Why shouldn't the Democrats be the "Party of Peace" ?

[kentuck]

Except in the instances where we are attacked or directly threatened? Why is it a weak position to support "peace"? Why is the Party so fearful of being connected to any peace movements? Why is "strong on defense" and a supporter of "peace" opposing forces? Would not that help us in rebuilding our status around the world? Or would that simply cause all Democrats to be defeated in the next election?

[warrens]

1. Party of diplomacy

You say peace and the repukes turn it into pot-smoking peacefreaks. They're REAL good at this shit, never hand them nothing.

[bryant69]

4. Yeah but they would just turn Diplomacy into "Gay"

Or omething similar. Talking is not manly. Sending troops in without cause and without a plan to get them out, now that's manly!

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

[Peace Patriot]

2. I mean, REALLY! Will someone please represent us?

56% of the American people opposed the Iraq War from the beginning, way back before the invasion (Feb. '03)?

But no one would represent us.

63% of the American people opposed torture "under any circumstances" (May '04).

But we still have torture. Congress even voted FOR it, last month!

SEVENTY PERCENT of American people now want the Iraq War ended.

And all they're talking about so far is the shape of the table. ('60s peaceniks will know I mean.)

Will someone please represent us?

EIGHTY-FOUR PERCENT (!) of the American people oppose any US participation in a widened Mideast War. And yet we have our entire army, navy and air force over there, not to mention half the National Guard, all ensconced in permanent bases? What for?

NINETY-TWO PERCENT of the American people want vote counting that they can SEE. Bushite corporations keep getting multi-million dollar contracts for "new and improved" black boxes.

Will no one represent us?

[Bluestater2008]

3. Chicken sip Congressmen

Maybe I'm wrong, but I believe that the vote that allowed the use of military force in Iraq would not have been possible if that anthrax was not sent to Congress.

It was sent to democrats only, right?

Sounds like somebody wanted a war. Who wanted a war, wanted to kill Democrats and had anthrax?

[WI_DEM]

5. for a long time we were considered the war party

because it was during democratic presidencies that WW I, WWII, Korea and the eceleration in Vietnam. Robert Dole, during the '76 Vice presidential debate, referred to "Democrat wars" and was lambasted for it. I think it's good that today dems are more skeptical and willing to ask questions rather than just jump in. I don't think we can be preceived as the "peace at all costs" party though.