So about this withdrawal argument? What do you think?

[TayTay]

I am not sure about the argument that proposes a date for withdrawal from Iraq. I go back and forth on it in my mind. I want the war to end (hell, I never wanted to begin, but that is irrelevent now.)

As near as I can tell, the withdrawal argument is about setting a date in Oct 2006 for the US to pull troops out of Iraq. (Is this right?) I'm not sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing and want to hear more info. I fear that pulling the troops out will endanger innocent Iraqi lives in a country that we 'broke.' We have a moral obligation to assist the IRaqis to at least get their basic municipal functions up and running agian (water, electricity, swer systems, etc.) On the other hand, we are a target there and the innocent Iraqis might be in dnager precisely because we are there. It is a genuine quagmire and I haven't made up my mind about what to do.

I think at this stage, I want to hear from the Dems that the US has no permanent plans to occupy Iraq or to build permanent bases there. (Sen. KErry did say just this back in June on the Senate floor.) This seems to me to be one of the most iportant things that can be said, as it defuses the notion that the US is planning on permanently occupying Arab land. (This adds fuel to the fire and inspires people from other neighboring countries to go to Iraq to fight the invaders.)

So, anyone else want change, but don't know what the right thing to do is? Anyone else trying to figure out what action gets the least amount of people killed, gets the US out of a war they never should have started and actually helps the Iraqi people? Cause I can't see it right now.

[ginnyinWI]

1. no permanent bases--

That is one thing I'm sure we should do. Because I think that is the #1 reason they went into Iraq--to set up permanent bases and control the Middle East--and that includes safe access to oil. To say "no permanent bases" and go on to prove it would be a start toward fixing our relations with the region.

I've read that more than 90 percent of the insurgents are Iraqis, not foreign fighters. So if we leave, will they just fight each other and wage civil war? And would that be any worse than what's happening now? Maybe not. It would certainly change things--and might be a necessary step toward the Iraqis creating their own soverign nation.

Another way, not quite as abrupt, would be to turn it over to NATO and get the U.S. uniforms out of there. They would have more credibility and be less an occupying force, and everyone would know that they would only be there temporarily, until order was restored. Say five years or so. We'd need to pony up continued aid in the form of money to make up for the damage we've done.

But what Iraq needs more than military solutions is to resolve its problems using diplomacy, working things out with its neighbors. We've all got to abandon the idea that military force can really solve anything permanently.

TayTay, I'm going to point you (once again) to an article in The Nation: "Unintended Consequences: A Forum on Iraq and the Mideast" from the August 15th issue. It gave me a lot of food for thought!

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050815&s=forum

[beachmom]

2. My thoughts exactly, Tay Tay

I haven't been thinking about Iraq this past month, since I was away, and I just needed a mental break from it, too, because I don't see any solution to this terrible problem. I still stick to my original feeling that invading Iraq in March 2003 was a major blunder, a collossal error for the history books. The next year that followed exponentially expanded the first error. Now there's no way to fix it, no way to get out. I admire and support Cindy Sheehan and her protest at the ranch, but I disagree with her conclusion -- withdrawing soldiers immediately. But I am at a loss of what to do, and it looks like most politicians are, too. Even some of Kerry's good ideas from this spring feel like they won't work anymore, like getting allies from the region to guard the borders, now that the insurgents targeted diplomats from the Arab world, and they just left and aren't coming back. And training Iraqis is a big joke. I hear stories from soldiers training Iraqis that sound eerily like Kerry's experience of training the South Vietnamese (I even heard a comment from a guy with the SBVT that pretty much said the South Vietnamese were mostly a joke, too. The stuff that wasn't part of their smear campaign tended to jive with Kerry's stories, another piece of evidence that Kerry was telling the truth about everything). And because Bush is totally stuck in his la la world, he's not willing to try different approaches to get the job done. His stubborness and blindness finalize my hopelessness of the situation.

[TayTay]

6. I did read it

and can discuss it more later.

Ther eis also this from consortium news:

Another dubious argument against U.S. withdrawal is the notion that the United States has an obligation to repair the damage already inflicted on Iraq. The idea was pithily expressed by former Secretary of State Colin Powell in what he called the “Pottery Barn rule” that “if you break it, you own it.”

Though Powell’s comment has some earthy wisdom to it (even if Pottery Barn really doesn’t have such a rule), there is a contrary saying that could apply better to Bush’s responsibility for the disaster in Iraq: “Haven’t you done enough damage already?”

Sometimes the person who created a mess is not the right person to clean it up. There are times when the practical – as well as the moral – action is to step back and let others do their best to pick up the pieces.

Any debate about the wisdom to “stay the course” must include whether there’s a realistic prospect for the U.S. policy to succeed in Iraq. If that judgment is negative, then extending the war is both impractical and immoral.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/081605.html

Now it becomes a when argument. Again, a lot of people say 14 - 18 months. (Kerry himself said, at one point, before the end of the President's term) so the time frame is negotiable.

