"The Nation" Will Only Support Candidate That Calls for End to Iraq War

[callady]

Democrats and the War

Everything that needs to be known is now known: The reasons the Bush Administration gave for the American war in Iraq were all falsehoods or deceptions, and every day the US occupation continues deepens the very problems it was supposed to solve. Therefore there can no longer be any doubt: The war--an unprovoked, unnecessary and unlawful invasion that has turned into a colonial-style occupation--is a moral and political catastrophe. As such it is a growing stain on the honor of every American who acquiesces, actively or passively, in its conduct and continuation.

The war has also become the single greatest threat to our national security. Its human and economic costs are spiraling out of control, with no end in sight. It has driven America's reputation in the world to a historic low point. In the meantime, real threats suffer terrible neglect. These include more terrorist attacks, jeopardized oil supplies, rising tension with China, the spread of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction and even natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina. All are pushed aside as this Administration pours the country's blood, treasure and political energy into a futile war. In short, ending the Iraq War is the most pressing issue facing America today. Until it is ended, a constructive national security policy cannot be forged.

Americans are well on their way to a full appreciation of the dimensions of this debacle. In an October CBS news poll, 59 percent of citizens surveyed and 73 percent of Democrats now want an end to US military involvement in Iraq. But this growing majority has made its judgment with virtually no help from our nation's leaders. Most shameful has been the Democratic Party's failure to oppose the war. Indeed, support for it has been bipartisan: A Republican President and Congress made the policy, and almost all of the leading Democrats--most of the honorable exceptions are members of the House of Representatives--supported it from the outset and continue to do so. To their credit, would-be presidential candidate Senator Russell Feingold and former Senator Gary Hart have recently made strong antiwar statements. More recently two other presidential contenders, Senator John Kerry and former Senator John Edwards, have begun to call for a shift in policy, though still in vague and reticent terms. More typical, however, are the other presidential hopefuls, Senators Hillary Clinton, Joseph Biden and Evan Bayh, who continue to huddle for cover in "the center." They offer little alternative to Bush's refrain "We must stay the course!" Nor do the party's Congressional leaders and its head, Howard Dean, once a leader of antiwar sentiment. Can such politicians, who cannot even follow a majority--in the Democratic Party, a large majority--really be considered leaders?

The Nation therefore takes the following stand: We will not support any candidate for national office who does not make a speedy end to the war in Iraq a major issue of his or her campaign. We urge all voters to join us in adopting this position. Many worry that the aftermath of withdrawal will be ugly, but we can now see that the consequences of staying will be uglier still. Fear of facing the consequences of Bush's disaster should not be permitted to excuse the creation of a worse disaster by continuing the occupation.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051128/editors

[Jon8503]

1. No problem here with that. I agree. N/T.

[uncertainty1999]

2. I can get behind this

[Rainscents]

3. No Problem!

[arewenotdemo]

4. Yes!

[KoKo]

5. Good...I hope the definition of "speedy" doesn't end up like Vietnam

though which dragged on and on and on after politicians were elected who we thought would end it. :-(

[NightOwwl]

6. Let's hope our Democratic leadership feels the same way....

If they try forcing a DINO down our throats in 2008, we'll end up losing another election.

[BlueJac]

7. I like it........

People are seeing the light and know they have been duped!

[depakid]

8. No beef from me

That 4-5 billion a month could sorely be used (and has much better uses) right here at home. Anyone who doesn't see that at this point just isn't smart enough to be in national office.

