For you, is Iraq a "lithmus" test of who a true Democrat is?

[Clarkie1]

In other words, if an elected Democrat does not agree with you on this one issue, do you think they are a DINO?

[Fermezlabush]

1. It's a bit simplistic. Those who voted for war have blood on their hands

But at least a few said they were misled - so, they get more consideration than those who are still with Bushco. And then you have people like Murtha - he also voted for war originally, but made up for it.
But yeah, how they feel about mass murder of innocents is pretty damn important!

[texastoast]

9. Welcome to DU!

Quel nom de plume!

:toast:

[Fermezlabush]

18. Merci beaucoup!

:hi:

[Clarkie1]

36. "mass murder of innocents" does not help the dialogue.

Of course, everyone is against mass murder of innocents whatever their view on Iraq.

[Fermezlabush]

44. I wouldn't be so sure of that. Have you talked to Lieberman&other neocons?

Of course, for them, everyone we should attack is guilty of something...

[bryant69]

2. It is a key issue - but i don't know if I would formulate it that way

I would say that anybody who stands with Bush on this issue is probably a DINO. Stands with Bush and defends his many many errors and mistakes.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[The Magistrate]

3. No, Sir, It Is Far From A Proper Criterion

Particularly when how loosely the charge of "supporting the war" is tossed about is taken into account.

[Clarkie1]

6. I agree...and I would add:

For me, being a Democrat means the follwing:

Being part of a reality-based communtiy
Supporting science
Protecting the environment
Being pro-civil rights
Supporting a progressive tax system
Providing equal opportunity for all
Supporting educational opportunity for all
Promoting quality health care for all
Being internationalist, not isolationist

I could add more to the list, of course. I suppose some Democrats might disagee with me on the last point, but I'm sure most or all of those things all Democrats support.

We did not create the situation with in Iraq, and I don't think we should allow the neo-cons to drive a wedge among us. Why tear each other apart based on this or that position on what is the best course of action in Iraq, particularly when at present we have little effect in that course of action? Why not focus on these other issues more, particularly since if we win back the congress in 06' we will be in a stronger postition to legislatively affect those issues?

[The Magistrate]

8. Indeed, Sir

The invasion and occupation of Iraq was a Republican policy, conceived, promoted, pressed, and executed by the present Republican regime. Criticizing Democrats over it is a waste of energy, and as a matter fo practical effect, serves only to confuse the issue and assists the enemy's attempts to wriggle out of responsibility for the failure. The people ahve the sense to blame the Republicans, and political activists should take their cue from the wisdom of the populace in this matter. The proper line is to augment and steady what the people think about who is to blame....

[Clarkie1]

17. YES!

You expressed my thoughts better than I. I have been thinking this for a long time, and it is frustrating. It's O.K. for Democrats to suggest this or that course of action, but we shouldn't be fighting each other over it if we disagee! They, not us, are to blame for the situation!

"The proper line is to augment and steady what the people think about who is to blame...."

Absolutely.

[LittleClarkie]

23. Indeed, when some voted for the IWR because they supported

what the president SAID he would do, not what he did.

[uppityperson]

4. Those who continue to vote for staying in Iraq are DINOs.

Those who show they are incapable of intergrating new information, learning and making a good decision based on this are DINOs.

[Clarkie1]

10. What if a liberal Democrat comes to the conclusion

based on intergrating new information, learning, ect., that immediate withdrawl is not the best course of action? Do you believe

a) They are an idiot.
b) They processed the same information, but reached a different (yet still reasonable) conclusion which you happen to disagree with?

[uppityperson]

11. I would not call that person a liberal Democrat.

[The Magistrate]

13. And Of What Signifigance Would That Be, Ma'am?

Such a person would be quite unlikely to take your opinion of him or her as determining the question.

[uppityperson]

15. would you restate that simpler for me, I don't understand. thanks.

[Clarkie1]

19. What is your definition of "liberal Democrat?"

[uppityperson]

21. aha, good question, used this term in response to your using it.

we do need to define it as otherwise it could mean many things.

Liberal democrat:
sorry, headache, stomache, feel crappy and can't think in depth. I am going to do a quick check on other of my postings and get off DU. I'll see if I can come up with an answer for you tomorrow, ok? 'til then, take care and sorry for quitting. I do feel like crap.

[Clarkie1]

25. Hope you feel better soon. eom

[uppityperson]

27. thanks, now I'm gone

was too lazy to do dishes yesterday and dig out coffee pot so woke with tremendous headache/stomach ache and fighting it all day.I hate this, feeling crappy for such a stupid reason. Thanks and bye.

[TahitiNut]

5. A war crime is a war crime ... every day, every hour it goes on.

The invasion and occupation of Iraq was, and is, a war crime. Absolutely every death is blood on the hands of the war criminals.

[Clarkie1]

7. But the definition of "liberal" is not what one thinks is the best

approach in Iraq at present. It could be argued by a liberal that it would be a crime to leave Iraq too soon, because it would likely lead to more bloodshed. And another liberal would argue the opposite, but they would both be liberals, and they could both be good Democrats.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

12. For me, if a person supports the war...

they're a first class fucker of highest proportions and I don't really care what party they're registered under.

