Why won't Democrats admit the Iraq 'war' is a fraud?

[Q]

- The truth is staring us right in the face:

9-11 was carried out without any defensive action from the Bush* government

Bush* uses 9-11 to 'declare' perpetual war against a faceless enemy

Bush* becomes a 'wartime president' with wartime powers that puts him above the law

- I'd like to know why the Democratic party is afraid to connect the dots and accuse Bush* and the Republican party of using a terrorist attack against the US as a cynical political ploy to keep themselves in power? Democrats should also be talking about 'preemptive war' against defenseless countries and unnecessary death and destruction.

- Bush* is campaigning on his 'successful' war on (some) terrorism. Will the Democratic nominee have the guts to tell the American people the truth about this fraud?

[NewJeffCT]

1. Teddy Kennedy did it

Bravo to Kennedy for saying it was a fraud cooked up in Crawford, TX... however, nobody else is supporting him.

[Q]

4. That's exactly the point...

...the message must come from the entire Democratic party.

- There are a handful of Dems telling the truth...but they're being left to 'swing in the wind' and called conspiracy nuts because the PARTY won't back up their words.

- Another problem is that certain factions within the Democratic party are FOR this so-called war...despite all the lies and deceptions from the Bushies.

[ShaneGR]

14. Doesn't work that way, too big of a tent

No one will ever be JUST like you Q. And no one will ever be JUST like me. There is a big differing of opinions within the Democratic Party. That's what makes us great.

[Q]

19. Supporting a KNOWN liar has nothing to do with a 'big tent'...

...or 'differences of opinion'. It's not an 'opinion' that Bush* is a liar and drove this nation to 'war' based on deception. It's a FACT.

[magnolia]

28. That's right....

It's okay for any other democrat to say it because they are the enemy. But a candidate for president may be everyones president. Not a good idea to piss off the right. In the wise words of Jack Nickelson...they can't handle the truth. At least not hearing it from the dem nom.

[Q]

29. Screw the Right...

- We've been allowing them to frame the debate for far too long. It's time the Democratic party exposes the WHOLE TRUTH about the Bush* regime. By doing so...they will earn the respect of millions of voters who have been waiting since '94 for the party to grow a friggin spine.

[lcordero]

2. Please tell me about the terrorism that was supposedly

targetted.

[dennis4868]

3. Because most dems besides....

General Clark, Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich and the congressional Black Caucus are spineless peoiple looking out for themselves only!

[Q]

5. What a 'coincidence'...

...that a backer of the Iraq war fraud might become the Dem nominee!

- It's disturbing to see the Democratic party join in with the false patriots who seem to think they must back any and all wars in order to appear patriotic.

[Odallas]

6. the party wants Kerry

Dean or Clark could be elected but the mainstream media LOVE Kerry. You can see the gears turning, can't you?

[Gringo]

8. Clark loved this war at its outset

So why haven't the media anointed Clark?

[indie_voter]

30. No, he didn't.

From the Hearing Before the House Armed Services Committee, September 26, 2002:

PERLE (regarding Clark's testimony and position on the war):
He seems to be preoccupied, and I'm quoting now, with building legitimacy, with exhausting all diplomatic remedies as though we hadn't been through diplomacy for the last decade, and relegating the use of force to a last resort, to building the broadest possible coalition, in short a variety of very amorphous, ephemeral concerns alongside which there'

......

So I think General Clark simply doesn't want to see us use military force and he has thrown out as many reasons as he can develop to that but the bottom line is he just doesn't want to take action. He wants to wait.


http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/us/hearingspreparedstatements/hasc-092602.htm

[K-W]

17. If they didnt keep themselves elected

how could they vote on bills?


I would really love you irrational radicals to explain this one to me. Welcome to representitive government. If we were a military dictatorship, wed have much purer ideologies and wed have alot less moderation, but im not sure that would be a good thing. So until you overturn our system entirely, why dont you just deal with the fact that our system creates politicians, because they must win elections to stay in positions of power.

[Q]

20. Irrational radicals?

- So it's now irrational or radical to want the truth to come out and for the US to have a REAL representative government?

- Our 'system' didn't create Bush*...the Supreme Court did...outside of the system.

- Something you should keep in mind is that the Democratic party just may lose the respect of the voters by NOT looking after their best interests. It's the duty of every representative to uphold the Constitution and the law. They're not doing their duty when they ignore the lies and criminality of this administration.

[Gringo]

7. I don't entirely fault anyone for falling in line.

It's a difficult time to do otherwise. Look at what happened to Cythia McKinney. The question I ask myself is: "if this person had been president, whould he/she have invaded Iraq?"

In spite of their lip-service support of Bush's filthy war, I do believe most of these dems would have attacked Afghanistan, but NOT Iraq. Especially in Kerry's case, looking at his Vietnam war opposition and concern for veterans, I doubt he would have taken us in there. I don't like his dancing around his IWR vote either, but democrats seem to be responding to him, and frankly, he is a choice I can live with.