[TheDonkey]

3. I doubt many Americans realize we are building these military bases

Democrats should expose some of the truths

[beachmom]

4. It was reported on the MSM -- the bases

I don't know, Americans are just lazy and don't want to bother with real, hard news. They have closed their eyes to most of this sad chapter in history. A friend of mine who is informed, but who also is military and Republican, says they're not PERMANENT, and it would be political suicide to insist on staying permanently. Considering that the war is going to last forever, it's a moot point whether there is an intention of having permanent bases or not. The reality is that I don't see those bases going away for at least 10 years, if not longer.

[europegirl4jfk]

5. I think the war is already lost :-(

Did you read Frank Rich's column in the NYT last weekend: "Someone Tell the President the War Is Over", and the article at www.jameswolcott.com "Black August and Beyond"?

Compared to the Vietnam war this is the phase of Vietnamisation/Iraqisation right now, when back during the Vietnam era Nixon promised disengagement but after training enough Vietnamese troops to defend their own country. It didn't work back then, it won't work right now. That's what I think. O.k, Iraq won't be invaded by another country, but the insurgency in Iraq will outlast the US withdrawal for a long time. And there will probably never be a united democratic Iraq. A somewhat stable country with autonomic regions, a prosper Kurdish north, a Islamic shiite south and more chaos in the Sunnite/shiite middle around Baghdad and Al Ambar, that's the best case scenario for me. The worst case scenario is open civil war.

I think IF Kerry had been in the White House in January, there would have been a really chance to fix it, to bring in international support from European and Middle Eastern countries. But with Bush, even if he turned around 180° now (and I don't think he ever will), a international or NATO support would never be possible. He broke it, but he can't fix it.

You should ask yourself if it makes sense to leave the US troops there for much longer? I personally don't think it makes sense, as it didn't make sense in Vietnam. More soldiers will die and nothing will change. It's a vicious circle.

[beachmom]

7. Completely agree with you Europegirl except one teeny tiny problem

Ahhh . . . last time I looked, Vietnamese people, or shall I say, Buddhists or Communists didn't hijack an airplane and slam it into a skyscraper. You only need 10 guys, the internet, and some bomb making know-how, oh yeah -- and maybe some experience in Iraq to murder innocent people in the West. Saddam Hussein, that evil bastard, kept things reasonably in line in his country (meaning Islamic terrorists) but no more. Now Iraq can be the new Afghanistan. And if we leave, there will be NOTHING to stop insurgents to openly take over swaths of Iraq and set up training camps, and then to send these trained fanatics to our shores, or much closer, to Europe -- look at the map and HOW CLOSE Iraq is to Europe -- you only have to go through Turkey. Now I'm not saying that this sort of scenario isn't already happening, most notably Muslim French nationals going to Iraq and then returning home to try to recruit more fighters. But this is all a matter of degree -- if we pull out, and the country (or even just the middle part of it) plunges into utter chaos and civil war, it will definitely be moreso than ever Terrorist Central. In this sense, Iraq is SO MUCH worse than Vietnam. Don't forget the oil. See the gas prices thread.

The situation is just so bad, and we're fighting each other here at home about it while the terrorists are united and laughing at us. It was in that movie "Dirty Bomb" when the terrorist said "What unites us, divides you". We need a LEADER, and Bush ain't it. This goes beyond partisanship. At this point I would take any Republican who would just tell it like it is, instead of making more lame excuses. Can't Bush step down? I'm sensing an LBJ moment when a war will destroy a presidency. And despite this being DU, I will not celebrate Bush's demise if we have to share in it.

[ginnyinWI]

8. Last Spring Kerry was saying

that we have just a little time left to "get it right"--I think those were his words. We had just a little window of time left to salvage what we were trying to do--but I think that time must be gone now. We now have to wait for the rest of this war to crash and burn and for our troops to come dragging home. They will call it a victory--but that's what leaders always try to do. Napoleon declared victory over Egypt before he high-tailed it out of there. The people in Paris didn't know the difference. But we, today, will get the real story sooner or later.

They've changed their reasons for war so many times! Although they really wanted Iraq as a military outpost in a friendly country, they gave us a string of reasons: WMD's, WMD-related programs, bringing democracy, defeating the terrorists on their newly-created training grounds rather than "here", and now they just hope and pray they can leave a stable moderate-Islamic state!

[Pirate Smile]

9. I think I agree with these parents although I think it may be too late

for "more troops" option.

Parents of Fallen Marine Make Plea to Bush

CLEVELAND - The day after burying their son, parents of a fallen Marine urged President Bush to either send more reinforcements to Iraq or withdraw U.S. troops altogether.

"We feel you either have to fight this war right or get out," Rosemary Palmer, mother of Lance Cpl. Edward Schroeder II, said Tuesday.

-snip-
The soldier's father said his son and other Marines were being misused as a stabilizing force in Iraq.

"Our comments are not just those of grieving parents," Paul Schroeder said in front of the couple's home. "They are based on anger, Mr. President, not grief. Anger is an honest emotion when someone's family has been violated."

Palmer accused the president of refusing to make changes in a war gone bad. "Whether he leads them out by putting more troops on the ground or pulling them out — he can't just let it continue," she said.

-snip-
"We want to point out that 30 people have died since our son. Are people listening?" Palmer asked.

-snip-
The couple applauded Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a fallen soldier who has camped out in protest near Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, for bringing the war to the publics attention.

