What's the official Democratic position? Was Iraq a MISTAKE?

[Q]

- Does the Democratic party HAVE an official position on Iraq? Or does that position depend on whether you're a progressive or new democrat? I'd like to know...since there is no other option but to vote Democratic in November.

- New Democrats are fully behind George's* lies, shock and awe, invasion and occupation of Iraq. The only 'mistake' they're willing to point out is that George* didn't plan well enough for the occupation phase of the 'war'.

- The few remaining liberals and progressives in the Dem party are mostly against the Iraq 'war'...consistently pointing out that an unprovoked, aggressive war based on lies and exaggerations CAN'T be legal or moral.

- How can there be such disparaging opinions on an important issue, pivotal to the November election? Can we dismiss it as a simple disagreement between party factions?

- Good leadership is all about honesty and integrity and leading by example. Where does one look for leadership of this kind if both parties are willing to participate in a lie and deceive the very people they supposedly represent?

- Frankly...I'm offended that MY party is trying to convince me that Iraq was a great idea and now we just have to make the best of it. Isn't supporting the 'war' in Iraq tantamount to supporting the Bush* Doctrine of aggressive, 'preventative' war? Or is this the part that 'good' Democrats are not supposed to talk about?

- Comments?

[StopThief]

1. The Kerry people just ensured. . . .

that the party platform would NOT say the Iraq War was a mistake. Take that to mean what you will.

[HFishbine]

2. Edwards

Has consitently said we were right to go to war. Meet the new boss...

[Tina H]

6. Be careful, Pete Townsend's gonna getcha . . .

see Thread on Townsend and Michael Moore

[HFishbine]

7. Har!

Yep. Saw that one. Townsend doesn't want his songs used to increase social awareness, but he's fine with "Happy Jack" being used to sell Hummers.

[Tina H]

11. I don't know if that's fair

Moore didn't ask for "Happy Jack" -- he asked for a more political song and Townsend claims he didn't want the song's political message obscured or mutated or put beyond his control. This sort of makes sense, but I am still not sure that Townsend is being completely sincere in this nuanced explanation.

[neebob]

69. Maybe he didn't want the Feds coming down

any harder than they already have.

Just another tricky day for you, Fella!

[Radical Activist]

3. JFK is looking more like LBJ all the time

Will everything he wants to do be threatened by staying in Iraq? It really would have been a smart and winning strategy to nominate someone that the anti-war movement could enthusiastically get behind, instead of two people who voted for it. He can get away with it this time, but if we still have large forces in Iraq four years from now then Kerry will be a one term President.

Kerry showed a lot of courage by speaking out when he got back from Vietnam. I just wish he would find his old self.

[Solly Mack]

4. I saw the news articles in the wee hours of the morning

Frankly, the truth is our strongest point against Bush. Bush lied. Bush lied and thousands of people died.


I'm for the truth. Plainly stated... THE INVASION of IRAQ WAS A MISTAKE. Everything that transpired in Iraq, after America invaded, was a DIRECT result of those lies. Everything going on now in Iraq is a direct result of those lies.

The lies matter. The truth matters. Exposing the lies matter. Plainly speaking the truth matters most of all.

ILLEGAL INVASION.BUILT ON LIES. IS A MISTAKE.

[freeforall]

5. Kerry's big mistake

I think that if he continues to support the war after he's elected it will be a mistake - he'll be gone in 2008. I'm very disappointed that he won't acknowledge that it is a mistake, apologize for voting in favour of it, and doing all he can to show America that they need to get out, and to focus on the problems at home, such as the economy and health care.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

8. Do you want to win the election or not? What's YOUR bottom line?....

What's the goal of THIS election?

I'm offended that some posters on this board seem incapable of setting the correct priorities instead of wailing non-step about their own PERSONAL issues.

Do you want the NeoCons removed from power or not??

[dogman]

10. Yes , we need to remove Bushco but

we also have a responsibility to help steer our Party in the right direction. I do not see the Iraq War as the only issue against Bushco but it is typical of most issues. I also believe it is the number one issue in the country and I hate to see it ceded to Bushco.

[Q]

16. The 'correct priorities'?

- What about truth? Shouldn't THAT be a priority? If we're willing to mislead and lie to the people about the war in Iraq...what makes us different than the RWing Republicans on this issue? Are you suggesting it's okay to lie if it gives us a better chance to win?