[callady]

50. Have to stop the funding of this cruelty

US Now 'Crating' Prisoners In Dog-Sized Cages Flown On C-130s To Prisons In Eastern Europe Interrogated by US Personnel, Contractors/Ex-KGB, Ex-Stasi

Wayne Madsen

November 11, 2005

U.S. "crating" prisoners and flying them around Eastern Europe in C-130 prison planes. Although The Washington Post failed to report on the details of CIA (now Pentagon-run) "black" interrogation sites in eastern Europe, WMR is able to report on the particulars of the covert operation. According to a well-placed intelligence source who served in eastern Europe, prisoners from Iraq and elsewhere have been flown from airport to airport in eastern Europe on board C-130 planes. Placed in what were described as "dog-sized" cages, the covert operation became fully operational after the disclosures of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, Baghdad and Camp Bucca, Umm Qasr, Iraq. The "crated" prisoners were either removed from the C-130s for interrogation at Soviet-era detention centers that were in various states of repair or were kept on board the aircraft and subjected to brutal interrogation by U.S. and/or contractor personnel, who, in some cases, were ex-members of the Soviet KGB, Stasi, and other eastern European security services. C-130s are used because of their short take-off and landing capabilities on short air strips located in remote regions.

The source, who spoke on a condition of anonymity, witnessed the ground work being laid for the "black sites" in a number of countries and locations. These include the Taszar airbase in south-central Hungary, near the town of Pecs; Lv'iv, Ukraine; Szczynto-Szymany, Poland; Skopje, Macedonia; Mihail Kogalniceanu airbase in Romania; Tbilisi, Republic of Georgia; Shkoder, Albania; Burgas, Bulgaria; and the Markuleshti air base in Moldova.

Crating prisoners hearkens back to the Vietnam War when the U.S. used "tiger cages" installed by the French on Con Son island off Vietnam to hold political prisoners. The U.S. used the tiger cages to detain and torture suspected Viet Cong sympathizers. Many of the prisoners were merely innocent Buddhists and anti-war activists. The flying of caged prisoners from airport to airport on chartered C-130s is yet another indication of what military judge advocate general (JAG) lawyers have cited as the Bush administration's penchant for placing prisoners in "law free zones."

Crating prisoners for Eastern European "frequent flyer torture" -- The latest outrage from an administration that brought us white phosphorous chemical weapons, sodomizing teen prisoners, and naked human pyramids.

http://waynemadsenreport.com/

[peacetalksforall]

9. Congratulations Nation - this is the way we must go. We must admit

the mistake...ahhh...someone must admit the deception and we must repair what we can. We are in a deep hole and only people with good intentions towards humanity can dig us out of this. Our roadblock is Cheney and Rumsfeld and their PNAC an the barons. They appear determined to succeed. Succeed with an agenda that benefits very few.

The per cent of people who can analyze, project, read the tea leaves -those who have the vision must rule.

Equal to the deception resulting in this travesty are the people who could not see this coming - who could not see what so many saw - from a Chomsky to a DUer to a person whose vote was stolen to the vet who lost benefits to all the Greens who are losing their earth - all those who saw it coming and everyone else who are only now facing the awful truth - we must w a k e u p and stay alert. Someone has to listen to the people with the vision. We must kick out the leaders who did not have the vision and couldn't figure out what DUers figured out.

[Ms. Clio]

10. I agree, and applaud their stand n/t

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

11. I got my first issue today

And the reason I subscribed was because I thought Katrina Vandehovel or whatever the hell her name is , was the most thoughtful, articulate, personable speaker for my side that I have seen yet and I just thought, hell, I have to support her supporting me.

I also like how cheesy the actual print edition of the Nation is. They are definitely NOT eating expense account lunches at fancy restaurants from the looks of things.

[athena]

44. I've been a subscriber for over a year now, and I love it!

I read it cover-to-cover every week; I even like their book reviews. The Nation has the best and most independent analytical journalism one can find in the U.S.

Also, the newsprint makes it easy to recycle!

[journalist3072]

12. How long...

will it take for Congress to stop funding the war?

They stopped funding the Vietname War after it became clear that we could not win it.

We seem to be in the same situation now.

I say Congress needs to stop funding the war.

[Catrina]

13. Good for them

But I felt that way before the IWR and before the last election. This time, I will not support anyone who supports, or tries to parse their reasons for staying there.

