.

[madfloridian]

12. Ok.

Don't be mad at him, he did not get us in this mess.

[welshTerrier2]

9. withdrawal after elections ?

it's unclear from this whether Dr. Dean will call for withdrawal after the elections ... i sincerely hope he does ... or, given the pathetic state of Iraqi security forces, is Dr. Dean continuing to say that he thinks we're stuck there?

also, with regard to the last phrase:
is to have these elections, and to try to allow the Iraqis to run their country. ... it's not clear how this is any different than what bush or most of the other Democrats are saying ... while a self-sufficient Iraq is undeniably the most desired outcome, it should be clear to all by now that this is not an option no matter how long American troops remain ... so, what alternative strategy will Dean and the others propose ... it's time for some updated positions on Iraq ...

the gold standard here is recognizing that a military strategy cannot succeed and there's not point in calling for more of it ... as a great
American once said: "we have met the enemy and they are us" ...

let's hope the good Doctor shows the kind of leadership he's capable of and sets the Party and the country on the path to peace ...

[madfloridian]

13. The "good doctor" is not the one who got us there.

The "good doctor" is saying about the only thing he can.

It is not the fault of the "good doctor."

[welshTerrier2]

14. "the only thing he can" ??

first, i'm fairly certain i made no suggestion that Dr. Dean was in any way the "one who got us there" ... nor did i say Iraq was "the fault of the "good doctor"" ... just wanted to clarify that ...

now, as to your point that Dr. Dean is "saying about the only thing he can" ...

Congressman Meehan just returned from Iraq and I understand (haven't read his statement yet) that he has called for a withdrawal timetable ... others looking at the rapidly degrading situation there have called for withdrawal of U.S. troops in the near term ... some of those making such statements are some of bush's top advisors ...

when you suggest Dr. Dean is "saying about the only thing he can", I don't understand why you would make that statement ... there are many policies and strategies available to Dr. Dean ... what is it that constrains him to continue to support a military solution to the crisis?

aren't there other solutions he could choose if he wanted to ??

and while we're on the subject, does this mean you fully support the position Dr. Dean has taken or would you prefer to see him call for withdrawal?

[madfloridian]

17. Backing off.

I broke my promise from the other place, and you can bet I won't break it again.

[welshTerrier2]

19. i can't thank you enough (n/t)

[genius]

8. Webb has expressed the most opposition to our presence over there.

He'll more likely pull us out the soonest.

[DaveinMD]

10. how will the Chair of the DNC

pull us out of Iraq.

[paulk]

15. the same way a magician

pulls a rabbit out of a hat?

[lojasmo]

11. No, they have not. N/T

Dean has been the most vocally outspoken candidate. His views on the war are a matter of public record, but he has not called for an immediate withdrawal.

[theboss]

16. Has any Democrat aside from a few in the House done this?

This is not the position of the majority of Democrats.

[welshTerrier2]

18. you mean a majority of elected Democrats ?

because I believe I've seen polls saying the American people no longer support our presence in Iraq ...

and unless our fearless leaders in the Democratic Party decide to take a referendum of each and every Democrat, I guess we'll never know exactly how the "majority of Democrats" feel on the issue ... my suspicion is they would support a reasonably short timetable for withdrawal ...

[cali]

20. The American people

are all over the map on this one. They now don't support our having gone into Iraq, but still swallow the kool aid of 'we need to stay until the country is stabilized.'

[welshTerrier2]

21. the latest polls on Iraq

once again, we are seeing a total lack of leadership by the Democratic Party on the Iraq issue ... the American people are way ahead of the statements being issued by the Democratic Party and most of its elected "leaders". It's one thing to applaud Democrats for their repeated criticisms of bush's mishandling of Iraq, but Democrats seem to be offering virtually no alternatives ...

go ask 5 people what the Democratic position on Iraq is ... i expect you'll receive a very muddled answer ... the tide has turned in Iraq ... the American people are not going to wake up one day and decide this was a really great idea afterall ... support for bush's insanity is rapidly declining and it's time for Democrats to get out in front on this issue ... otherwise, the Party is irrelevant on one of the most critical issues we face ... totally f%^kin irrelevant ... this is not the kind of leadership to restore Democrats to a majority status ...

here's a link to the latest polling:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050118/ts_alt_afp/usiraqpolls&cid=1506&ncid=1473

a Washington Post/ABC News poll showed that 55 percent of Americans felt the Iraq war was not worth fighting, against 44 percent who thought it was.

