Time for the pro-Iraq war, Patriot Act-loving candidates to EXIT

[angka]

We've got 10 candidates now. That's not as bad as California's joke of a recall election, of course, but it's really turning into quite a gaggle of choices. Some of these campaigns are emerging as vanity-driven, more about the platform to be seen on than actually getting the nomination. Which is fine, and valuable—helping to define the terms of the debate is what guys like Al Sharpton are good at.

But within this Democratic 'opposition' to the excesses of the Bush administration, there are a couple of key issues that are not (imo) being adequately exploited: the deceptive rush to war in Iraq, and the larger rollback of our personal freedoms under the Patriot Act. This was highlighted this week, when Democratic leaders announced that Bush's "16 words" about Iraq seeking uranium were "no longer an issue". But those words were never the issue—it was the larger pattern of lies that set the stage for war. These same Democrats won't touch that, either.

The reason the Democratic Party can't adequately get its head around these critical—impeachable—issues is simple: Too many of its leaders colluded with Bush on Iraq and 'homeland security.' They are compromised. How can you feel real outrage over being lied to by the President when the man you support to replace him continues to defend and participate in the same lie? It's not going to work.

I've said this before:

a thread

in another thread

And if you want names, I'm pretty much talking about Kerry, Edwards, Lieberman, and Gephardt. I'm not sure I'm buying what Clark is selling, either.

All Democratic candidates who voted for or otherwise abetted this irresponsible Iraq war should now step aside, so as to clearly delineate the choice for Americans at the polls in 2004. All Democratic candidates who supported or voted for the Patriot Act should either publicly apologize for that specific vote or support or step aside.

[JI7]

1. why not just vote against them ?

?

[meegbear]

2. Thank you for your comments Mr. dean

[ElsewheresDaughter]

3. every party at the begining of every election cycle ALWAYS has as many!!

2000 the GOP started with 20...and for their primary it was 10!!!! too!!!!...give it rest and please stop regurgitating the rush slop?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

4. Kerry can go, the rest I want to stay

Name me a candidate that *isn't* compromised - they are running for president, not the Dali Lama.

[Jennellist]

5. We did not 'rush' into war

Though I share the view that war was probably not the right decision, no one can really say we 'rushed into war'. This subject was debated at least a year. The matter was referred to the UN twice.
Inspectors were sent in. Senators weighed in. The subject was debated over and over in Congress and on the talk shows. Now, you can say that there never was a proper time to begin the war, but to call it a 'rush' is ridiculous.

[SOS]

6. The attack on Iraq

was decided on by Bush in July 2002. He was slowed down by his father and Colin Powell. Bush Sr. and Powell were looking to the Gulf War as a model and understood the importance of international support to prevent the current disaster. Bush however sided with the nuts at PNAC from day one and went through the charade at the UN to placate his father. Everything you mention was window dressing. The year long "debate" was complete BS.

[newyawker99]

7. Hi Jennellist!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Guaranteed]

8. It did seem a little rushed right before it started...

...because the UN inspectors were still in there.

[angka]

9. so

if it wasn't a rush to war, you're saying these democrats carefully considered the implications of their signing onto it?

that's worse, and if you don't think so you are missing my point.

funny how the edwards and kerry people don't want to take this one on anymore...

[Eloriel]

14. No, it wasn't "debated" for a year

It was hardly debated at all -- except here on DU and a few other lefty places on the net and in alternative media. You forget "you're either with us or against us," and most people didn't want to get caught dead being "against" the mighty "us" that Bush represented.

There was no debate on all the FACTS that we KNEW proved Bush was lying.

There was no freakin' debate at ALL. Well, maybe Robert Byrd, who was mildly tolerated according to Senate rules. And that's about it.

Yeah, the matter was "referred" to the UN and jerked out of it the 2nd time when the U.S. couldn't get its way, aka: official blessings for an illegal war.

Bah.

Eloriel

[angka]

20. and why did these men not want to appear 'against' bush?

i'm sick of this insufferable hair-splitting. cowardice or collusion. and either way they have forfeited their right to be president.

[pbeal]

10. Jumping Jesus on a pogostick

In this country we have what is known as primary elections where THE PEOPLE of the party decide who is going to be their candidate for president.

If you don't like a candidate don't vote for him in the primary(who am I kidding you wont vote in a primary just like 90% of the democratic party wont) Then when Your IDEOLOGY Pure candidate doesn't win go sulk and vote your CONSCIENCE and give the chickenhawk dic-tater 4 more years.

[ShaneGR]

11. All candidates who have no chance of winning should drop out now.....

See how dumb that sounds?

[Unknown Known]

12. But, but what should I think about Bob Graham, o great wise one?

He voted against the war, but he co-wrote the Patriot Act!!

O, my, this is a conundrum!!:crazy:

[nannygoat]

17. Are you sure Graham "co-wrote" the Patriot Act?

I don't think I've ever heard that one before...

[Unknown Known]

18. Here's one article about it

http://www.sptimes.com/2003/06/14/Worldandnation/Graham_quiet_about_hi.shtml

[Eloriel]

13. No one who voted for this war can get my vote UNLESS

they apologize.

I was very impressed that a Congressman Murtha publickly admitted that he voted wrong the other day. Very. He proved it's possible to do that. And the country needs it. The country needs that leadership, that dose of sanity. They needed it before the war, but now would work too.

Eloriel

[sangh0]

15. Murtha? Leadership??

Yeah, we need an Abscam-er like Murtha for "leadership" and "sanity".

[quinnox]

16. No they shouldn't and more importantly

no they won't. No matter how many times it is posted by Dean fanatics. How sad for them.

[tjdee]

19. Are they the only four Democrats against the war?

Somehow, I doubt it.

I do agree that Lieberman should exit stage left, but he won't, and I'm okay with that.

[angka]

21. the problem is

that every moment these apologists remain in the spotlight, the criminal audacity of the bush administration retains credibility.

that's not acceptable. and yes (for the guy above) i will be voting in the primaries.