Reason #1 to vote Democratic

[LuckyTheDog]

One or more of the candidates needs to say this over and over:

Whether or not you supported the invasion at the time and whether or not you think we should still be there, most people agree on this:

Had we known that the Iraq adventure would turn out to be this costly, take this long or become the quagmire that it is, nobody would have supported doing it.

Getting out will take time and money. But finding a way to get out should be the main goal of our Iraq policy.

The Democrats are committed to getting out. The Republicans are committed to staying in. It's your choice, America.

[LWolf]

1. This isn't exactly resonating with me.

First of all, not all Democratic primary candidates have said, or will say, that "had they known...they would not have supported it."

Secondly, not all Democratic primary candidates actually learned anything from the IWR, as seen by the vote on Kyl-Lieberman.

Lastly, I haven't heard too many Democrats in a hurry to get out, or with a clear intent and plan to do so ASAP. Some would have us there for a long time, and some would just transfer troops to Iran and/or Pakistan.

Who do you think is going to repeat your points over and over?

[LuckyTheDog]

5. Let me be more clear

First: I never said that "all Democratic primary candidates have said" that. I said that this is the message that they should be using.

Second: The whole point here is that we probably will not get getting out "in a hurry." The Iraq fiasco is a HUGE mess and it will take time to get out. People need to be told that.

Third: The reason for framing the issue this way is that the right-wing spin machine already is trying to say that the Iraq is a non-issue in 2008. Their "reasoning" is that, because no leading candidate will commit to an immediate pull out, then the Republican and Democratic positions on the war are the same. But that is bullshit.

Why is the aforementioned Republican argument bullshit? Here is why:

1) First off, the GOPers define "immediate" any way they need to in order to make their case work. No matter what time frame a Democrat offers, they will say "A-ha! See, folks, he/she is NOT for an immediate pull-out!"

2) There is a HUGE difference between entering office dedicated to looking for a way out of this mess and entering office committed to the same old "stay the course" policy, which lately has gone by the name "victory in Iraq."

3) Victory sounds good, but it's a sham. We had "victory" back in 2003. We beat Saddam's lame army pretty easily. But since them, we have not been in a "war" which can be "won." This is an occupation. You can't "win" or "lose" an occupation. You either continue it or you end it.

4) If it takes Obama, or Edwards or H. Clinton till 2012 or 2013 to totally get us out of Iraq, that's still preferable than an indefinite commitment to occupation based on a false pursuit of a "victory" that can't (by definition) ever be had.

[LWolf]

7. I prefer the man who will work to bring them home NOW.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mU__6wr_RU

[LuckyTheDog]

14. Ain't gonna happen

It would take at least a year to 14 months just to get out -- if we started today. We have tens of billions of dollars worth of equipment over there. Plus, there are the logistics of moving all the troops and handing things over to the Iraqis.

Face it, Bush has us in a mess that will take a while to untangle.

[LWolf]

22. So start today, and don't stop until it's done.

That's what NOW means.

[CT_Progressive]

2. Here's 7 more::

1. Congress no longer needs veto-proof support for bills. Squeaking by with a simple majority becomes just fine. And if we ever lose control of congress, we gain the power of the Veto.
2. Cabinet Secretaries & Appointments (DOD, DHS, Dept of State, etc.)
3. Judicial Branch Appointments, including SCOTUS and U.S. Judiciary. We know how important that is.
4. Regulatory Agency appointments (DEA, FCC, FEC, FEMA, FTC, FDA, SEC, etc)
5. Being in control of "Executive Privilege." Now, we get to wiretap them. (or, you know, stop breaking the law - either way, we win this one)
6. Set National Policy. We all know that its not just the President that sets policy. There is a lot of party politics that influences this.
7. We stop Republicans from destroying our country and others.

[mrfixit]

3. Reason #1 to Vote Kucinich

He realized pretty clearly at the time that regardless of cost, time, or difficulty, a US pre-emptive strike, invasion and occupation of Iraq was completely illegal under international law.

It will be nice to have a president who can READ again.