<skip>

Respondents also disapproved of Bush's handling of the situation in Iraq by a 58 to 40 percent margin, and 57 percent of the 1,007 adults surveyed by telephone from January 12-16 were not confident that the upcoming elections in Iraq would lead to a stable government.

Similarly, a USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll published in the nationally distributed newspaper showed that Americans believed it was a mistake sending troops to Iraq by a 52-to-47 percent margin.

Also based on a telephone survey of 1,007 adults, taken January 14-16, the USA Today poll found that respondents were now more or less equally divided as to whether the United States should keep, increase, reduce current troops levels in Iraq.

the important point of this last poll is the trend ... it will not be going back up ... are Democrats just afraid to engage politically on Iraq? do they really believe that a military solution is helping the people of Iraq? do they not understand that "we have met the enemy and they are us"? do they really still believe that internationalizing the military force will somehow appease the "insurgency"? do they really still believe internationalizing the force is an option?

the Democratic Party needs to take a real stand ... it's clear where the American people are headed on the issue; it's clearer still that Democrats have had more than enough of this insanity ... c'mon Democrats, it's time to come out against continued occupation ... it's time to be bold ... it's time to call for withdrawal ...

[Norquist Nemesis]

22. Is that really the job of the DNC Chair?

Serious question.

Personally, I don't think it's the responsibility of the DNC Chair to "call" for policy matters addressed to the administration, in essence, making policy stances for the Dems.

IMO, it's his/her primary responsibility to do fundraising, coordinate activities that support Democratic candidates, act as a spokesperson for the party platform when applicable and appropriate, and create, implement, and manage the marketing strategies to bring the Democratic Party in to the political discussion. (Sorry...that may be very clear...in a rush at the moment)

[welshTerrier2]

23. valid question, even a good question ... but it's the wrong question ...

we've had lots of threads and lots of discussions about the relevance of policy considerations to the Chairman's role ...

the role has been defined by some as primarily a role of "blocking and tackling" ... my understanding of this phrase is that the Chairman's "traditional" role is focussed on infrastructure and fundraising and NOT the definition of the Party's platform planks and policies ...

HOWEVER ... there is far more to be considered here than the Chairman's "traditional" role ... these are very special times for Democrats ... risky times ... Dean and Kucinich (and MoveOn and others) have ignited a massive grassroots energy in the Party ... many among these active grassroots Party members believe the Party's hierarchy has "sold out" to the DLC in a "republican-lite" meme ... they see the Party as a bunch of appeasers ... they see a Party unwilling to stand up and fight for what many Democrats believe in ... this alienation runs very deep ... it touches many on a deep, emotional level ... we care about what we're fighting for and we don't like candidates, for example Simon Rosenberg, making statements that bush's invasion of Iraq was "well intentioned" ... that's not what we're seeking in a Chairman of the "opposition" party ... it sends a very bad message to us and reflects very poor judgment on Mr. Rosenberg's part ...

recent polls show a strong trend among the American people to oppose bush on Iraq (see my post above in this thread) ... the issue here goes well beyond the Chairman's traditional functions ... i believe many are viewing this as an indication of several critical factors that will have a major impact on the Party's future ...

first, will any of the candidates call for opening up the Party's platform process to allow every single Democrat to participate in its definition or will "what WE believe as Democrats" continue to be determined by "what PARTY INSIDERS think" ...

second, will the Party tolerate dissent on a major issue like Iraq ... i am totally uncomfortable with our process that has resulted in not a single candidate calling for withdrawal at this time ... it is just not healthy, regardless of the Chairman's role, to be offered such a homogenized slate ... and when variation has occurred, it's Roemer's "pro life" stance ... what's kind of message does that send?

so you are correct to highlight the actual tasks assigned to the Chairman ... it's a valid question ... it's even a good question and an important question ... but lurking behind the narrow definition you've cited, there is critical, meaningful symbolism ... either we have a voice or we don't ... i want to hear the candidates, as Dean has done so effectively, talk about respecting the grassroots' efforts ... i want to feel that the stranglehold i believe insiders have will be voluntarily reqlinquished to enable more of us to take an active role in the Party's direction ... and I want to know that the people setting the political strategy are starting with the "right beliefs and values" (i.e. the ones held by a majority of Democrats) ... the Chairman should be far more than just a technician; he should be a rallying point, along with all our candidates, for the values and policies we are all fighting for ... if views on the issues were truly irrelevant, maybe we should try to get someone from the republican party to change sides ... they've been very successful in both infrastructure and fundraising ... it's not just that policy should matter; it's that everything should matter ...