[The Magistrate]

14. And What Constitutes Supporting The War, Sir?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

16. In my opinion?

Not pulling out immediately.

[The Magistrate]

30. Nowhere Near Good Enough, Sir

A person might easily view an immediate withdrawl as a poor cource for a variety of sound resasons, and still be of the view that the entire enterprise was foolish and wrong to embark on in the first place, or have come to feel decieved into supporting it initially.

There is no point and no benefit to describing as a supporter of the way anyone but persons who consider the invasion and occupation of Iraq a proper anmd necessary thing,a nd who feel the current course should be pressed until voctory in it achieved, whatever the cost.

"Politics is a business of addition, not subtraction."

"Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists in choosing between the disasterous and the unpalatable."

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

32. Well it's going to have to be.

As far as I care, people who are against immediate withdrawal now were people who were for the war again, and simply can't admit they were wrong all along.

[LynneSin]

20. Define "Disagree"

If a democrat voted for at least the Levin amendment then at least I know they are moving in the right direction when it comes to the war. But there are others who think that Levin was not acceptable

[Clarkie1]

37. Good question.

When I posted the poll, I was thinking disagreement on what to do now. I do think we need to do something that indicates we expect the administration to move in a different direction than the course they were are on. For me, that is the Levin ammendment. I felt that the Levin ammendment expressed a clear preference of direction, without setting a deadline for withdrawl. I do think a deadline is wrong, for a variety of reasons. Also, there is a difference between a timeline and a deadline. The Kerry ammendment was a deadline ammendment eventhough it was expressed as a timeline ammendment.

My feeling is that Democrats are spending too much time arguing over this approach or that approach or this ammendment or that ammendment when it comes to Iraq, when time would better be spent simply keeping the administrations feet to the fire and reminding the American people that not only was the war unnecessary, but they have botched it from the start. Also, the American people should have a sense that Democrats have more ideas than simply "get out now," although that is a legitimate postion as well. I feel Democrats are spending too much time arguing with other Democrats over Iraq, and the American people are not getting the larger picture and a sense of where Democrats stand on issues beyond Iraq...if the American people see Democrats primarily in terms of our intra-party disagreements over how to best deal with a chaotic situation created by an unnecessary war started by the Republicans, that is not good. That is what concerns me. It's not our fault, it's theirs...that's the message that needs to be heard the loudest.

[Skidmore]

22. Any person who sat in Congress and voted for this tragedy to begin

with is deserving of contempt. As I have mentioned before on this board, there were thousands of us out here who realized that we were being sold a crock of steaming hooey and that * was going to war no matter what anyone said. We paid attention to the news and reports of the weapons inspectors and tracked the history of Iraq. We knew this without having access to secret briefings. We could sit in the hinterlands and see that juggernaut coming. This entire war and the accompanying terror crap derives from a set of wrongheaded policies around oil that go back 70 years, and which we refuse to address and change as a nation. Maintaining instability and supporting dictatorial regimes has been our policy. We owned Saddam, the Shah, and bin Laden to those ends. War for access to oil. Plain and simple. Now factor in we have a cabal a oil men and political ideologues in charge of the government. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see where we were going. As far as the "War on Terror," we are getting blowback, and are just too obtuse and collectively stupid to recognize it for what it is.

I don't even excuse those who say they were misled. There were congresspeople who voted no. They did not cede the war power to the executive or the power of the purse in this matter. I do not support anyone who backs this type of policy or this war.

[HardRocker05]

28. Hear, hear. nt

[LittleClarkie]

45. The question is not who is deserving of contempt

Or who you would support.

The question is whether or not that person you are directing your contempt at is still a "true" Democrat.

Is this one issue the definer, or are more issues involved in determining what a "true" Democrat is? What is your litmus test, as in "So and so has to believe (blank) or he/she is not a 'true' Democrat"?

As for who deserves contempt, what about those who've apologized and admitted they were wrong?

What about those who think that the war is wrong, but are not "out now" people, but "phased withdrawl" people?

[Skidmore]

46. May I repeat that these wars are the direct outgrowth of bad policy

regarding oil and geopolitics, which Democratic Party representatives have supported as well over the decades. My litmus test for a true Dem is his/her responsiveness to the working class. When I see someone who is actually involved in the development of policies which benefit the greater society, and not just a few, they have my support. These wars are not separate issues since it would be safe to say that your average billionaire or millionair's son or daughter is not even breaking a sweat thinking about the actual wars, let alone actually enlisting to fight in them.


