Obviously this needs to be repeated

[Mythsaje]

The Democratic Party is NOT and has never been, even unofficially, an ANTI-WAR Party. Half of the commentary by Democratic leaders is more about the prosecution of the war than whether we should be in it in the first place. Whether we were LIED into war, and whether or not anyone with half a brain could have seen that from the beginning. And very few of them have the guts to say this aloud where the complicit media can hear them.

Aren't you frustrated? I know I am.

Many, if not most, of the wars fought by the U.S. in the 20th Century were either began or escalated under Democratic administrations. Of all of these, the only arguably "just" war was WWII, with some credit given to our aid of the peacekeepers during the Balkans conflict.

Agree? Disagree?

If a certain public figure is using her notoriety to highlight this very basic fact, that the Democratic Party ISN'T, by and large, anti-war, maybe we need to understand what that means. It means that the majority of them aren't going to straight-out oppose this war out of principle. It means that they have to come to grips with the fact that this war was wrong from the beginning, and just come out and say it.

Cindy Sheehan's son died for a lie, and the people she's "attacking" are not only refusing to admit it, they're not taking the opportunity to use their moral authority to launch a real public assault on the people responsible.

Hell, maybe she is a bit "nuts," but only in the way that a person who's grown very frustrated with the "way-things-are" can get a little nuts.

[villager]

1. Well said!

:thumbsup:

[wildhorses]

2. i have to go crazy to keep from going insane

willie says it better, though

[mmonk]

3. Bingo

[uppityperson]

4. VERY good, thank you.

This has been very ugly the last couple days. Thank you for writing this.

[Zodiak]

5. Are you sure you want to recommend this thread?

Hell yeah I do!

(click)

Not taking a stong anti-war position creates a huge issue vacuum. The Democrats can fill that vacuum and thereby control it and benefit from it, or the vacuum will fill with something the Democras cannot control. The strategy is obvious.

[TahitiNut]

6. Well, speaking as a "nut," I find ...

... nothing objectionable in that characterization of "nuts." :silly:

[BigBearJohn]

7. Very sane comment. Thanks for composing it. Cindy deserves understanding.

[proud2BlibKansan]

8. Excellent !

:)

[eridani]

9. Once upon a time the Democrats were an anti-imperial party

If it happened once, it can happen again. Last century the British and the Soviets voluntarily gave up imperialism because they could no longer afford it. The same will happen to us, one way or another. Let's hope we can get our act together and make it a soft landing.

Democratic Party Platform, July 4, 1900

http://janda.org/politxts/PartyPlatforms/Democratic/dem.900.html

We declare again that all governments instituted among men derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that any government not based upon the consent of the governed is a tyranny, and that to impose upon any people a government of force is to substitute the methods of imperialism for those of a republic. We hold that the Constitution follows the flag, and denounce the doctrine that an Executive or Congress deriving their existence and their powers from the Constitution can exercise lawful authority beyond it or in violation of it. We assert that no nation can long endure half republic and half empire, and we warn the American people that imperialism abroad will lead quickly and inevitably to despotism at home.

<snip>

We are in favor of extending the Republic's influence among the nations, but we believe that that influence should be extended not by force and violence, but through the persuasive power of a high and honorable example.

<snip>

We oppose militarism. It means conquest abroad and intimidation and oppression at home. It means the strong arm which has ever been fatal to free institutions. It is what millions of our citizens have fled from in Europe. It will impose upon our peace loving people a large standing army and unnecessary burden of taxation, and will be a constant menace to their liberties.

[Mythsaje]

10. Nice to see they stuck by their guns...

Oh, wait.

Never mind.

;)

[bonito]

11. K&R

:thumbsup:

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. Ok lets go down history road

WW I Democrat (Wilson)
Brush wars in Central America during the 1920s, including Sandino Calvin Coolidge (republican)
WW II FDR (Democrat)
Korea Truman (Deomcrat)
Vietnam Ike started it R, JFK and LBJ continued it, democrats, and Nixon escalated it (R) I'd
Even skiven
Central America Ronald Reagan (R)
Grenada Ronald Ragan (R)
Panama George Bush Sr. (R)
Somalia George Bush Sr (R)
The Balkans (which arguably was also a just war) Bill Clinton (D)
Gulf War Two George W Bush (R)

So the balance is... nine wars started by Republicans, or escalated, versus six democrats... oh and two of those wars they are the closest to fall under the just war theory.