I prefer to believe that his Vietnam activism was a truer reflection of his values than the IWR or his skull & bones membership.

Lieberman, on the other hand, might very well have done the Iraq invasion, with enough prodding by his gop & Likudnik friends like Wolfowitz & Perle.

[Q]

10. McKinney is yet another Dem 'allowed' to fall...

...because the party turned their backs on her. Most Democrats knew that what she was saying was the TRUTH...but they were too cowardly to join with her in seeing that the people knew and understood what was really happening to their country.

- It doesn't matter what Democrats 'would have done' in Afghanistan and Iraq. The point is that they're NOW supporting a phony war that has unnecessarily taken the lives of thousands of INNOCENT human beings.

- Not to mention that they're giving Bush* a FREE RIDE back into the WH by not standing up and opposing his fraudulent 'war' on terrorism and 'preemptive' attacks on countries that can't defend themselves.

[ShaneGR]

11. McInney fell because she bucked labor

And the money dried up.

[mainer]

9. New book will detail the fraud:

Check this out! A new book by Nicholas Von Hoffman will be released this year, detailing how America was sucked into the Iraq War Hoax.


http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/156025582X/qid=1076340297/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/104-7720231-5635146?v=glance&s=books

[shance]

12. That would make some of them accomplices, wouldnt it?

n/t

[WonderGrunion]

13. It's quite simple

Because then Kerry would have to actually defend his IWR vote instead of pretending that it was someone else that cast the vote for an unjustified pre-emptive illegal war.

[K-W]

15. Because this is politics, not a test of right and wrong

The Democrats' job is not to get things right, its to get elected and effect national policy. Therefore all thier statements are designed to do that, not to be right.

If the democrats chose to just be right all the time, it would be interesting, but theyd become a powerless party and wed either need another moderate liberal party, or the republicans would just take over the country entirely.

[Q]

21. Do you actually believe what you just wrote?

...That politics is not about right or wrong? What you're saying it that winning is everything and that the end justifies the means.

- Isn't it also about truth vs dishonesty? Good government vs corrupt government?

- Don't look now...but the Democrats ARE a powerless party and the Republicans HAVE taken over the country 'entirely'.

- It should be obvious by now that this bullshit bipartisanship and 'going along to get along' has bought us nothing but minority status and empowering the Bush* regime.

[Terwilliger]

16. Because then Kerry would have to admit he's a dupe or a fool

and he doesn't want to do that

"Bring it on....bring it on..."

OnEdit: or a warmonger like Bush

[Hubert Flottz]

18. Robert Byrd has told America since 2001!

That Bush and his crony corps is a fraud and a danger to the entire FREE world! I'm proud of the Democrats who have represented the people in this fight! There are several of them and I believe history will praise them until America is no more!

[Q]

22. Byrd was among the first to talk about this FRAUD...

...in the public forum. He's one of the 'old Democrats' that won't sell his or the party's soul just to appear as 'patriotic' as the Bushies.

- It's indeed strange that Democrats don't want to stand up to Bush* on the issues of 9-11 and the Iraq invasion/occupation. The lack of opposition on these very issues will more than likely give Bush* the votes he needs from uninformed voters.

- Unless the Democrats can make a case against Bush* for using 9-11 and 'war' for political gain...even the 'swing voters' may vote for him simply because he's the CIC during a 'time of war'.

[Q]

23. Perhaps we need to start from the beginning?

- It's clear that many 'Democrats' don't believe the premise of this thread...that the invasion and occupation of Iraq is based on lies and deception.

- How many of you can actually DEFEND Bush's* 'doctine' of preemptive war and decision to shock, awe and invade Iraq?

[MrPrax]

24. Why?

When the democrats are elected, their candidate might need the 'myth' machine' to support their excursions.

When I hear Kerry suggesting that the REAL problem is credibility and IF the US has to go to get a UN resolution regarding North Korea, the UN and member states might not believe it? That is apparantly the problem...

Let's hope that the 'fake' intelligence on North Korea is a little more convincing

[Q]

26. The problem is the acceptance of the concept of 'preemptive war'...

...even if it takes place on the basis of poor or 'cherry-picked' intelligence. In other words...this gives any administration the 'right' to invade any country they wish under the guise of the perpetual war on terrorism.

- The Bushies knew Iraq was defenseless before they attacked....that's essentially what the 'intelligence' told them. It's beyond me how ANY Democrat can support this Hitlerian policy of unprovoked war.

[MadHound]

25. Because Q, what we are seeing is just the latest and greatest

In a long line of examples of how our two party/same corporate master system of government works.

[Q]

27. Then we must fight to make the changes necessary...

...to bring the Democratic party back to its senses.

- It obviously doesn't bother Bush* that he is directly responsible for the death of thousands of INNOCENT human beings and hundreds of American Soldiers. But it SHOULD bother the conscience of the Democrats and force them to oppose this fraud of a war with all their might.