"Democrats Drop Antiwar Pretensions ", article from Antiwar.com

[hansolsen]

Go find a piece of dog shit, put it between your teeth and gum, and practice smiling. It will get you ready for the Dem convention in Boston and the Bush Kerry debates. Bush is going to kick his ass. You don't think so -- read this:

Here is the link from Antiwar.com:

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/ewing.php?articleid=3009


Democrats Drop Antiwar Pretensions

by Caleb Ewing
Saturday at the Westin Diplomat hotel outside Fort Lauderdale, Fla., the Democratic Party finalized its platform for the upcoming Democratic National Convention to be held in Boston later this month. Progressives and peace lovers – mostly Kucinich and Dean supporters – didn't get much at all. Not only does the platform not call for the U.S. to leave Iraq ASAP, it is also loaded with militarism and calls for the U.S. to advance democracy abroad through force.

It was a sad outcome for progressives. This wholesale rejection of our cause and values stung deeply. We were shocked, in fact, and many of us cried when we realized that not only did our amendments lack the support necessary for passage, but we also lacked even the minimum support required to debate the amendments.

Since the primaries, the Progressive Caucus has worked tirelessly for the cause of peace and justice and for the Democratic Party to define itself in opposition to the wars of aggression in which we are currently engaged. We have been fighting for respect and inclusion. We have been fighting for the enlightened ideals of Dennis Kucinich and Howard Dean. We have been advocating a Department of Peace, and arguing for a better, more civilized America. In all this we lost. For all our efforts, amendments proposed, and quid pro quos offered, we were given only a single, very minor, language adjustment to one of our proposed amendments. In this one instance, when we asked for the following language:

"e must announce our intention to set a date for the withdrawal of our military forces,"

we were instead given

"he U.S. will be able to reduce its military presence in Iraq, and we intend to do this when appropriate so that the military support needed by a sovereign Iraqi government will no longer be seen as the direct continuation of an American military presence."

More

[rooboy]

1. Bush is going to kick his ass in a DEBATE???

ROFL.

[markses]

2. This is an opinion piece

Not a news story. It should be posted in Editorials and Opinion Articles, like all the other opinion pieces. Why are you so hell bent on putting this in LBN?

[lumpy]

7. Good question

x

[hansolsen]

13. No, this is just my opinion about this news. This is news.

This is a news article about what is happening at the convention and the battle over the platform.

[markses]

29. Whether it is your opinion or not is immaterial

It is clearly an opinion piece, since it gives the writers negative evaluation of the action, rather than merely reporting it. That's basic high school journalism, friend.

[hansolsen]

33. Okay, I'll buy that, and I did not notice it was old news, so I apologize,

[markses]

35. Wrong again, boyo

The issue is not whether the news was old or new. The issue was whether the writer of the piece was wrote an opinion piece or a news article. It was not a news article, and the writer gave an opinion. It could be ten years old or five minutes old; the result would be the same: not LBN material.

[hansolsen]

36. Well just to clarify, I am acknowledging that you are right and I was

wrong in posting this article to breaking news. In retrospect, I take your point that the article really was an opinion piece, and I should have caught that. I'll try to do a better job of following protocol in the future, and thanks for pointing out the error of my ways. I appreciate that.

Secondly, and separately, I guess, it was also brought to my attention by someone else apparently, that this article was old news and had been posted last Saturday, much to my chagrin. So I was wrong in responding to you about it, and inattentive in missing the duplicate post.

It's been a tough day on the old website.

[Liberal Veteran]

3. At this point it's a matter of "we broke it, we bought it"....

So until the situation stabilizes there, it would be foolhardy to pull out.

I didn't want this war, but I think at this point withdrawing our troops would do more harm to the Iraqi people and add insult to the injury we inflicted on them.

[hansolsen]

14. Kerry doesn't have to advocate immediate withdrawl to say the war was a

mistake. Those are two separate questions.

[donco6]

4. So, Bush is a better choice?

Or will a miracle occur and the Libertarian presidential candidate will emerge as the frontrunner against overwhelming odds?

Pfft. Think I'll wait and judge for myself.