[caseycoon]

4. Definitely the best choice..

He would also take care of the other 7 reasons posted by CT_Progressive.
GO DENNIIS!
:toast:

[0rganism]

6. Reason #2: Justice Stevens, age 87

87. We can go back and forth on when Justice Ginsberg's cancer comes back, or any of the other justices' various ailments, but Stevens clock is ticking pretty loudly now.

That's pretty amazing, but he's an amazing guy fully capable of holding out until '09. Damn, retirement must seem awfully tempting. Asking him to preside into 2013 is a pretty tall order, I don't want him going all Stromthurmondy on us.

[ourbluenation]

11. yep - SCOTUS appointments is right up there at the top for me. n/t

[radiclib]

8. How 'bout let's try

"The nation has been run by criminal assholes for eight years. Everything they did must be undone, and they must be tried and convicted immediately."
Works for me.

[LuckyTheDog]

16. If you want to lose the general election

Then that would be a great message. I'm sorry, but I'd rather have a Democrat in power and start ending the Iraq occupation. I can part with my moral outrage if that's what is best for the country.

[radiclib]

21. Sorry, but

moral outrage is about all I've got left, and I'm not about to part with it. The fact that you're absolutely correct in your practical assessment speaks to why we continue to settle for crappy leadership.

[ulysses]

9. "had we known"

Funny, a lot of us *did* have a pretty good idea at the time. Funny, that.

[Individualist]

10. "Just imagine what it will be like to have a president who's right the first time.""

Memorable comment by Kucinich at last week's debate.

[dysfunctional press]

12. what makes you think that the democrats are comitted to getting out?

the democratic congress hasn't shown any particular interest in it...hillary and obama seem committed to staying awhile longer in the area...

i won't vote for pseudo-democrats- so for me, it depends on the nominee as far as whether or not i'll actually be voting democratic.

[LuckyTheDog]

17. Sorry, but that's a silly position

It is unlikely that Obama or Hillary would get the troops out as fast as you would like them to. But I'd rather vote for a Dem who is too slow to end the occupation than face a Republican president, who would be committed to keeping it going.

[dysfunctional press]

25. i won't compromise my principles, and i won't vote for a candidate i can't support.

sorry. :shrug:

[LuckyTheDog]

26. I feel your pain

But I am a pragmatist.

[scarletwoman]

13. You lost me at "had we known". That's just a red herring, it's bullshit. Either you went along with

a military invasion of a sovereign nation in violation of the Geneva Conventions and UN Charter or you didn't. Period.

The ends do not justify the means. The means were tainted; that the results would be disastrous was completely predictable.

NO ONE gets a fucking pass for trying to pull off such an odious excuse as "we didn't know it would be so bad". What gall! You thought dropping bombs on people in another country would be a good thing? What makes you any different than any "terrorist"?

No thinking person of conscience should accept such a lame fucking excuse as "had we known"!

sw

[LuckyTheDog]

15. And your suggestion is what?

Let a Republican become president in order to "teach a lesson" to the Democrats? Nope, sorry, if that's your notion, I can't go along with it. The stakes are too high. In the end, the Democrats are better than the Republicans on this issue. We should vote for Democrats.

[MadHound]

18. And what is your suggestion?

To elect a candidate, like our current front runner Hillary, who has repeatedly stated that she will keep combat troops, going out on combat missions, in Iraq quite possibly until after her first term ends?

Gee, hmmm, where's the difference?:shrug:

[LuckyTheDog]

19. The difference is huge

There is a HUGE difference between entering office dedicated to looking for a way out of this mess and entering office committed to the same old "stay the course" policy, which lately has gone by the name "victory in Iraq."

One position ends the occupation (albeit more slowly than you would like), the other keeps it going until the money runs out.

Oh, yes... then we have Supreme Court nominations to consider. And health care. And the environment. And lots of other things.

[leftchick]

23. I missed the part where she explains HOW the occupation ends

details? Because leaving 50-70,000 troops in Iraq on our bases "fighting terrorism" (BS) and "Protecting our VITAL National Security Interests" (OIL!) sounds like a neocon/repuke plan to me.