After the news of what they did in Fallujah, this entire administration should be removed, and any Military leaders who followed those orders. If we don't demand that, this country will be seen as an abomination around the world ~

[noahmijo]

14. I just need to hear the words "Exit Strategy" and a plan that involves

at least QUICK withdrawal I would prefer immediate but I'll take quick. I won't play black and white with this I'd rather have a Democrat that wants to play the strategic game of exit strategy and withdrawal as opposed to fiery "OUT NOW!! OUT NOW!!" than a pro-war Repuke...or ANY Repuke for that matter.

[fed-up]

15. Agree 110% n/t

[paineinthearse]

16. 100% behind the Nation

...but some prolific posters are conspicuously MIA.

[cantstandbush]

17. Me too!! n/t

[WildEyedLiberal]

18. Kerry has actually proposed a pretty clearly worded plan

I see this piece is dated 11/9. His plan to withdraw troops has been out there for a couple weeks now. The Nation's failure to acknowledge that is pretty embarassing, IMO. I would hardly call a plan to remove US prescence from Iraq by the end of 2006 "vague" or "reticent."

Even when the Nation is right, they get something wrong. That's why they've never been my favorite.

[KG]

26. would you care to cite that 'clearly worded plan'?

[WildEyedLiberal]

41. Don't be lazy and find it yourself

It was all over the place yesterday. Search for Kerry-Iraq-20,000 troops. He introduced the act in the Senate. I won't do your homework for you. It's very easy to find, but it means you have to actually do research and read something. Good luck.

[KG]

43. you made the assertion, you back it up.

[kliljedahl]

34. Not much of a plan

and when will he admit he was duped. I haven't heard any Dem say that yet.

[WildEyedLiberal]

40. He already did - just because you weren't paying attention

It's not my responsibility to do your homework for you. Go read Kerry's Iraq speech - it was posted on DU and snips are on his website.

[JohnnyCougar]

19. Reccomended!!!

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. recommended

'bout bloddy time!

[countryjake]

21. Love the way they qualified that - "vague and reticent terms"

Every single one of them (who are only thinking of future votes), that are now coming out with their measly "strategy" for withdrawal, insist that there must be a success involved. Can none of them admit that our government screwed up royally and had no business invading Iraq; the Iraqi opposition has whupped our asses and DO NOT want us there?

Kerry's new little bill suggests that 20,000 troops be home after the December elections...doesn't that sound good? Well, duh, that amount was just sent over there, ramped-up security specifically for the farce of elections, and it was expected that the number would drop back down to 140,000 around the first of the year, anyway. Is this a new idea?

His bill also includes a provision for "special-ops" to be in the forefront (intelligence gathering)...sure, the innocent young soldiers just can never get the torture quite right, can they, so specify that the bad guys get it done, efficiently. I do like his idea of "putting the vast majority of U.S. troops in rear guard, garrisoned status for security backup" but it was my understanding that they were already in that position, so is this a change or more of the same?

The only thing in Kerry's plan that wasn't vague and reticent, as far as I'm concerned, was his quickly mentioned idea that we don't want permanent military bases in Iraq, or any large combat force on Iraqi soil indefinitely. That is what I want to hear every possible candidate saying and I want to hear them saying it LOUD and CLEAR, along with the fact that Iraq was a functioning nation before we stuck our tanks and bombs in there, we OWE them big time, reparations up the ying yang - which does not include "civilian personnel" - training and cash, sure, but Iraqi infrastructure built by Iraqis, for Iraqis (and I don't mean Chalabi!)

I had already written my criticisms of Kerry's plan and reminded him of his long-ago quote, which is one of the only truly fine things I've ever heard him say...Who will be the last to die for a mistake?...when we were pushing for immediate withdrawal from Vietnam. Which one of those rear guard of Coalition soldiers wants to be stationed as the last 20,000 over there, come December NEXT YEAR? He's asking for input at his petition, even a simple OUT NOW! will do.

http://www.johnkerry.com/action/20000/index.php?source=8005



This "Nation" article reminds me of how utterly disappointed I've been for so long, with the Democratic support of such a shameful act that this Invasion has been. I like the way they've distinguished "any candidate for national office"...in other words, piss or get off the pot!