"We consider her the Rosa Parks of the new movement opposing the Iraq war," Palmer said.

-snip-
Their son went to Iraq filled with optimism about the mission but gradually became disillusioned with the war's progress, his parents said.

"He said the longer it went on the less and less worth it seemed," Palmer said. "They're not doing the job right now. It's not the fault of the troops. It's the fault of the plan."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050817/ap_on_re_us/marine_s_family_speaks

Continuing more of the same yet expecting a different result is the definition of insanity.

We don't have enough troops there to do what is required yet from what I've heard we don't have enough additional troops to send over either. Just maintaining the current level of troops is damaging the military. I'm not sure that even if we somehow came up with enough troops now it would solve the problem - we needed that 3 years ago - it may just be too late now.

It is just such a cluster f#$k! The definition of FUBAR.

It has made our Country much LESS safe. The a$$holes that got us into this mess need to pay for it and the Democrats MUST do something to separate themselves from Bush's policies instead of apologizing for them to justify their votes.

I wish John Kerry would just come out and say - my vote for the war was a mistake - I believed the President and the Administration because I didn't think they would lie/mislead about such a important issue or something (I haven't really thought about the best way to do it). John Breau already said his vote was a mistake. We all know it so they screw themselves over when they spend time trying to justify it.

The Dem's have to figure out a way to distance and separate themselves from BushCo's War.

edit to add - Sorry, poor word usage - I should have said Iraq War Resolution or something like that although I probably said what the huge majority of even Dems think. I know he has always said it was a vote to give Bush leverage to get the inspectors back in, etc.

[politicasista]

10. An illegal mistake

I wish John Kerry would just come out and say - my vote for the war was a mistake - I believed the President and the Administration because I didn't think they would lie/mislead about such a important issue or something (I haven't really thought about the best way to do it). John Breau already said his vote was a mistake. We all know it so they screw themselves over when they spend time trying to justify it.

The Dem's have to figure out a way to distance and separate themselves from BushCo's War.

I do too. He has nothing to lose even though he has already been seen as "Pro-War" because of the infamous IWR vote.

I think if he said this, he would look good for 08 if he decides to run. He never should have trusted Bush in the first place.

[Mass]

12. He already said as much half a dozen times in different ways!!!

BTW, the vote was not a mistake - Bush abused the vote!!! He should have continued what he was mandated for: let the inspectors do their jobs.

I wished the Democrats could say that clearly and stop doing mea culpa. The vote would have probably be fine with any other president. It is Bush who screw up, not the Dems.

And Kerry did not vote for the war

[JI7]

16. also

Bush was planning on going to war without the IWR vote. even with the other resolution he would have done the same thing.

but some people don't care to hold him responsible for the things he said and did and would rather do feel good shit to make themselves feel morally superior.

[Pirate Smile]

17. "would rather do feel good shit to make themselves feel morally superior."

Who are you talking about?

[JI7]

18. i'm talking about

those who would say shit like "so why did he vote for the war" anytime Kerry would criticize Bush. never mind that his criticisms were based on what he said at the time of the vote.

and he criticized Bush on Afghanistan also and in that case it really was a vote for war.

so these fools didn't care that Kerry was speaking out against what Bush was doing at all. and that's where the "would rather do shit to make themselves feel morally superior" comes in.

[Pirate Smile]

21. I think the point I was trying to (clumsily) make may have been

misunderstood. It wasn't an attack on JK's vote in 2002.

I was trying to focus on the future and how the Democrats can aggressively challenge the Republicans in the 2006 elections.

JK isn't even up for reelection so he doesn't have to do anything but I always like for him to be in the forefront because he is a leader of the party and I think it could potentially help him in 2008 if (when) he does run again.

My point was that the Party has to figure out a way to discuss Iraq without being defensive because of their votes in 2002. They should be on the attack because they were lied to on so many issues during the run up. They are frequently asked "was your vote a mistake?", "would you vote for the IWR again, knowing what you know now?", etc. - even new candidates running get these questions and stumble over them instead of just giving a strong answer and moving into attack mode (Hardball, Iraq War Vet Patrick Murphy running for Congress in PA).

They could aggressively go after Bush because of the many things we have learned since 2002 like the DSM's, the false Niger yellowcake claims, etc. AND there has been no accountability because the Republicans in Congress won't do their jobs.

The lack of checks and balances in Congress because Republicans - even the "decent ones" - have been scared into being simply a Bush rubber stamp should be a HUGE issue in 2006.

[JI7]

23. i don't have a problem with that

i was more responding to the other post which was about the Kerry bashers.i do agree with you on the strategy.

[globalvillage]

13. I think this is a pretty clear explanation of the IWR vote

"This was the hardest vote I have ever had to cast in my entire career," Kerry said. "I voted for the resolution to get the inspectors in there, period. Remember, for seven and a half years we were destroying weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. In fact, we found more stuff there than we thought we would. After that came those four years when there was no intelligence available about what was happening over there. I believed we needed to get the weapons inspectors back in. I believed Bush needed this resolution in order to get the U.N. to put the inspectors back in there. The only way to get the inspectors back in was to present Bush with the ability to threaten force legitimately. That's what I voted for."