[MadHound]

28. That's the rub

Hillary's position doesn't end the occupation, quick or slow. It is simply a continuation of the same ol' same ol', albeit under new names, new faces, new slogans, and new propaganda. Health care under Hillary is going to be nothing more than a repackaged corporate plan, one that mandates that all of the population pays for their own plan, possibly under the threat of not being able to obtain a job if one doesn't have health care(where one is supposed to get the money for health insurance when one doesn't have a job is a Catch 22 that doesn't get addressed). Oh, and don't forget that nice fat tax giveaway to the health insurance industry under Hillary care, a tax giveaway that you and I will pay for. There's a reason why Hillary is getting the lion's share of insurance industry money coming into her campaign, and it certainly isn't because she's going to rock the boat on the matter.

Her environmental plan is nothing more than incremental change, little more than lip service. We simply don't have more time for incremental change if we're going to stave off the worst effects of global warming and environmental damage, rather we something much more comparable to how the government put most of US industry on a war footing back in the early forties, a process that was measured in months, not decades.

As far as the Supreme Court, well, you're correct on that one. However there are a couple of mitigating factors in my opinion. First of all, the worst damage was done when the Dems decided to screw the pooch on the Alito and Roberts nomination by keeping their powder dry. They should have hung out for more moderate candidates like O'Connor, but instead they rolled over. Thus the Court is already compromised at this point, and the worst of the damage is done. Secondly, one must weigh in the balance the thousands of lives that will be lost on both sides of the Iraq, and possibly Iran conflict if Hillary get the office vs a woman's right to choose, which as I already stated is pretty much doomed on a 5-4 vote right now.

Sorry, but quite frankly the difference isn't huge, it hasn't been for a long while, and that difference is shrinking on almost a daily basis.

It is time for a real change in this country, and at this point that change has to come from outside the Democratic party, for it certainly isn't coming from within it.

[leftchick]

32. don't wait for an answer

LTD avoids the 800lb gorrilla in the room/hillary's neocon foreign policy. :eyes:

[scarletwoman]

30. I'm not "suggesting" anything. I'm TELLING you that your argument is bogus.

You're the one presenting this as an argument for voting for the nominated Dem presidential candidate.

I'm telling you that this particular argument ("had we known") is based on a false frame, and I reject it. It's beside the point. The Dems aided and abetted an act of military agression against a state that had not attacked us. The results are immaterial, it is the initial action that was thoroughly wrong.

In any case, only the most ill-informed or steeped-in-denial partisans can fail to recognize that U.S. Imperialism has ALWAYS been a bipartisan project. There is no appreciable differentiation to be made between Dems and Repugs when it comes to the overarching philosophy of militant interventionalism in the service of U.S. global hegemony.

In other words, believing that a Democratic president will fully extract us from Iraq is just plain silly.

sw

[leftchick]

20. "adventure"??

you lost me there. :eyes:

[LuckyTheDog]

27. I think that is the right word

Our invasion of Iraq was a classic military adventure -- done for cynical gain and not to protect America.

[mdmc]

24. I knew all along that a pro west stable Iraq was at least 50 years away

I am sure that Edwards, HRC, and all the others bar Kucinich knew this as well.

My NYS electoral vote will go to Hillary. I would like to cast my vote for someone that opposed the war when it was popular.

[Johonny]

29. It's the economy stupid

The next election is about the Economy. Tie the war spending to the decline in the American dollar. At the rate it's going the Dow is going to be at where it was when Clinton left office. The American dollar is less than the Canadian dollar. The cost of education, gas, health insurance... To me the single issue winner is that the Bush conservative economy was a BIG FAT LOSER.

[Solar_Power]

31. Is Hillary committed to getting out immediately?

I don't think she is

[Selatius]

33. No, she envisions a residual force of several tens of thousands to serve as "advisors."

They're not specifically considered combat troops, but the average Iraqi resistance fighter wouldn't care about such distinctions.