- What the hell are you telling me here? That the end justifies the means? What makes you think we can't tell the truth AND win?

[Toots]

25. Yes if we are going to go along with evil we should support

those that are the very best at it. The Bush* Cabal. No one does evil like them so if it is evil we want we should support the best. To me supporting lies as justification for war is evil.

[Hippo_Tron]

55. Dupe n/t

[Media_Lies_Daily]

63. Why don't we WIN first and then correct the mess?...

And I think you know exactly what the hell I'm telling you...stop playing word games.

[Classical_Liberal]

83. I am not sure Kerry is we

so I don't know if WE will win anything really.

[Forkboy]

22. I'm offended by some posters on this board too

alas,I guess we all have to tolerate it.

[Q]

24. Some of us have to 'tolerate' the PROWAR Democrats...

...and others have to tolerate the 'anti-Iraq-war' Democrats. What makes one position more intolerable than the other? One position is based on the truth and the other a lie.

[Forkboy]

27. I'm with you Q

trust me,I feel the same way.

[Solly Mack]

31. Psst, Forkboy

The war in Iraq was not a mistake...so STOP saying that!

I couldn't resist.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

66. Excuse me, but are you accussing me of being "pro-war"??....

You must have me confused with some of the freepers that disrupt this board with absolute impunity.

First off, I was demonstrating against the Vietnam War quite some time ago and haven't lost any of the opinions I developed back in those days. How old were you then? Who, and how many, did you know from your high school that died in another Godforsaken war?

Evidently, you haven't read enough of my posts about the absolute misery I feel about the tens of thousands of dead and wounded Americans, Iraqis, Afghans, Brits, and all of the other nationalities that have been dragged into a war based on a pack of NeoCon lies.

You must have also missed all of the comments I've posted in regards to my opinion that the actual number of American casualties is one heck of a lot more than the NeoCons are allowing us to know.

My oldest daughter is dating a Marine whose twin brother is ALREADY in Iraq...her boyfriend will be going very soon. Do you think that also reinforces my anti-war views? You better believe that it does.

But, I'm pragmatic enough to know that the Iraq War will NOT be ended tomorrow just because you and some other DU posters demand that it happen. First, you have to get someone in position that will have the authority to end it, and then you have to surround that person with enough like-minded people to be able to out-vote the NeoCons.

The key is the November election. Period.

Is that too much for you to handle or are you finally starting to grasp my thinking on this issue?

[bigbillhaywood]

30. Murdering thousands of Iraqis is not a PERSONAL issue.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

67. Did I say that it was? That was a very weak attempt on your part...

...to put words into my post.

Maybe you should read some of my other posts in this thread on this subject before you stumble again.

[bigbillhaywood]

75. You said...

"I'm offended that some posters on this board seem incapable of setting the correct priorities instead of wailing non-step about their own PERSONAL issues."

Q's post is about the Democratic Party supporting the Iraq War. If you want to regard this as Q's own personal issue, fine. But I do not. I think that objectively speaking, the Iraq War is wrong and that the Democratic Party's position is wrong. It may be a personal issue for each individual, but I view it as also being a collective issue that should be addressed. You want to boil the issue down to people's personal hang-up, rather than making a stand on what is right and what is wrong. And Q never said any of this meant he was not voting for Kerry or would vote for Bush. I think getting Bush out is still a priority for everyone here, so your post is incorrect in its entirety, in my humble opinion.

[gpandas]

57. it's as simple as that. n/t

[CTLawGuy]

68. so, if we have to take all the positions of the Neo-cons

in order to get rid of them, what will we really accomplish?

[Classical_Liberal]

82. Since the neocons are also encampped in Kerry's dlc advisors

I'm not convinced they will be out of power.

[Tina H]

9. I am not too troubled by Kerry's if-elected decision to continue the war

However, I do fault Kerry for not explaining that his vote was a mistake.

and let me be very specific about what I mean by mistake, because it is kind of speculative and complicated:

1. if Kerry expected the UN to make sure there was good cause before going to war then he should have introduced an amendment to the war resolution (or whatever its properly called) to make it absolutely, positively clear that the president had no authority to engage militarily unless and until UN approval was secured. He should have voted against the resolution if his amendment was not added to the resolution.