[WildEyedLiberal]

42. It's the best plan so far.

Next year is sure a hell of a lot sooner than "as long as it takes," as every Republican keeps saying. It's a clear plan with clear timelines. You'll be waiting for a long time if you're waiting for an "out now" politician to get elected. The Nation would tear down the good in vain search of the perfect, and that's exactly what's wrong with anti-war leftism - it's more concerned with ideologically purity than actually implementing a reasonable plan to get out of Iraq.

[countryjake]

47. Have you ever read Kerry's "Vietnam Speech"?

I think that principles of conduct, ideals, and moral indignation trumps "reasonable plan" in a majority of cases, when we're dealing with thousands and thousands of unnecessary deaths brought on by a War that is suspicious in nature to begin with. I still like to believe that most people learn from past mistakes, that our elected leaders are students of our country's history, and that Kerry, in particular, would see the weakening of that very esteemed ideology he once held, not so long ago.

Here are just a few samplings of the views he expressed about ending a conflict in which he, himself, had placed his own life on the line. This site was very hard to find, I might add, amidst all the thousands of hits one will get, when googling, that are ripe with the Swift Boat Lies and smears that were perpetrated against a man who once did stand for his shining ideals! Before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 22, 1971, that young man laid out a basically pure, perfect plan.

It's called the Light of Truth about John Kerry

http://pzzzz.tripod.com/KerryTruth.html

~a few random snips~

REQUEST FOR ACTION BY CONGRESS

We are asking here in Washington for some action, action from the Congress of the United States of America, which has the power to raise and maintain armies, and which by the Constitution also has the power to declare war.

We have come here, not to the President, because we believe that this body can be responsive to the will of the people, and we believe that the will of the people says that we should be out of Vietnam now.

We are here in Washington also to say that the problem of this war is not just a question of war and diplomacy. It is part and parcel of everything that we are trying as human beings to communicate to people in this country: the question of racism, which is rampant in the military, and so many other questions; also, the use of weapons, the hypocrisy in our taking umbrage in the Geneva Conventions and using that as justification for a continuation of this war, when we are more guilty than any other body of violations of those Geneva Conventions, in the use of free-fire zones, harassment, interdiction fire, search-and-destroy missions, the bombings, the torture of prisoners, the killing of prisoners - accepted policy by many units in South Vietnam. That is what we are trying to say. It is part and parcel of everything.

We are also here to ask, and we are here to ask vehemently, where are the leaders of our country? Where is the leadership?

My feeling, Senator, is undoubtedly this Congress, and I don't mean to sound pessimistic, but I do not believe that this Congress will, in fact, end the war as we would like to, which is immediately and unilaterally and, therefore, if I were to speak I would say we would set a date and the date obviously would be the earliest possible date. But I would like to say, in answering that, that I do not believe it is necessary to stall any longer.

Well, Senator, frankly it does not appeal to me if American men have to continue to die when they don't have to, particularly when it seems the Government of this country is more concerned with the legality of where men sleep than it is with the legality of where they drop bombs.

But at the present moment that is not going to happen, so we are talking about men continuing to die for nothing and I think there is a tremendous moral question here which the Congress of the United States is ignoring.

We are asking Americans to think about that because how do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?

Was John Kerry wrong then?

[entanglement]

22. I agree. Its about time REAL liberals took over from FAUX liberals

n/t

[Flubadubya]

23. Long live The Nation.

Hear, hear!!

[mdelaguna2000]

24. Absolutely. No war democrat.

[ClayZ]

25. NO MORE WAR!

Simple and to the Point!

[leftchick]

27. Excellent! Now.... will those huddling Democrats take notice?

They had better!