Dman history degree... oh and gun boat diplomacy staretd with Teddy Roosevelt, another Republican, ohh balance now is ten to six... and I am sure I am missing some,. such as the whole timeline of US Intervention in latin America, the coups both in Chile, and Guatamala both under Republian administartions, as well as the Mosadeq Coup in 1956 under a republican...

And I could go on....

A little history might help... not that some of our Dems are not Imperialsts, and now we are an Empire and Empires are driven by a logic of their own.

[Mythsaje]

13. Gulf War II doesn't count...

Not last century.

And, while vietnam was CALLED a "police action" the Central and S. American conflicts WERE "police actions" for all intents and purposes. Very limited scale engagements. If you take them out, we're looking at fairly even numbers. And, YES, Republican administrations were very much involved in the internal wars of various nations. That's certainly not debatable. But that's not exactly dragging the U.S. into war, is it?

And Johnson started the escalation of the Vietnam conflict. Nixon continued it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. I just listed all your actions

and even if you take junior's out, guess what the majority of wars in the US have been started by conservatives... you can go all the way back to the whigs, but that is the reality. Manifest destiny was born in the 19th century and is pretty much alive today, as well as american exceptionalism. And at tines both have made it into the platoforms of US Conservative parties.

What both the whig and GOP have in common is that until now they did not like large wars... but trust me, when bullets are flying, it is a war.

And the GOP has the lion's share of them.

Oh and one more thing... police actions, you may call them that way when the police is sent over ok. War veterals know a war, whether it is Panama, or Gulf War One... the horrors are there... and they are wars to the vets

Academics and constiutional historians might call then any name they want to, but they are wars

[hfojvt]

15. Bullshit!!!

A certain public figure is using her notoriety to attack her allies in ending the war. Just what we need, more public attacks on Democrats. "Democrats suck. Congress sucks. It's the Democrats' fault."

With friends like that, who need Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity?

Let's not go back to before my dad was able to vote and talk about the Korean War or WWI or WWII. In my lifetime, most mainstream anti-war activists have been Democrats - Eugene McCarthy, George McGovern, John Kerry, Howard Dean, Wesley Clark, etc. The Democratic Party is not totally anti-war, but they certainly are alot more anti-war than the Republican party has been since 1964.

Here's our top 3 Presidential candidates:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/iraq/

Hillary: End the war in Iraq

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

Obama: Plan to end the Iraq war

http://johnedwards.com/news/press-releases/20070710-iraq/

Edwards: let Congress know we expect them to act decisively to end the war in Iraq

Here's Kerry speaking before the Iraq war:

"As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action." John Kerry 23 Jan 2003

Here's Kucinich declaring his candidacy for President

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH (D), OHIO: Well, first of all, one cannot take a poll to determine whether this nation should go to war. The administration hasn't made its case for war. I'm proud to have led members of Congress, 126 Democrats in opposing the war. 17 Feb 2003

126 Democrats opposing the war. I think that's a majority of Congressional Democrats. And how many Republicans?

Note which party this person belongs to:

"U.S. Rep Rosa DeLauro, D-New Haven, joined a dozen members of Congress in calling on the Conference of Catholic Bishops to mobilize church members against the war in Iraq." 6 Jul 2007

A dozen members of Congress? Probably all Democrats.

Here's a blast from the not-so-distant past:

George McGovern, speech to U.S. Senate, April 25, 1967.

"We seem bent upon saving the Vietnamese from Ho Chi Minh, even if we have to kill them and demolish their country to do it....I do not intend to remain silent in the face of what I regard as a policy of madness which, sooner or later, will envelop my son and American youth by the millions for years to come."

Frustrated about the way things are? In many respects, of course. One of the most frustrating things about being on the left, though, is the long, long history of it attacking other members of the left for not being ideologically pure enough instead of being able to work as part of a coalition that actually defeats the rightwing and the rich and powerful. Especially frustrating that so many supposed progressives have learned nothing from the entire Nader debacle that got us here in the first place, and are eager to duplicate it.