[hansolsen]

15. No, the Prince of Abu Ghraib gets one term only.

But once Kerry gets in office, then what? If he governs in the Middle East like Bush lite, then Kerry will be a one term president too.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

5. Proof of why the unreasonable members of the left will bring us down

You actually GOT the concession you wanted without it BEING A LIE..and you're still not happy...bloodshed is going to occur in Iraq whether we leave or stay...I favor a balanced withdrawal that considers all possible consequences rather than catering to people who stomp their feet and pound their fist without thinking through whether we will leave another Pol Pot in place.

If the far left wonders why the party seems to be catering to the center, perhaps they should investigate their own tactics...from taking Repub money ala Nader...to recontextualizing anything that falls short of their ransom demands.

[fertilizeonarbusto]

8. EXACTLY

I think the dog shit here is in the "reasoning" in the original post. Hate to tell the far left, but we made an ungodly mess and it would be childish, narcissistic and irresponsible to leave without fixing it-and if you like those qualities, just vote for *-who couldn't kick Kerry's ass in the debate unless divine intervention was part of it.

[calico1]

10. Yep.

As it is we have lost just about all respect in the world. Imagine us just pulling the rug out from the Iraqis and just leaving them to whatever fate is in store for them. How then, could Kerry even begin to expect any kind of respect from any other country? I thought Liberals were supposed to be compassionte. Yes, I was dead set against the war. But I believe in the old saying "if you break it, you own it." Bush created the mess, but we will have to clean it up. We need to pull out, but gradually and after we help stabalize things a bit.

[aneerkoinos]

21. Imagine

I imagine and I like it. Iraqi people are not only imagining and liking it, they are fighting for it through armed and civilian struggle.

And no rugs for US. No blood fur rugs.

The mess will go on as long as the "well-meaning" uppity colonial besserwissers of the "compassionate" moderate left understand that US cannot be the solution in Iraq in any way, because it is the problem. Least of all US can hope to stabilize things in Iraq, because it is the main destabilizing force. I'm willing to give the promised elections a chanse and hope they are delivered and are honest, even though I have lots of doubts. After that immediate pull-out is the only thing.

Respect can be done only by doing the right thing, and it goes both ways, US will have to start respecting other people to earn their respect. Condescending besserwisserism is not respect. If you people wan't to elect one dishonest War&Black Ops President over other, it's your choise and I don't envy you. I thank God I don't live there and need to make that kind of choise. But neither Bush nor Kerry will have my respect, nor do the people who vote them.

[hansolsen]

26. Again, I am not a member of the far left, I just oppose this war.

See my last post for alternatives to immediate withdrawl of U.S. troops.

As to the upcoming debates, nobody thought Bush would beat Gore either, but he did. Shrub handed Al his ass on a platter three times in a row. How did that happen? -- Al Gore couldn't decide who he was or what he believed. Sound familiar?

Right now voting for John Kerry is like buying a pig in a poke -- nobody knows how he will govern, including Kerry.

[aneerkoinos]

12. If Pol Pot

If it's a Pol Pot that US creates and leaves in place, it's better to have Iran save Iraq from such regime, just as it was finally Vietnam that saved Cambodga from Pol Pot - Pol Pot that US (and China) supported and kept funding their dirty war against from Thailand against their own people long time after the ousting of the criminal looney gang by Vietnam.

[hansolsen]

16. Opposing this war is not "far left". You can be a raging war hawk and be

against this war.

[hansolsen]

25. I'm no member of the far left, I am just opposed to this war.

And I do not favor immediate withdrawl of U.S. troops from Iraq. Actually I favor keeping some U.S. troops in the middle east but not in Iraq, or any other Arab nation. We should move them to Israel where they can do some good.

I do think the war was a mistake and Kerry should say so. What is so hard about that?

[FlemingsGhost]

6. The Democrat Party is not the future of liberal causes.

Many, including myself, have accepted that sad fact. Come November, regardless of the outcome, there will be a significant departure of "hold-your-nose" progressives from the Party.

Mark my words.

[emulatorloo]

11. Good for you then! But wait til after the election and Bush is out

Because Kerry will likely listen to progressives. Bush never will.

