Beware of the fake anti-war campaigners

[welshTerrier2]

Oh, all Democrats are "against the war" now. Yeah, right. With only a few exceptions, most of the Democratic candidates for president have either voted for the IWR or have voted to provide funding for the war. Now, they tell us, they've joined the anti-war side of the argument. The problem is, the positions of the recently converted are bullshit. You are not "anti-war" if you support continuing the war and occupation for any amount of time and for any purpose beyond troop safety.

Speaking just for myself, I was prepared to overlook the past sins of IWR votes and war and occupation funding IF, and only IF, there was a sincere push to end the war NOW. Not in 6 months. Not in a year. Not "when I take office." Just NOW!! And don't try to hide behind the "it will take a long time to withdraw all those troops." I've seen reasonable estimates that this should not take more than 3 to 4 months to safely achieve. And the point isn't how long it will take; the point is that none of our johnny-come-lately candidates is calling for the most rapid withdrawal of troops that troop safety will allow. If the military needs an extra month or two, that's fine. I'm all for troop safety. What I'm not for is the lying, weaselly, wiggly words being paraded around as "anti-war."

Here's the bottom line: you either believe that progress is still possible or you don't. You either believe that "slower" is better than "faster" or you don't. You either believe that "starting" withdrawal is better than "finishing" withdrawal or you don't. You either believe that withdrawing "many" troops is better than withdrawing "ALL" troops or you don't. You either believe the US and Big Oil have a right to Iraqi oil or you don't.

So, if your candidate wants support from the REAL ANTI-WAR WING of the party, put up or shut up!!! Please take each of the issues raised in the previous paragraph and provide documentation that shows where your candidate stands. Bet you most of DU's hardcore candidate supporters don't answer that challenge. At best, we'll be treated to ad hominem attacks. Those who are complicit in continuing the war and occupation do not deserve your support or the support of the Democratic Party.

source: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/06/2995 /

The Real Debate About Iraq Is Between Real, Fake War Foes

The real debate about Iraq is just beginning to take shape. It’s not about whether U.S. troops should begin to leave Iraq. A vast majority of Americans now agree on that point. Even at the White House, insiders say, they’ve accepted it as inevitable. The real debate is between genuine opponents of the war, who really want to end our involvement in Iraq, and fake opponents who use antiwar language to mask their endorsement of a continuing, perhaps permanent, U.S. presence in that war-torn land.

Genuine opponents of the war argue that the U.S. cannot restore order in Iraq, because it is the U.S. occupation forces (civilian as well as military) that are the main source of disorder. You can’t put out a fire by heaping more fuel on it. Iraq will remain war-torn until all U.S. military personnel, civilian contractors, and private security forces leave. So they should leave. All of them. ASAP. Genuine antiwar voices have been making these points for a long time. For most of that time, they were derided or ignored.

Now that the war is so unpopular, everyone with their finger to the political wind is rushing to catch the antiwar train before it leaves the station. Suddenly that train is very crowded. Genuine war opponents have a hard time getting their voices heard, since many of the newcomers have much more political clout and media savvy.

But the genuine faction now has something new to say, which you won’t hear for a while in the mainstream media: Far too many of the newcomers are fakes. They shout loudly that they want the war to end now. But they choose their words very carefully. They talk about withdrawing troops but are careful never to say “all troops.” They endorse withdrawing “combat” troops (a technical term that covers less than half of all U.S. forces in Iraq) or just “starting to withdraw” troops. They oppose “establishing” permanent bases, but they don’t say anything against keeping the bases (some of them small cities) that have already been built. And they would let the Pentagon decide which bases are officially “permanent.” They never mention the ever-increasing air war, nor the civilian forces.

Behind that smokescreen, the fakes are busy building support for the next phase of the war. In that phase, tens of thousands (perhaps up to a hundred thousand) U.S. troops would stay in Iraq. What would they do? There is an emerging bipartisan consensus among the fakes. Some troops would be “redeployed” to the north, to protect our friends the Kurds, and others “redeployed” to Afghanistan. Some would stay to “defend” Iraq’s borders, which conveniently happen to be the borders of Iran and Syria too. Some would wage the war on terrorism inside Iraq. Some would “train” (read: help to lead) the Iraqi government’s fledgling army. The top three Democratic candidates for president, among others, espouse all these plans.