"The way Powell, Eagleberger, Scowcroft, and the others were talking at the time," continued Kerry, "I felt confident that Bush would work with the international community. I took the President at his word. We were told that any course would lead through the United Nations, and that war would be an absolute last resort. Many people I am close with, both Democrats and Republicans, who are also close to Bush told me unequivocally that no decisions had been made about the course of action. Bush hadn't yet been hijacked by Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney and that whole crew. Did I think Bush was going to charge unilaterally into war? No. Did I think he would make such an incredible mess of the situation? No. Am I angry about it? You're God damned right I am. I chose to believe the President of the United States. That was a terrible mistake."

History defends this explanation. The Bush administration brought Resolution 1441 to the United Nations in early November of 2002 regarding Iraq, less than a month after the Senate vote. The words 'weapons inspectors' were prominent in the resolution, and were almost certainly the reason the resolution was approved unanimously by the Security Council. Hindsight reveals that Bush's people likely believed the Hussein regime would reject the resolution because of those inspectors. When Iraq opened itself to the inspectors, accepting the terms of 1441 completely, the administration was caught flat-footed, and immediately began denigrating the inspectors while simultaneously piling combat troops up on the Iraq border. The promises made to Kerry and the Senate that the administration would work with the U.N., would give the inspectors time to complete their work, that war would be an action of last resort, were broken.

Kerry completed his answer by leaning in close to Alterman, eyes blazing, and said, "Eric, if you truly believe that if I had been President, we would be at war in Iraq right now, then you shouldn't vote for me."

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/121003A.shtml

[karynnj]

11. "my vote for war"

I think that's the problem right there - what some thought was semantics or word play to avoid saying they voted for war - may be a real distinction for Kerry (and possibly others). It was clear from all his comments in and away from the Senate that Kerry was voting for the US to go to the UN and get inspectors back in. I really don't think this was a lie - it was the solution as he saw it.

I think part of demanding WMD II and the DSM, is Kerry's demand that the administration admit that they lied to almost all Congress people as well as to the UN and the world. They did this even as they had closed door meetings and conferences asking people to trust them. In the Pitt article, Kerry speaks of DEMOCRATS and Republicans he trusted promising him that there was no firm decision to go to war. He did say he did not think all these people were lying. It may be that these actions are moving in that direction.

He also is one of the few who have suggested exit plans - as the situation deteriorates and wants no bases. I wish the democrats would line up behind "No bases".

[TayTay]

14. I think the effort to get DSM investigated is huge

It proves that * was lying to the Senate. As does the recent revelations in Raw Story that show that Sen. Roberts of Kansas was a partner in withholding information from the Senate and in covering up the intel that contradicted the push for war. This is crucial stuff. (The Raw Story article goes into how the * Admin arbitrarily designated 8 members of Congress as being worthy of receiving Top Secret intel and everyone else was denied. The Senate was voting, to an extent, without the info they needed.)

When I look at all the different calls that Kerry's office has put out for the * Admin to release documents and for the Rethug Senate to conduct proper investigations, it all begins to make sense. He is looking to see exactly where the whole train derailment happened and why. After all, the * Admin lied to the Senate and lied to Kerry to get what they wanted. They should be held accountable. And I think Kerry is trying to get some answers. It not enough to just say, 'I'm sorry,' or 'this isn't what I voted for,' or whatever. It would be better to present a timeline to the American people that says this is what happened, this is how it happened and this is the result. Much better. (And is in line with what a prosecutor would do.)

[Pirate Smile]

15. This is what I'm worried about and which drives me crazy.

On Hardball tonight, Fineman said that the Democrats were going to run on everything BUT Iraq in 2006. They didn't want to touch it.

The biggest issue in the country is Iraq and if the Dems run away from it, they will continue to be viewed as not standing for anything, wishy washy, weak. Take a stand and have the guts to say it.

That is certainly not about John Kerry because he is definitely one of the most outspoken critics of BushCo. It has to do with the fact that the majority of Dem Congresspeople voted for the IWR and are still too busy justifying why they voted that way, for whatever legitimate reasons at the time that THEY tend to be on the defensive INSTEAD of ATTACKING Bush and the Republican Rubber stamps.

I'm frustrated. Say whatever you have to to get past what happened in 2002 and be aggressively attacking Bush.

Just take a damn position DIFFERENT from Bush and ATTACK him and them. We can't ignore this issue in 2006.

I'm afraid they are going to screw up an enormous opportunity by trying to PLEASE EVERYONE, which always ends up pleasing NO ONE.

Hopefully, Fineman is just wrong but I'm worried he may be correct.
:rant:

OK, I feel better now.:)

[karynnj]

20. I agree with you

I think even if the Democrats want to run on something else - that is the issue that will be way too big to ignore. I think there probably are Democrats, possibly including the Clintons, who would prefer to fight on the economic issues and say they support Bush. There are some Congress people (and Feingold)who want a withdrawal date (2006) and people like Kerry who want a plan, which includes an immediate statement that the US wants no bases when they leave, that genuinely points to getting out. So, I think Fineman may mean their will be no party-wide position of making the election a referendum on Iraq.

