How do you feel about the fact that those calling for withdrawal from Iraq

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

calling it a terrible mistake, making the news, are Republicans? (Hagel et al.) And that the Bidens and Hilarys and Kerrys are stuck on "we need to win the war by X means..."

Do you thing this is good "strategy"?

Do you agree with this position?

Does it disappoint or bother you or evoke anger, despair, disgust or some other strong emotion?

How do you think it bodes for the future of the Democratic Party?

Do you think any likely 2008 Presidential candidate for the Dems is likely to advocate withdrawing from Iraq, or publicly and unequivocally state that the whole enterprise was a dreadful mistake, something that here at DU we almost universally agree on? Do you think such a candidate SHOULD emerge, and/or get the party's nomination?
:shrug:

[mmonk]

1. I'm close to giving up

on my party.

[Booster]

2. "Sigh" Me too. They just seem to know which direction to go in.

Not all the Dems mind you, but the ones with big names & clout. They say they're against everything Bush has done, yet they have voted for almost everything that's he wants. Very confusing for us.

[mmonk]

3. They are an obstacle

in people learning the truth.

[KerryOn]

9. Yes confusing....

It will take some time. Things can not be fixed overnight.
Spend some time at www.congress.gov and read some of the bills.

It is no wonder the government cant get anything done. Why in the world would highway funding be placed in a bill about energy? Some of these things are stuffed in so deep that some senators probably don't even know they are there.

Its kind of like a war of give and take. I'll sign your stupid energy bill if you give my state some money to build new bridges. So and amendments written, its then voted on, and if passed its added to the bill. This is how they set up Kerry during the campaign. "Kerry voted against gun owners rights twenty five times. Yea and if you study you find out that all the votes were for the same stupid bill. Many of the votes were simply amendments to correct spelling errors or what ever.

The republicans own the country at this point, and our democratic senators must play the game of give and take until they get things back under control.

I'm sure at times they don't want to vote the way they do, but a lot of the times the have no choice. In some case they have to give up three or four small things for something bigger.

On edit typos.

[Booster]

18. But unless ALL the Dems, and remember there's at least 50% of

us, start screaming their heads off about election fraud, we will never get things back under control. That's the part that I don't understand - you just want to yell "It's the election fraud, Stupid".

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

20. I agree with that too. But just because the elections may be fixed now,

doesn't mean the party's candidates can't say and do the right thing, does it?

[Booster]

27. Well, that's kind of my point. I don't seem to hear or read much

about them saying or doing the right thing. I know the media is mostly at fault for not reporting any criticism of Bushco, but it seems to me the Wash Dems should be following the lead by Conyers and be loud enough so that even I hear them, but their votes on bills are what bother me the most. There were many Dems who voted for the mental screening in schools bill and I have yet to hear or read anywhere why any one of them voted for that. There's others, but I can't remember them all, there's so many.

[FreedomAngel82]

22. It's like with

the Real ID act plan. They sneakly put it through a few hours before the voting on the military spending. And if they didn't vote for it the military wouldn't have gotten that money (do they get it???). And remember that they also once tried to keep democrats out of voting and meetings and hold secret ones as well.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

25. None of what you said adequately explains why a Republican like Hagel

can say the Iraq war is wrong and/or we should leave, and someone like Biden or Hilary either does not believe that or is afraid to say it.

[LibraLiz1973]

13. I'm right behind you- and not happy about it

[zippy890]

40. So am I

I'm thinking of going 3rd party. I wish the Dem leaders would come out strong against this war - and ask the question to the president(cindy's question)

What is the noble cause the US went to Iraq for?

[jobycom]

4. It shows that once again, the Dems are more mature than the GOParty Boys

I don't agree with the Dems who want us to stay--and for the record, not all Dems do-- but I'm more disgusted by jackasses who preached gungho support for this invasion, called me a traitor for saying we could never win it, and are now wanting to get out of the mess they caused without feeling the least bit of responsibility to atone.

[TahitiNut]

6. Atonement does NOT mean staying there.

Atonement would include leaving immediately, canceling all contracts held by American corporate war profiteers, enactment of a retroactive war profiteering tax on them (and the oil companies) and using those proceeds to fund Iraqi reconstruction by Iraqis.

It would also include the impeachment, removal from office, indictment, prosecution, conviction and imprisonment for life of the war criminals in this bastardization of an administration.

Did I leave anything out?

[jobycom]

8. Did I say otherwise?

I agree with you completely. I would add that we should pay reparations to the victims of our crime, and spend money to fix what we broke to the point it hurts us. I don't believe for a moment Americans will do what we should do, though.