I also repeat that *'s intentions to engage in war, regardless of the BS he was bandying around at the time about it being a last resort, was blatant and not a diplomatic ploy. The administration beat the war drum and many Dems willingly marched in step, without protestation. They helped feed this nation into the sausage mill and turned the grinder in ginning up the "war on terror". They have been instrumental in developing legislation like the Patriot Act which removes rights without a great deal of outcry at its inception but a good deal of thought going into political expediency. Beyond this, you can count on whole groups of these "true Dems" to time and time again voted with Republicans for disasterous economic policies which hurt the ordinary person. Yes they are deserving of every bit of contempt they receive as well as a votes of no-confidence. Until I start hearing some sensible, unsolicited proposals not designed for sound bites tied to jockeying in an election cycle, and that make sense for resolving these foreign/oil policies and war, I'll maintain that "true" Dems are scarce among the elected representatives we have. There's a whole bunch of them that need to look the people in the eye and talk directly and sincerely--without political doublespeak. My hats off to Wyden, Dorgan, Kuicinich, DeFazio, Conyers, Boxer, Lee, Waters, McKinney, Durbin... Those are the elected people I can think of. Don't expect me to line up behind those who have dealt with the wars in the same manner as Hillary and Lieberman--and there are quite a few of them.

[ulysses]

24. not entirely

but it's weighted pretty heavily.

[Fleshdancer]

26. It goes beyond DINO.....

I question the patriotism of any elected official who thinks starting a war based on the lies of this Administration is justified. I can agree to disagree with politicians on how to handle this quagmire now, but to tell me that the war was a good thing to start is obscene.

[welshTerrier2]

29. i don't like all this "DINO" stuff ...

let me be clear, i couldn't be more disgusted than i am with the Democratic Senate's refusal to tell the American people the truth about Iraq and their refusal to offer Americans a real opposing policy in this November's elections ...

i will NOT be supporting any candidate or organization, including the DNC, DSCC or DCCC, that gives money to or support to any candidate who has not called for immediate withdrawal ... my support will go, and has gone, to those candidates who have ...

but it is NOT for me to define who is allowed to be a Democrat and who is not ... maybe the party's right wing are the real Democrats and i'm too far left ... maybe it is I who doesn't belong ... maybe it is they who don't belong ... does anyone of us anywhere under the big tent own the right to define who stays and who goes?

it seems we each are given a choice about whom we support and whom we oppose ... we can do campaign work; or not ... we can contribute; or not ... we can vote for someone; or not ... but to say they are not close enough to the party's "midline", be it right or left, seems to be no one's call ... that's up to the individual to decide ...

the arguments should be over policy and strategy; not over who gets to call themselves a Democrat ...

if it were up to me, we'd lose the term DINO and we'd lose terms like "lefty freeper" (very popular among some Kerry DU'ers) and we'd lose the term "far left" ... it's bullshit and unnecessarily divisive ... let's argue about policy and meaningful differences and not waste time with all this name-calling and labeling ...

[CBGLuthier]

31. Yes, it is

I was going to qualify but no, I am tired of politicians doing what it takes to get elected.

This war is wrong has always been wrong and gets wronger as every day passes and I will not support anyone who does not agree with me on that.

I am sick of murder in my name and with my tax dollars.

I have grown to hate my own country because of the last five years and if we do not change course 180 degrees absolute then fuck it I don't want to be here any more.

[flaminbats]

33. Phil Bredesen is a DINO..

Bush is a CINO, Hastert is a RINO, and Hillary is a LINO.

[politicasista]

34. Though he is conservative dem,

He has been better than that crook Sundquist. :)

[flaminbats]

38. what makes Bredesen conservative?

I guess kicking around the sick, elderly, and poor makes him a heartless bleeder..not a bleeding heart. But at least he isn't too far below the Sundquist standard. :woohoo:

[Raine]

35. NO

I would never say that because of one issue. I have lots of issues that are important to me like Global Climate Change and freedom of choice. It's their stands on a number of issues that I would base how Democratic they are.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

39. 1st, Iraq is not "one" issue. It is a litmus test on who I will vote for.

The invasion and occupation of Iraq by the United States encompasses many issues.

The aims of American foreign policy vis a vis the third world.

The aims of American foreign policiy in the Middle East as a whole.

The goals of American foreign policy world wide.

The nature of the American people towards other peoples.

The power of corporate interests in regards to American foreign policy.

The use of military force to further American foreign policy.

The "defense" budget and the cost to the American taxpayer.

The importance of international law.

The power of and use of "intelligence" services.

The right of the citizenry to dissent from American policy.

Freedom of speech, the press, and the right to assemble.

And, many more issues regarding the nature of America itself.


Can Democrats/liberals disagree on those policies? Of course, they can.

Can some of us disagree with candidates of any party with their stance on those issues, of course we can.

Can we choose to base our votes on those stances?

We can, and I believe it is our responsibility to do so.

As for me, I will not vote for anyone who supports the war/occupation of Iraq, in the primary or general elections.

[Clarkie1]

41. Define "supports" nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

43. Voting for the invasion and occupation.

Voting against withdrawal or, at least a definite timetable for withdrawal.

Voting to continue funding for the occupation.

[pyro858]

40. No money, no vote for any Dem

that voted for this war/occupation! Have to draw the line now.

[dennisnyc]

42. i will not vote for anyone that has supported this illegal war!