If they can't run specifically on Iraq, they might be able to run against the Republican agenda, which is heartless. Republicans in congress have moved in locked step with the President on everything. The Democrats have struggled to get even very innocuous amendments to legislation, seen them win (often with voice vote because they had no one willing to put their name down to oppose them), only to be consistently stripped out by the house/Senate committee. This has to be explained, because otherwise every Senator will claim they voted for these things (which they did in great numbers), but then they allowed them to be stripped out.

As I spend too much time here, I know the Kerry stuff strip outed and that list alone shows they are unwilling to change anything - no matter how cheap or needed the item is. They acted as if the Bush budget was sacred text. The small business amendments the Kerry and Snowe wanted were very sensible and in some cases supported programs that had already proved their worth.

As the Republicans (especially in the House) don't break ranks, the point is to tie them to the (increasingly) unpopular administration.
Many of Kerry's speeches this year have eloquently described the current situation in the Senate and how this is not how things used to work. It would seem that a combination of Kerry setting this high road that this is neither the best way to get good legislation that people want (Kids first) or what the constitution envisioned, and someone (Bill Clinton ?) clearly and directly tying the Republicans to their party. On the side someone who is 100% clean (or nearly) and understated (the charges themselves are inflammatory) could also point to the ethics scandals that seem to be everywhere.

It would be easier to fight with Iraq as the main issue, but it would fracture the party. At this point, they could all agree Bush created a disaster. Kerry and those more anti-war would not move towards supporting Bush and I don't see the "strong on defense" Clinton moving to the anti-war side - even if the polls slide more. (Remember the VM war was incredibly unpopular, but Nixon was able to convince people that he was working to get us out honorably in 1972. It's scary, but the Republicans will argue that their team is making progress - we have elections, a constitution and the first group of soldiers have orders to return triumphantly on Nov 15th - provided nothing shakes things up.) I still have my McGovern button.

[emulatorloo]

19. kick n/t

[beachmom]

22. Iraq divides Democrats more than Republicans

This is why I am still worried for the Dem Party's future. The anti-war element is in the Democratic party while other than maybe Pat Buchanan and grumblings about how the war has been prosecuted, there is not a whole lot of open dissent in the Republican party. In spite of everything, somehow Iraq weakens the Dem Party much more than the Republican party, unless we could all agree on an approach, which it seems we cannot. I am in the Kerry/Biden group on the war, but I think the majority of Democrats are for a "cut and run" strategy. There's a good post on bullmooseblog.com about how doves never win and the Donkey shouldn't fall for the no war type of slogan. It's easy and it sounds good, but a sliver of daylight, otherwise known as reality, shows that surrendering to a bunch of terrorists (which I will add infinitum were NOT there before the war started) and former Baathists is unthinkable. It was easier to let go of Vietnam than it would ever be to let go of the strategically vital Iraq.

Strategy for the Dems? Accountability for the Past AND a plan for the future. But what would that plan look like? There are so few options in Iraq. I think it was Pat Buchanan who argued that Bush needed to make a case, not for victory, but for how devastating a defeat in Iraq would be. Dems need to get their shit together and do the same. The attack on Bush will HAVE to center on the past and the lack of leadership of the present. Then they need to add a good sounding plan of what they would do differently, and it can't be just "train the Iraqis". And they can add, that if X, Y, and Z occur, the troops can start pulling out. But what's disturbing for me about the Cindy Sheehan phenomenon is that are the troops and their families willing to stay the course? If they aren't, then we're in a world of shit. If the will to fight this war dies, then defeat is inevitable. In that case, then it's better to withdraw now than 5 years from now when untold 100s or 1000s of more soldiers will die.

[Pirate Smile]

24. sigh

Democrats Split Over Position on Iraq War
Activists More Vocal As Leaders Decline To Challenge Bush

By Peter Baker and Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, August 22, 2005; Page A01

Democrats say a long-standing rift in the party over the Iraq war has grown increasingly raw in recent days, as stay-the-course elected leaders who voted for the war three years ago confront rising impatience from activists and strategists who want to challenge President Bush aggressively to withdraw troops.

-snip-
The internal schism has become all the more evident in recent weeks even as Americans have soured on Bush and the war in poll after poll. Senate Democrats, according to aides, convened a private meeting in late June to develop a cohesive stance on the war and debated every option -- only to break up with no consensus.

-snip-
"Clearly Democrats are not united in what is the critique of what we're doing there and what is the answer to what we do next," said Steve Elmendorf, a senior party strategist whose former boss, then-House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.), voted in 2002 to authorize the invasion of Iraq. "The difficulty of coming to a unified position is that for a lot of people who voted for it, they have to decide whether they can admit that they were misled."

-snip-
Still, the Democratic discord has provided solace for Bush advisers at a difficult time. Although Bush's approval ratings have sunk, the Democrats have gained no ground at his expense. In a Washington Post-ABC News poll in June, just 42 percent of Americans approved of congressional Democrats, a figure even lower than Bush's.