[Mythsaje]

19. How MANY of the top Democrats

regularly vote against the war in any meaningful way? How many are willing to speak the blunt, honest-to-fucking-God truth "they LIED" and not back down when they're attacked by the RW noise machine?

Hell, Hillary only jumped on the anti-war bandwagon because she pretty much had to. She couldn't play both sides of the argument any longer.

Edwards is my choice for candidate.

And, yes, the major anti-war figures of the past several decades have been Democrats. But the Democratic Party is NOT anti-war. There have been anti-war Republicans too. Ron Paul, for one. Course, he's more of a Libertarian. Anti-interventionist in general. But still.

What, precisely, has the majority in Congress given us? There's a lot of pressure being put on the Repugs from both sides now. Some of them are starting to lean the right way, which a good thing. But some of that is because they KNOW how precarious their position is becoming. Cindy started out confronting Bush and other Repugs. Now she's holding the Dems feet to the fire. It's not a completely insane strategy. She's hard to ignore.

I personally don't think her last statement was nuanced enough...it painted an innaccurate picture because of exaggeration and hyperbole, but the basic premise is there. There are Dems who, if given the chance, would continue the failed policies of this administration--out of fear of "looking weak" or because some idiot advisor could convince them that they might succeed where Bushco failed.

That's not going to happen with Cindy standing behind them with torch and pitchfork. Or, at least, if they DO go that route, it's not going to be a comfortable decision.

[hfojvt]

24. What would you consider meaningful

and why do only the 'top' Democrats count, rather than the majority? Any meaningful vote is stopped by one of two things - Republican filibuster in the Senate or Republican veto. Until the Republicans feel the heat, it is counter-productive to attack Democrats.

What has the majority given us? One of the main things is negative power. The power to stop the horrible legislation that a Republican majority would pass. To accomplish anything progressive either requires a Democratic President or a veto-proof majority, or, the least likely alternative, Republican co-operation.

Nuanced schmuanced. Her basic premise was wrong, and just another put down of the Democratic party. Hurrah for irrelevapendents!

Oh yeah, they can be relevant in a negative sense, by helping to elect Republicans.

As far as anti-war goes. I found the opposite problem. I went to the anti-war rally and found it to be an anti-Bush rally. I think it might have had more impact if it was less partisan. Our whole rally was easy to ignore since we did not represent a majority of voters.

[Mythsaje]

26. Of course an anti-war rally is an anti-Bush rally...

He's the (nominally) human face of the war. You expected something different?

I'm generally not a big fan of third party stuff simply because they've got a fucking stranglehold on the whole shebang. We could USE more parties, really, but they're not going to let that happen if they can do anything about it.

And, frankly, the best of the Dems are the closest to my personal political philosophy. More or less. I'm with the Libertarians on the Drug War, with the Greens (mostly) on environmental issues, and I'm with the Democrats on just about everything else. Well, certain Democrats, at least. I like Kucinich, though he's about as relevant to the race as a third-party candidate. I really like Edwards. I don't like Hillary, though I don't think she'd be a terrible President...I'd just be afraid she'd listen to the wrong people and screw things up even more. She just doesn't strike me as a particularly stand-up individual. I could be wrong. I HOPE I'm wrong.

And what I wrote is basically the same as what she wrote, but without the shit-throwing. From the perspective of someone who is ENTIRELY about ending the War, they're not doing enough. She may be right and she may be wrong, but she's INVOLVED. She's not sitting here debating us all in an electronic circle-jerk.

I'm a writer. I have multiple reasons to do this. One, it hones my skills. Two, it gets my name more notice. Three, I occasionally bring to the table perspectives that you don't ordinarily see. And four, writing is what I'm best at. I'm not good at phone calls, or personal confrontation, or public speaking. So this is what I do.

I don't think Cindy's irrelevant. I think she's pissed off.

[Usrename]

27. I'm not positive that it's all bullshit.

It is hard to listen to, though, I'll admit it.