[hansolsen]

17. Yup. N/T

[calico1]

20. If you don't hold your nose and vote for Kerry

you are helping Bush--whether that be voting for Nader or some other third party candidate or not voting at all. Ask yourself if we are truly better off with 4 more years of Bush? I personally think Kerry will make a fine President, but if you don't, ask yourself if Bush will be the same. And remember, there will be several Supreme Court Appointments because at least 3 of them expect to retire. What do you think about a Supreme Court that has far, right wing majority? For 20, 30 or more years to come? November is for kicking Bush out. After Kerry wins then that is the time to bring up the other stuff. In 2000, many Nader voters thought it didn't matter which candidate won. We have suffered almost 4 years of extreme right wing politics. And if Bush remains in office, believe me, the best will be saved for the second term when he doesn't have to worry about term limits. No one can tell you how to vote, but if you truly care about Progressive issues, helping Bush to stay in office for 4 more years would be a terrible mistake.

[F.Gordon]

9. Do you recommend dry or fresh dog shit?

:)

How's this? Am I doing it right?

[hansolsen]

18. I'm goin with dry. It'll last longer and leave a visible lump

which can be recognized by my friends at DU, as a symbol of resistance to the DLC takeover of our Party.

[hansolsen]

19. Here is another article on same issue

Let me try this again. Here is a news item about the convention and negaotiations over the platform. I got this from the Guardian. Here is the link:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-429...

My very toned down view is that this represents a win for the DLC wing of the Party, and a loss for "real" Democrats. It is also a loss for the nation. It will also make it difficult for Kerry to conduct a real debate on the war with Bush. He is essentially saying Bush was right to go to war, he just gets a low grade on execution. This leaves a bad tast in my mouth.


Democrats Avoid Platform Fight Over Iraq

Saturday July 10, 2004 11:31 PM
AP Photo FLJS104
By KEN THOMAS
Associated Press Writer

HOLLYWOOD, Fla. (AP) - John Kerry's presidential campaign avoided a platform fight Saturday by persuading activists to drop virulent language about the Iraq war that would have declared the conflict a mistake from the beginning.
snip
First, however, the committee had to avoid demands by a group of activists that the document describe the entry into Iraq as a mistake and lay down an exit strategy to get American forces out of Iraq.
snip

The committee adopted language brokered by the Kerry campaign saying that as other nations add troops, ``The U.S. will be able to reduce its military presence in Iraq, and we intend to do this when appropriate so that the military support needed by a sovereign Iraqi government will no longer be seen as the direct continuation of an American military presence.''
snip
``I think that reflects a general view on the part of Democrats, no matter who they supported early on, that it's important that John Kerry be elected,'' said former President Clinton's national security adviser, Sandy Berger.

[aneerkoinos]

24. "as other nations add troops"

Oh yes this too, they are also knowingly misleading US people. Other nations are not adding troops, they are dropping out of the coalition (latest was Philippines, leaving in August). Kerry lies if he says that he can deliver when he promises something that is not in his power to deliver. He's going to be only the President of US, not leader of any other nation, and other nations are going to vote out of office those who embarked on this criminal enterprise. All the coalition members are looking for ways to get out of the situation, not ways to send more troops.

[aneerkoinos]

22. Plain speaking

"The U.S. will be able to reduce its military presence in Iraq, and we intend to do this when appropriate so that the military support needed by a sovereign Iraqi government will no longer be seen as the direct continuation of an American military presence."

Translation:

Kerry admin will adhere to the Washington consensus of building permanent US military bases in Iraq and forcing OPEC by military threat (it's only weapon left) to prop up failing US economy by keeping the petrodollar instead of changing to petroeuro or currency basket.

Four more years of war...

[hansolsen]

23. I want to know Kerry's position on Perm military bases in Iraq.

Some enterprising young reporter could get a good story by asking Kerry his position on this, and having about 10 handi dollowup questions ready when Kerry tries to finesse and flip flop his way out of answering.

Unless he just comes out and says he favors bases there. Then all hell will break out.

[hansolsen]

27. If Kerry wants to be a one term president just like Shrub

then he is on the right path.

[aneerkoinos]

28. If there any America left to speak about after Kerry's term...

If there are any observative and smart people on Kerry's team (I believe there are) he should know for sure he's one termer no matter what he does.