Republican strategists chortle at the Democrats' inability to fashion a coherent message on the war. The Republican National Committee on Friday released a series of contrasting Democratic statements on troop withdrawals. "Instead of attacking our president's resolve," RNC spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt said in a statement, "Democrats might want to focus on the debate within their own party."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/21/AR2005082100831.html

[beachmom]

25. Thanks for the story, Pirate Smile

Isn't it odd that the Iraq War going so badly is somehow still benefitting Bush???!!!!??? If everything had gone brilliantly, and Iraq was democratic and at peace, and the oil was flowing, et al, I swear it would be easier to take back the presidency. Somehow, between allowing 9/11 to happen and now royally f***ing up Iraq, we are in great danger of minority status for years to come. I don't know what the solution to this horrible problem is. The Republicans, by the way, don't either, but they just smile, lie, and then attack the Democrats. And Democrats have too much damn integrity to do the same.

[Pirate Smile]

26. It is just un-friggin-believable. They have some time to get it

together before the 2006 election, lets hope they pull it together.

I can't believe they can't figure out a way to deal with the 2002 vote.

Did you watch the "Dead Wrong" on CNN tonight? The Dems that voted for it need to be outraged, not cowed.

[Pirate Smile]

27. Here is a diary by David Sirota that is up on Huffington Post on this

issue:

Beltway Dems Regurgitate Right-Wing B.S. on Iraq; Grassroots Fights Back (73 comments )
The Philadelphia Inquirer has a great piece today on how many of the highest-profile 2008 Democratic presidential contenders - other than the courageous Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) - are still unwilling to take a serious position on the Iraq War. I must say, there are very troubling signs in the article in terms of Democrats continuing to regurgitate dishonest right wing lies (a phenomenon I have written a lot about before), and continuing to listen to the professional election losers (aka.

"The Consulting Class") and the club of foreign policy elitists (aka. the "The Strategic Class") in Washington, D.C. But there are also some very encouraging signals this insulated Beltway Establishment is being shaken to its core.

First the very bad news. The article notes that the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) is once again undermining the Democratic Party. This time, it has "accused war critics of 'anti-American bias'" (wonder if that includes Vietnam War hero and Republican Senator Chuck Hagel?). This is a pristine example of self-proclaimed Democrats literally regurgitating the most offensive and dishonest right-wing spin out there. There is nothing "anti-American" about wanting to bring our troops home. (Frankly, it's the other way around: there is something "anti-American soldier" about wanting to indefinitely leave our troops in a shooting gallery without an exit strategy, without proper body armor, and without any semblance of a plan). The DLC's rhetoric is reminiscent of Attorney General John Ashcroft's now-famous statement that critics of the Bush administration "only aid terrorists for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve." It is also frighteningly reminiscent of the 9/8/03 Washington Post story that noted Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said that "critics of the Bush administration's Iraq policy are encouraging terrorists and complicating the ongoing U.S. war on terrorism."

More bad news: the Democratic Party's Senate and House campaign apparatus is telling Democrats to keep their mouths shut on Iraq, for fear they will look weak on national security. Most recently, these pathetic souls desperately tried to divert attention from how the Iraq War played an instrumental role in Iraq War Veteran Paul Hackett's congressional race in Ohio. Apparently, the class of professional election losers in Washington, D.C. thinks Democrats can win by saying almost nothing on Iraq (like the party often says nothing on lots of issues, thus perpetuating the perception that Democrats stand for nothing). As one "Democratic strategist" told the Inquirer, "Let's not refight the origins of the war, who was right or wrong. That discussion has run its course." The strategist then said "Let's keep hitting Bush when he's not being straight with the people."

That's all well and good - except, it assumes that Americans are stupid. The fact is, doing what these strategists suggest will reinforce the idea that Democrats stand for nothing, because refusing to address the Iraq war is the equivalent of Democrats "not being straight with people" in the same way Bush isn't being straight with people. It's the reason why we can drive up Bush and the GOP's negatives all we want - but that doesn't mean it is going to help us. The fact is, Democrats will not capitalize on any of this until they start speaking clearly about where they actually stand on the war, and whether they actually have the guts to say what polls show most Americans believe: that the Bush administration deliberately lied to us about why we were going to war, that the war has made our country less safe/secure, and that it's time for a serious exit strategy.

Finally, there is some good news: the Inquirer story reminds us that there is a growing outrage outside the class of professional election losers in Washington who are starting to flex their political muscle. That is, the millions of ordinary, hard-working citizens who actually make up the ranks of the Democratic Party are getting sick and tired of the split-the-difference politics that has led Democrats to loss after loss after loss. People like Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Paul Hackett are showing that there are talented and effective champions who are listening to us, and are ready to take up the fight. And others like top-tier Senate candidate Bob Casey (D-PA) are rejecting the Iraq advice from the all-too-comfortable consultants in Washington.

It is up to us to support these and other courageous leaders in their noble cause, because they are fighting not only for the future of the Democratic Party, but more importantly, for the future of this country.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/beltway-dems-regurgitate-_b_5990.html

[paulk]

28. what to do? what to do?

There's really not much Democrats can do. They don't control anything. That's why Chuck Hagel gets so much press for saying the exact same thing as any number of Democrats.

At a minimum the Democrats should make it clear that they're opposed to a long term occupation, especially one that would mean building bases there. They can continue to point out the corruption - the missing billions, Halliburton, etc...