[LWolf]

28. Good.

Even better would be a candidate that made a speedy end to the war in Iraq a priority since it began; a candidate who did not vote for the IWR to begin with, and who has made bringing the troops home a priority since that time.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

29. As a Nation subscriber I heartily support this statement.

"reticent and vague" just doesn't cut it. OUT NOW!

[callady]

31. OUT NOW!

Totally agree. It's clear the wheels are off and the entire region is being plunged into chaos. Planned chaos? The neocons are into that.

Now is the time to advocate for the stoppage of funding from Congress and immediate withdrawal.

[Cults4Bush]

30. Im sure someone will be along shortly to rip this editorial. Cindy said

the same thing basically. So many loyalists and "New Middle" Dems had conniptions.

I however so agree with this and this like most of my fellow progs has been what we have been saying for a very long time. There is no soft landing here and the longer our leaders and a portions of their blue constituents believe one is possible more innocent children will die.... just so we can try and save face. How sick is that?

[LWolf]

32. kick

:kick:

[mike_c]

33. agreed 100 percent-- I will work to DEFEAT any pro-war candidate...

...including democrats.

[callady]

38. If not now, when? If not you, who?

There is no other way to save America's security and honor. And to those Democratic "leaders" who continue to insist that the safer, more electable course is to remain openly or silently complicit in the war, we say, paraphrasing the moral philosopher Hillel: If not now, when? If not you, who?

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051128/editors

[derby378]

35. It's about fucking time

Good for Katrina and everyone else at The Nation.

[laura888]

36. bravo! n/t

[Midwest_Doc]

37. Thanks for the Post

I am now a NATION subscriber.

[understandinglife]

39. At the minimum.

Recommended.


Peace.

[itzamirakul]

45. Excellent Post! I couldn't agree more!

Hillary should be ashamed. I really believe her when she says she has no interest in running for Prez because she has done NOTHING of value since she took office.

She is my senator and I am thoroughly disgusted with her. But the Dem Party in NYC might as well still be called "Tammany Hall" because they continue to run candidates on the favoritism basis rather than on who would be best for the party.

Mike Bloomberg, who recently was elected mayor for a second term, wanted to run as a Dem four years ago but the party had it "loser" in place already, so Bloomy changed partys and won as a Repub. He governs NYC more as a Dem than as a Repub. I though this was one of the most stupid things the NY Dems ever did. Keeping Hillary will be another stupid thing.

[robbedvoter]

46. Oh, really? Then why did the Nation torpedo Clark in the primaries?

They sent a slandering e0mail to their subscriber list within days after he responded to the draft call and entered the race. This was the guy working hard to PREVENT the war. Spare me, Nation your righteous stands!

[welshTerrier2]

48. 2 dead American troops everyday - end of 2006 is NOT withdrawal

it is certainly true that Democrats are not in control of the Congress and the WH and must use public pressure, political pressure created by bush's incredible weakness and plain old common sense to make their case ...

one thing's for sure though, another year or more in Iraq is going to result in many, many more dead Americans ... those making a case to remain in Iraq need to acknowledge that they consider such loss a necessary cost of pursuing whatever objectives they believe can be achieved ...

let's remember, no matter what your view, that for the last 2 years and 8 months since the US invaded Iraq, we have averaged TWO AMERICAN DEATHS A DAY ... to me, spending another day and another drop of American blood is unconscionable ... and it's not just those who die; for every two who die, there are another 6 or 7 severely wounded, their lives forever changed ... that's every single day ... the numbers add up fast as each and every day goes by ... calling for another year or waiting until some "you can't get there from here" objective is achieved is going to cost plenty ...

it's time to say "Enough is enough" ... and it's time to say that those who refuse to back the majority of Americans who want this war over ASAP do not deserve our support ...

The Nation magazine "gets it"!!!

[callady]

49. Will the bases remain?

I'm sick to death of hearing things from uptight narrow-minded pig-headed politicians. All I want is the truth. Just give me some truth." – John Lennon