Why? During Kerry years a depression of unseen proportions is going to hit US (and world) economy. Bush admin succeeded (how smart of him!? - OK lets blame Greenspin ;)) to postpone the inevitable consequenses of irresponsible economic policies of bubble building since the 80's for a bit by humongous bastard "drivel down" Keynesian policies that were wrongly timed, wrongly targeted and bad in every other imaginable way, bankrupt policies which only made the problem much much worse and threaten gravely the whole Capitalistic world order (fact that did not escape the notion of IMF!). And as if this was not enough, Peak Oil will happen and be generally realized on Kerry's watch and make the already unbearable situation hundred times worse, and makes it extremely unlikely that US economy will be able to hit the bottom and stop the free fall during those four years. Naturally Kerry is going to be blamed for the whole shitload, what do you take the common man for? :D

The saddest part for the America, even if Kerry really understood the real gravity of the problems he's going to face and their causes and wanted to do something real about them (many doubts on that), his campaing shows that even if he wanted to do so, his over-optimistic lies and playing to the perceived truths of the "American dream" guarantee that people would not walk with him even if he had the wisdom and guts to lead them where necessity dictates. It would have taken a guy like Dean, who proved from the beginning that he was not afraid to face the truth and tell it like it is even and especially when that was hugely unpopular, to have even a slim chance to save what can be saved from a country that... was America.

[hansolsen]

31. I was an early and ardent Dean supporter, and will vote for Big Hair and

Fluff Ball, but with no enthusiasm. They have done nothing to inspire any confidence.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Martin Eden]

32. Could Kerry win with the Progressive foreign policy platform?

The author of the opinion piece lamented:

"This new language is not exactly predicated on the notion that attacking Iraq was an illegal and immoral mistake in the first place.

And so it went, amendment after amendment, all unseen, none debated. Forgotten for now is justice in Palestine, the Department of Peace, a scaled-back military, the proscription of preemptive war, the legitimacy and primacy of international law, etc., etc."

This is my lament as well, but even more lamentable is the probability that Kerry would lose to Bush in November if his campaign declared the mission of our troops was "illegal and immoral," or advocated a "scaled back military."

In the climate of fear and ignorance that still prevails in this country, any rhetoric that can be construed as unpatriotic (besmirching the cause for which so many brave troops have sacrificed) or that advocates reducing the military will be immediately pounced upon as blasphemy and a threat to our national security.

It doesn't matter that such attacks on the Progressive platform are just plain wrong -- perception unfortunately trumps reality, and most undecided voters would likely swing over to Bush.

Of course, Kerry risks losing some of the Progressive vote to Nader, but from the standpoint of political reality I sincerely doubt Kerry would have a chance if he campaigned on the above lamented platform.

So, how will he actually govern? To some extent he will be constrained by the same political reality. He will not pull out of Iraq if it seems the fledgling (puppet) government could not survive our departure. But he is likely to mend some diplomatic fences, and unlikely to launch a war under false pretenses.

What does Kerry really believe, and what would he do if he could? Has he been co-opted by the imperial powers that be, or does a part of the young man still live who protested an unjust war and decried the "last man to die for a mistake"?

Iraq was Bush's mistake, and Kerry and Edwards share complicity with their vote for the IWR. But before writing them off as little different than Bush on foreign policy, you must take into consideration what is necessary to win this election.

I don't like it one bit, and I'm not thrilled with Kerry. But I'm still totally committed to helping him win in November and agitating for Progressive values after he takes office. Kerry may or may not be our good friend, but we know that Bush is our sworn enemy.

[hansolsen]

34. I know your view is widely held both within the Kerry campaign

and in the news media, and in the political think tanks. And they may be right.

I harbor the contrarian view that if a natural leader emerged who could give voice to everything that is wrong with the militaristic approach to problem solving, that voice would be heard and appreciated.

The problem is we need real and potent alternatives to beating hell out of people with our superior military. Those alternatives must be aimed at addressing fundamental issues of fairness and equity in this old world so as to address the root causes of terrorism.

The man or woman who can speak that language with courage and conviction, backed up by a real, creative, bold agenda, will be appreciated by the American people. That is my dream.

Call me a fool, but leave me alone. I like my dream.

[Martin Eden]

37. I agree with you

We need the leader you describe, and Kerry doesn't fit the bill.

Our political system is so broken, it is nearly impossible for such a leader to rise to national office.

I share the dream you expressed, but I also try to be a pragmatist concerning what it will take to achieve that dream. Kerry will not get it done, but Bush absolutely must be defeated. Otherwise, we're heading towards fascism rather than Progressivism.

[hansolsen]

38. I know you're right and most days I agree to just go along

but some days the old hope returns and takes over.