Other than that - just let this be George Bush's war. The American people chose Bush (well.. maybe) They gave him an even bigger majority in the Senate.

Every day the lies come clearer. Every day America understands a little better what a fucking mess they've bought into.


I know that's a pretty cold hearted analysis - but the tipping point is past. The window of opportunity is closed. Kerry, as Pres. would have had a chance of salvaging something, but I'm not even sure of that.

[beachmom]

29. What were the Republicans doing in 1967-68?

As Vietnam descended into hell under LBJ, I was just wondering what was happening in the Republican Party during this time period. I know Nixon had a campaign about "Peace through Honor" which was about Vietnamization, but was that in 1972? Although the American people are very upset and discouraged about the war, a platform of "bring the troops home now" at any cost would have so many holes poked through it from even some Democrats. I'm sorry, but that sounds like defeatism and could embolden insurgents around the world. The Dems really do need to get their shit together, but I suppose they can "wander through the wilderness" a little longer. But speaking of Iraqi deadlines, I'd say if there isn't a coherent united message from MOST Democrats by January 2006, we are positively doomed. Indecisiveness and infighting will look like weakness. Somehow they need to come up with a credible plan that involves the troops leaving Iraq and somehow being "victorious" at the same time. Yeah, I know, that seems impossible. Oh Madison Avenue, work magic for us! Please, dear God.

I signed Kerry's petition detailed by Kerrygoddess's post, but I had to control myself from not adding in the comments, that if leadership for the Iraq War has indeed collapsed inside the White House, then it's up to the Dems to get it together, and start speaking directly to the American people, like a true Shadow Government. This is not crazy -- Angela Merkel (regardless of what you think of her) has already been doing this in Germany since June, a true shadow Chancellor. But you can't run a shadow government without any new ideas or any plans for the future. Okay, I may sound a little DLC, but it's really pissing me off how fucking Kos somehow gets a soundbite, and not Kerry. But Kos is only AGAINST things. His only ideas are about how to market things, especially bashing Republicans, but NOTHING about leading. And his site is the most popular liberal site on the web. In that REM song from "Going Up River", there is a line that says "I wish the folowers would lead". But they're not. Their hatred of Bush and his lying us into the Iraq War has blinded them from thinking clearly about doable solutions to get us out of the messes Bush created. All Kos and his ilk can come up with is "withdraw troops now", a plan any 5 year old could come up with. Okay, sorry, if I have offended anyone, but I feel like there is no leadership in this country, and everybody is just fighting. And when Kerry had that supposed fight with Harry Reid about Social Security back in January, and Reid said the plan should be only "no" and Kerry thought that there should be a Democratic plan of some sort, Reid won and for a while we all thought he was right, as Bush's SS plan died. But you know what? Long term this is a LOSING strategy. Just say NO, No, No, and you screwed up Iraq, withdraw the troops, and a little more No, No, No. I mean who is going to vote for the "We hate Bush" party? People want solutions and maturity. Don't get me wrong -- Kerry is doing a lot of great things and is not just saying "no". But when the more popular lib sites don't back him up, it's almost like he's said nothing. I know people try a lot here to defend him and get his message out, but most people only read posts from Kos and Armando on dailykos.com, and similar posters. Their messages are simple and ring out like a rebel yell -- fuck you George Bush and your fucking war, and this resonates with people and makes them feel empowered. But long term, it's not going to get people elected. Just my opinion, and sorry for the anger and the long post.

[ginnyinWI]

30. I agree!

As I was saying in the other thread: leave it to the left wing media to slam Bush and call them on all of their lies and mistakes. Our Dem politicians need to be formulating a well-defined and easy to understand policy that expresses one voice on the major issues. People are getting really sick of Bush and his failures and are looking for an alternative. On the left right now we seem to have confusion, and that amounts to no clear alternative. I know it's like herding cats--but the leadership needs to get it together somehow.

[karynnj]

31. Like you I wish the leading liberal blogs would be sensible

and constructive. They aren't and that may not change. They and many of their posters are the Michael Moore fringe. There are enough of them that they will never feel marginalized. They weren't the main core of the Democratic party in 2004 and won't be in 2008. Also, though they clearly favor others and are slow to give Kerry credit, there are times when Kerry's actions and statements seep through. Even at the worst period, many posters complaining about him were compelled to say that Kerry was a decent, honorable, intelligent man - a compliment they wouldn't give to that many politicians who they were not supporting. Kerry has been there more consistently fighting for almost a year than anyone else. Kerry's well-mannered, rational persona allows him to critisize the Bush administrtion's perfidities in stronger terms than others without appearing stident.

Democrats are looking for a leader. Kerry has offered himself and is acting, as much as possible, as a leader. Hillary is being pointed to as a leader by the media and some Democratic party people. She has not overtly tried to lead, maybe preferring to wait till after 2006 - a more traditional time to jump in. Several other people are also looking at going for the Presidency which implicitly means being the head of the party.

There is a leadership vacumn now, so conventional wisdom may be wrong that waiting is better. The danger is that you need to show your positions -even risking taking a position that you will regret. It actually surprises me that Bill Clinton did so little in 2002 and appears to be doing little for 2006. Both he and Gore seemed to avoid playing the role of party head.