My point was I'm not jumping on the "Those Republicans are such nice boys" bandwagon. I don't agree with Kerry or Clinton on this, I just despise the Republicans worse, because they want to get out for the wrong reasons.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

14. I don't disagree with you on the Repubs. But we can't control what they

do. This thread is about, essentially, if THIS is the Dem strategy/position, the party is dead, IMHO.

[jobycom]

31. Well, there will be a primary to determine whether that's our strategy

or not. Whether it wins or not will depend on the region, the candidate, the opponents. By the time we get to the 2008 presidential elections the world will be a different place altogether, so this may not even be an issue.

I'd rather bash the Republicans. I see no advantage in complaining how imperfect our own candidates are. They are still better than the other guys, and that's the most we can usually hope for.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

33. So if Dem candidates were calling for invading more countries, would

it be wrong to bash them instead of Repubs? Hypothetical. This isn't nearly as bad as that, but it's bad.

[jobycom]

36. Then they wouldn't be Dems. But that's not what they are calling for

They are saying we need to clean up our mess, and I don't believe for a second that either Kerry or Clinton has any intention of keeping our troops there if they become president. They will begin planning an exit as soon as they take over. We both know that even the Repubs who say they want us out are just trying to catch the voters as their opinions turn. They have no other issue.

I would criticize the Dems if they turned against human rights, if they supported abortion bans, or a number of other things. I'm not a Democrat because I like the word. I'm a Democrat because they are the only party that represents me. As long as the basic aim of the party is what I believe, and as long as the other party is as evil as Ghenghis Khan, I will support the Dems. If we get the luxury of a comfortable majority again, then I'll consider worrying about the degrees of Democrat my Democrats are. Until then, every single Dem, even DINOs like Lieberman or the retired Zell Miller, add to our total in Congress, and that total is all we need to regain control of committees and once again have some say in government.

Until we get that say, Zell Miller or Joe Lieberman are better than the most enlightened Republican, because they empower John Conyers, and Lloyd Doggett, and Ted Kennedy, even if they don't agree with them, and even moderate Repubs who might agree with the Dems on occassion still add to the total that empowers Frist and Lott and Delay.

In short, a vote against any Dem is a vote for the empowerment of Tom Delay. A criticism of any Dem helps Delay and Frist. So I won't help them. Not one bit. I'll stick to criticizing the Republicans until we can afford the luxury of forcing compliance on our party.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

34. It's not just a strategy or advantage issue with me, it partially involves

principle, and how I feel about individuals and the party. If I felt that the leadership of the party showed no courage whatsoever, I might feel compelled to disassociate myself with that and join some other organization I felt more compatible with, even if I felt they had little chance of success against the beast.

I am hoping for the emergence of candidates within the Democrats who will show me more than what I'm seeing so far, whether it's Wes Clark or Feingold or whoever.

[Guaranteed]

5. No, it's not. In fact, I don't know why our real Dem leadership

isn't out there doing the same.

Dean's own philosophy advocates withdrawal. He should know there's nothing left we can do.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

10. My answers to my questions:

I don't think it's good strategy, AND I don't agree with it ("we must win the war by adding more troops, or whatever").
I think it bodes POORLY for the near and far term future of the Democratic party.
It evokes anger, despair, and disgust in me.

Don't get me wrong--the current incarnation of the Republicans as represented by Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz et al. is the gravest danger facing our country I've seen in my lifetime. The number one priority is that they MUST be opposed, by whatever means and vehicle likely to achieve success. During the 2004 campaign I believed that vehicle to be the Democratic Party and Kerry, and the means to be the ballot. We all know how that turned out.

But if our "leadership" cannot even state what is obvious and right, even when some REPUBLICANS are doing so, and even when a clear majority of Americans now agree with them, then I can have little optimism that this party is the likely source of our deliverance. I will still provide support and my vote if I see no other likely opposition but will consider any alternative.

If a Repub like Hagel was calling for U.S. out of Iraq, and Hilary/Biden was not, I would still not vote for Hagel because any Repub is so tainted by their association with Rove's mob that unless they publicly renounced the Bush Mafia and publicly testified against them, that association trumps any good words that could come out of their mouth. But I might not vote for the "Zell Miller Lite" Dem candidate either. If we had a race like this, and Dennis Kucinich spearheading the new Merry Pranksters Party on the No Illegal Wars platform, I would vote Prankster even if they had 5 percent of the polled vote going in.

[Guaranteed]

12. Right. It's just fucking weak.

I'm sick of it.

We just gotta keep shedding. We will, too.

[dweller]

15. here's another vote for the 'Pranksters'

and your answers are spot on.

dp

[dweller]

16. "Dean's own philosophy advocates withdrawal"

puhleeze...

travel back with me and search the threads that were defending Dean's never, ever advocating withdrawal.

better yet. . . take the trip yourself. I've been there.

dp

[Guaranteed]

38. As a Dean supporter, I can tell you that Dean's approach is practical.

The central issue is whether or not there is anything that actually can be accomplished by us staying there.