I can imagine how the right-wing war-mongers feel now, them having had to deflect her accusations for so long. She has a way about her, for sure.

I honestly don't think that there is anyone who wants to stop these criminals more than Conyers wants to. And it's possible that he might just welcome some real dynamite being shoved up some asses in the party leadership. Even if he has to take a whole lot of shrapnel himself.


Is it likely that even some of the party leaders might be happy to have folks like Cindy start really making some noise? I don't know, there have to be a few people, even in Washington, who really understand how dangerous these guys are and how precarious our position has become. We think that we are teetering on the edge of a cliff; the rest of the world sees how we have already hurled ourselves whole-heartedly into the abyss.

[Mythsaje]

28. Those are good points as well...

No doubt about it.

[Usrename]

29. Some action has to be taken to break up the status quo.

Staying this course any longer is the end of this country, I'm sure of it.

A lot of the folks that have been correct all along, throughout this whole ordeal (the ones who have been ignored for six years), are saying this as well.

They are systematically destroying us. The entire government is being abolished, piece by piece. Everything is being left in ruins. We will be crushed if they are not stopped right now.

There is not one single advance in any area of human endeavor that has taken place under these monsters. And they will not stop. They will not police themselves. They don't even understand why they should.

[LittleClarkie]

16. You speak as if she only "attacked" the Democratic leadership

She said the Democratic Party was not only responsible for every war in the 20 Century, but also that we were the party of slavery, which would make the Republican Party the party of civil rights I suppose.

I am a Democrat. Therefore "the people she's 'attacking'" includes me.

[Usrename]

17. That sounds historically accurate.

The segregated South was Democratic until Johnson, a Democrat, turned on the bigots in his own party in order to force the Civil Rights Act down their throats. And that's what turned the South red.

George Wallace, a southern Democrat, was the face of opposition to the civil rights movement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Wallace

[LittleClarkie]

18. But then it could also be said that we are the party of civil rights as well

What with Johnson being a Dem and all.

[Mythsaje]

20. Which she DID say...n/t

[Usrename]

23. Well yeah, sure you could say that.

But Johnson was a turncoat to his own party, sort of like how some folks view Cindy now, I guess.

"Legend has it that, as he put down his pen, Johnson told an aide, "We have lost the South for a generation," anticipating a coming backlash from Southern whites against Johnson's Democratic Party."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_Johnson

[sandnsea]

25. Really?

Does this sound like any Republican Party you ever heard of?

From a political cartoon after Lincoln won, same ridiculously denigrating comments towards the same minority groups. Yes there is a particular group of white men that are assholes in this country, they gravitate away from whatever party opposes them.


Republican Party Going to the White House

Lincoln says: “Now my friends I’m almost in, and the millennium is going to begin, so ask what you will and it will be granted.”

Upper class woman: Oh what a beautiful man he is, I feel a “passional attraction” every time I see his lovely face.

Middle-age man: I represent the free love element and expect to have free license to carry out its principles.

Other man: I want religion abolished and the book of Mormon made the standard of morality.

Black man: De white man hab no rights dat cullud pussons am bound to spect. I want dat understood.

Plain woman: I want women’s rights enforced, and man reduced to subjection to her authority.

Drunk: I want everybody to have a share of everybody else’s property.

Poor guy: I want a hotel established by government, where people that ain’t inclined to work, can board free of expense and be found in rum and tobacco.

Other man: I want guaranteed to every Citizen the right to examine every other citizen’s pockets without interruption by Policemen.

[Alexander]

21. Yeah, William Jennings Bryan was a real imperialist warmonger.

:eyes:

[Mythsaje]

22. I REALLY hate that smiley...

It's fucking rude to direct it at another DUer.

Teenagers role their eyes at their parents. Lovely to see adults doing it, even by proxy.

[BornagainDUer]

30. K&R. It's important to stick to the fundamental lies. In "Sicko" .....

Moore very quickly and convincingly nails Hillary Clinton's neoliberal ass to the wall for copping out on Universal Healthcare.
Note: she started getting money from the insurance companies and big pharma.

[BlooInBloo]

31. Party of slavery! W00t!!!!

:rofl:

[BuyingThyme]

32. kcik