Dean is unusual as the DNC head in that he was a high profile politician. He has not really projected a vision of the Democratic party to counter that of the Republicans. Kerry seems to be moving in that direction. In 2004, he talked about people's needs, but it wasn't obvious in his Stronger America theme, although at the rallies it was clear he felt educated, healthy, finacially secure people made for a stronger America. He seems to be talking more about those compassionate people issues (populism) now, likely with the Stronger America as it's necessary backbone.

The difference between where he was when Tay Tay talked about his Boston speech and his Friday speech is huge and it's only 2005. I think he will have a well articulted vision and concrete proposals that are consistent with his 2004 stands (where he has been seen to have been right on many things) and his life. He has a great story if he can get it out.

He is emailing much of this directly to people on his list - which has grown since the election. He has carefully used the press when he has gotten coverage. Neither Russert or Woodruff laid a glove on him - though they tried. The amazing thing is that there is not a single statement Kerry made in the entire campaign that Democrats (or Republicans) can point to as a lie or even avoiding truth. This is significant if a major theme is Republican corruption and lies.
( I refuse to count a mistake on details of when he was sent into Cambodis and by whom in a nearly 20 yr old Senate speech made nearly 20 years after he returned from Vietnam. As the details neither changed or improved his argument against covert action in Central America, it's highly unlikely he intentionally gave a wrong date and President. )

[beachmom]

32. Why isn't Kerry getting more coverage?

I just don't understand why the former candidate who came very close to unseating a president isn't getting more coverage. He represents true Democrats moreso than the Congressional leadership -- Reid and Pelosi. In a way, Kerry is in a political no man's zone. He's not retired, he's not in the leadership, he's not out of the game, yet he isn't considered to be the go to person when the press is looking for a quote from the opposition party. I don't watch that much news -- just Jim Lehrer, BBC or Deutsche Welle, and sometimes Democracy Now! -- the only one where he MIGHT get a quote is Lehrer, but to me, he's not on enough. There are so many characters, and they're not always saying the same things. I think you're right, Karnnj, there is a power vaccuum. I just don't see why Kerry can't be the "opposition". In Germany, after Stoiber lost to Schroeder in 2002, Stoiber was still being quoted until Merkel maneuvered to the top spot. Even now, Stoiber is a big player. Why isn't Kerry a big player?

[TayTay]

33. He is a big player

Senator Kerry has stated that one of the biggest goals of the Dems in Congress right now is to make sure that they either pick up seats or don't lose any more seats. He is being a Democrat and trying to make sure that Democrats get elected to Congress and that the lying Rethug bastards get thrown the hell out. He is doing all those behind-the-scenes meeting and convincing uncommitted people to run in races that just might be competitive in 2006. He is also giving away huge amounts of money.

This is pure politics, I know. But it is also extremely important. (He spoke to State Legislators last week, the farm teams of the Democratic Party. That was no random act. He is a high-profile Dem, he gets to go out and talk to the bench and whip up some enthsuiasm and excitement and, most important of all, hope.

I think KErry will be come more visible as time goes on. I also think he is trying to maximize his time and make sure he supports people and makes appearances for people in places where it will do some good. We have to improve Democratic numbers in the Congress in 2006. Eyes on the Prize here people, Eyes on the Prize.

[karynnj]

34. Also, when he does speak out to the MSM

it is big news. Biden seems to be on every Sunday somewhere when Congress is in session and has been for years. In general, he almost never makes news beyond the show. Remember that when Kerry appeared on MTP, the station advertised the up-coming show and gave him a huge amount of time (I think the full hour).

The behind the scenes stuff is really important - it's critical they do as well as possible in 2006. I know that people on DU and kos etc will give Dean all the credit - but those elected will know who helped and who didn't. (Is Bill Clinton doing anything? Did he help in 2002 - I don't remember hearing anything, but he could have been behind the scenes.)

Biden and McCain may be media favorites, but it's clear they respect Kerry when he does appear. He also seems to be able to dominate any host - which may explain why he's not a favorite.

[beachmom]

35. You're right, Tay Tay on the behind the scenes stuff

He is doing a ton of behind the scenes stuff to get people elected and this is extremely important. I guess my frustration goes beyond partisan politics, and it's about the horrible mess in Iraq. Everything is on the line, and our president is on vacation, literally out to lunch. In that sense, I am less partisan than others, because I think a bad result in Iraq will destabilize the whole region, making us even less safe. I mean, how great is it for Bush to go down in flames, if losing in Iraq is how that happens. Now mind you, this was HIS war, so there's a bit of Karma there, but if HE loses in Iraq, then WE lose in Iraq. That's why this issue is so bad for Democrats. Do we want to take the whole country down in order to take a president down? I don't think so. Just let him go gentle into that good night, otherwise known as lame duckness, and let's SOLVE this problem. Maybe a bi-partisan group -- like McCain, Hagel, Biden, and Kerry or something. Put together a plan, deliver it to the president, talk about it non-stop on TV, get the public behind it, and then, maybe it will happen. We need to think creatively and SAVE ourselves.