Would you disagree with that approach?

As a secondary question, would you say that there is, in fact, anything left, after 2 1/2 years, that we could do to help the Iraqis?

Yeah.

So, watch Dean as he starts answering his own questions with the wisdom that our party should be showing on the whole.

If you saw him on Face the Nation a week or two ago, you'd already know what I'm talking about.

It's all coming around. Not to worry.

[arewenotdemo]

7. Hagel will win in 2008 if no Dem makes the case

assuming we're still in Iraq...or Iran...or Syria....

He voted for authorization but cautioned against a preemptive attack...sounds a lot like Kerry. Only Kerry ain't saying "we've got to get out" like Hagel just did, I believe he's still rambling incoherently about "succeeding in Iraq".

I don't give a rat's ass what Biden or Sir Hillary say now, and Kerry is irrelevant. It's Clark that has to speak as frankly and passionately as Hagel.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

11. He might win either way, through crooked voting machines. But that's no

reason why the Democratic Party can't be on the right side of history.

[berni_mccoy]

37. Why do you say that?

Hagel voted FOR the War in the first place. If he plays the "bad intel" card, so can any Dem who says we can't leave a mess.

Hagel's problem is that he was on the in.... he knew the intel was FIXED, not BAD.

His opponent simply can make that statement and he will lose.

[Blue_Roses]

17. Bottom line:

Clinton, Kerry and all the rest of the Dems who voted for this travesty did so with the good faith of Colin Powell's speech to the UN. They wanted to trust him because it's their job. We all knew, but they are not suppose to bode to their feelings, but to the facts, and Powell was presenting "facts".

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

19. Even if we gave them the benefit of a doubt on it (and I DON'T by the way)

that they were actually fooled and didn't know better, how come only Repubs and not Dems are able to say "If I knew now what I knew then I wouldn't have voted that way, and I'm sorry I did, Iraq war was a mistake"? Your response doesn't address that.

[mmonk]

24. There were more than enough people

disputing those "facts". The vote to give this administration the power was for their own personal political career reasons and calculations. I want people who will not give into political pressure and sell out our governmental process.

[FreedomAngel82]

21. We do need to get out

It is weird but hey whatever. We need to leave. And Hagel, as far as I know, has been against Iraq since 2003. I find that strange since he was once Bush's orignial VP choice and has ties to ES&S machine's and also a twenty something year Bush family friend. So I am weary of him.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

23. Read my post above, I wouldn't vote for Hagel either even though

he's saying some of the right things. But if the Dems can't even say the war is a mistake and we should get out, even when the REPUBS are starting to say it, and the country is clearly ready to hear it, then they (the candidates) either are lacking in courage, intelligence, or both.

[arewenotdemo]

26. I totally agree.

[wuushew]

28. Senator Russ Feingold is saying such things

and is most likely running for President in 2008.

[MisterP]

29. that's what small planes and Iowa caucuses are for

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

30. I guess we need to get him more media coverage then.

[wuushew]

32. links

Feingold proposing target 'end date' for withdrawal
http://www.jsonline.com/news/nat/aug05/349017.asp


Feingold Proposes Target Time For Completion Of Military Mission In Iraq; Says Senators Must Break "Taboo" On Discussing
Timing Of End Of Mission


http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/releases/05/08/2005818336.html



Feingold Urges Troop Withdrawal by End of '06
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/081805Y.shtml

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

35. Thank you for this.

[w8liftinglady]

39. I'd support giving humanitarian aid to the country

I think their idea of democracy and ours are differeant.We have to realize that our presence is hurting more than helping."the United States,per se,didn't invade that country-it was a coalition....at least on paper.Let Halliburton hire their own security.

[evilqueen]

41. I think we should ask those Dems...

If you want to be president:

Prove to us that you can help get Democrats elected throughout your state, because you've pitched in to their effort.

Answer Cindy's question: What is the noble purpose our sons and daughters are dying for?


Otherwise... DLC = Democrat Losers Club

[Mass]

42. As soon as Hagel considers voting against Bush, I may listen to him

This is political posturing at its best.

As for Kerry, may be you would need to read what he said, which is always framed in finding a solution to bring the troops home!

[leesa]

43. It's disastrous. The war is clearly illegal and an unprovoked occupation

I believe the reason wavering Republicans and right wing Dems didn't vote for Kerry was because he would not say "This war is wrong and not one more soldier should die for a lie"

[blm]

44. Where has Hagel called for anything different than Kerry? Please cite

exactly where his position is different.