How can they call this ending the war? The premise is that most Americans don’t really care how many Iraqis are killed, as long as few American soldiers are killed. So the public would assume the war is over, stop paying attention, and allow U.S. forces to continue their long-range plan for securing a permanent and decisive presence in Iraq. Those forces (including an increased proportion of Air Force and Special Forces) could do anything the government wants them to do, since no one would be watching. Meanwhile, the thousands of civilian security personnel could continue to do whatever they like and be wholly unaccountable. <skip>

[Richard Steele]

1. Hear hear! recommended.

[RaleighNCDUer]

2. It needs to be said.

But I wonder who's listening.

[bonito]

3. K&R!

[sniffa]

4. aLL this hiLLary hatred won't stop her

k&r

fuck them.

[RufusTFirefly]

5. The hydrocarbon law is the stalking horse

Any candidate who has expressed exasperation with the Iraqi parliament's inability to pass the so-called hydrocarbon law is setting us up for continued occupation of Iraq. I know of at least one candidate who has done this, although I won't mention her name. I know of only one candidate who has spoken out against this thuggish piece of blackmail: Dennis Kucinich.

If the law isn't passed then Iraq will not have met the benchmarks for U.S. withdrawal. If the law is passed, then Iraq will have been blackmailed into turning over much of its oil industry to the U.S. Iraqi citizens, who will be deprived of revenues from their country's oil, are unlikely to take this lying down. The U.S. will argue that it has no choice but to stay in Iraq to protect American oil interests.

[welshTerrier2]

6. to paraphrase a common friend

if you think this country's bad off now, just wait til she gets through with it ...

[RufusTFirefly]

7. LOL! Go, and never darken my towels again!! n/t

[welshTerrier2]

8. Upstart !!! n/t

[Phrogman]

11. Good thing you didn't mention her name, or conformity trolls would be after you

e0m

[Totally Committed]

9. kick

TC

[bonito]

10. Kick n /t

[unhappycamper]

12. Last November, Lancet released a report that the US has

already killed 655,000 Iraqis since the beginning of the invasion and occupation. The previous 10 years of sanctions killed about 500,000 Iraqi children.

Iraqis in Baghdad do not have water.

Iraqis in Baghdad do not have electricity.

Iraqis in Baghdad do not have security.

Iraqis in Baghdad do not have fuel.

Another 1,000,000 Iraqis have fled the country.

I don't know how much more 'progress' we can make before getting out. Can we just say "Mission Accomplished" & go home?

[bvar22]

13. The SUPREME Irony:

Pro-War Hillary gets the Dem nomination promising to "Fight Al Qaeda in Iraq".

Republican Chuck Hagel steps in and gets the Repub nomination on a "Withdraw Now!" platform.
(Withdraw NOW because we already WON and it is the ungrateful Iraqis fault that they haven't stepped up.)





Not a very likely scenario simply because the next president WILL BE A CORPORATIST who will Force the Oil Law down the Iraqis' throats. The military will be in Iraq for at least 30years to protect the profits of BIG OIL and all the other scams to privatize Iraqi resources.
If this is not enough of an outrage, consider that the COST of the Iraq Invasion and 30 year OCCUPATION will be paid BY YOUR CHILDREN*(see footnote).
The American People will NOT be able to stop this outrage.
It has already been decided.

Thank You Republican Party/DLC.
Socialize the Cost. Privatize the Profits.


Psssst. Hillary IS DLC.

*WE are NOT paying for the iraq War. Bush* and our Congress (complicit Dems-anyone who voted for ANY Iraq War funding/supplement) have put the War/Occupation on the credit card. Your children will get the bill, though our Corporations are taking their profits today.

*WE are still paying for the Reagan/Republican "Smash & Grab" S&L Bailout.

Dennis Kucinich is the ONLY candidate with a CLEAR & CONSISTENT record of OPPOSITION to this outrage.

K&R

[bvar22]

14. Awww,

"Error: you can only recommend threads which were started in the past 24 hours"
I'll have to settle for a kick.