2. If Kerry expected that the US government, rather than the UN, was to be the final arbiter of whether to engage militarily then he shouldn't have voted for the resolution unless and until Congress had access to and was convinced by good evidence. In other words, no "awww shucks, I put my trust in the Pres." War is too important for that and the Constitution puts war decisions into Congress's hands for important reasons. Some things you delegate to others and hope for the best -- declaration of war is *not* one of those things.

3. All of this may sound involved and complicated, but my rant here is something that should have been understood (even back in Oct 2002) by anyone qualified to be president. I shouldn't have to guess at what Kerry's exact mistake was as I am doing in this reply. I should know already and I should know because Kerry should have explained his way through all this already.

4. Fortunately, there is time before the election for him to do this. Personally, I think the convention would be the best place to give this "okay let me explain my mistake" speech. Fortunately also, DU exists so that regular folks like you and me can get the message to Kerry in a timely fashion.

[Redleg]

12. This is getting tedious, Q.

Can it be possible that different Dems can have a different stance on this?

[Q]

13. Or is it simply about honesty versus dishonesty?

- How can there be 'different stances' when we now KNOW that Bush* LIED to get the US into Iraq? In this case there can only be two stances: right and wrong.

- Worse...the Democratic leadership also KNOWS that Bush* lied and they STILL support HIS aggressive war. Is the leadership taking Bush's* side on Iraq because they know that we have NO OTHER CHOICE but to vote for them?

- You call this issue 'tedious'. That's an insult to all those who have died and are still dying in Iraq. What exactly are they dying for? So that George* can call himself a 'war president'? So that Democrats in DC don't have to explain why they voted to give Bush* a blank check for war and profiteering?

- I expect Republicans to tell their own to shut up and get in line. But it's very disappointing to see the suppression of this issue coming from the party of the people.

[Forkboy]

23. The tediousness comes from the Dems and thier cowardice

not Q.

[Q]

26. I'll admit that Dems MUST win in November...

...but at what friggin cost?

- Must we lie to win? Or could we tell the truth and STILL win? The American people are hungry for the plain old truth after four years of George*.

- Not admitting Iraq was a 'mistake' is the same as giving the Neocons a free ride AND a MANDATE if they should win in Nov.

[Solly Mack]

33. Yep. It's a get out of jail, get away with anything and everything free

pass.

[moondust]

14. Delete.

[Blue Wally]

15. Look at what was "known" or "thought" in 2003

1. WMD:

a. Ever since Gulf War One, the government and the media have been speaking about Iraq's WMD and Saddam's stonewalling of the UN inspectors. I would think that "common wisdom" in 2003 was that WMD, in some shape or form and in great quantity were being hidden in Iraq. Some anti-war internet posters even spoke of thousand of American troops dying from nerve gas attacks because of inadequate chemical defense equipment as a reason not to go to war. The WMD story was not just a Bush lie, though certainly propagated by him as a casus belli.

b. Now we know that what WMD Saddam had was either destroyed under UN pressure or moved out of the country and we know that intelligence on WMD was not based on irrefutable evidence. Given what Sen Kerry and Sen Edwards had been hearing since 1991, their belief in WMD at the time of their votes can't really be faulted.

2. War and Occupation.

a. The war was fought with extremely good tactics and the speed and initiative of subordinateunits was commendable.

b. The "civil affairs/military government" capabilities of the US Army has been allowed to wither away to nothing over the last forty years. In addition, the troops needed to support CAMG (engineers, MPs) are not as plentiful as they should be. The invasion force (hell, the whole army) has been trimmed down until it may be too "mean and lean". This reflects on the planners.

3. Withdrawal:

a. Under a Kerry presidency, don't look for precipitous withdrawal unless an emergency occurs somewhere else or things really turn to crap in Iraq.

b. Look for a protracted phasedown 2005-2008 under Kerry such as Nixon did in Vietnam 1969-1972.

[midwayer]

17. My guess

When weighing the differences in the platform between focusing on whether or not it was a mistake or moving forward and figure out what we will do to bring resolve to the problem at hand, my guess is the positive route to move forward will outweigh the effects of focusing hindsight and moving in reverse.

Besides the Rebubs will hang thier ownselves as it may already be set in motion without needing any help from Kerry / Edwards.

Just a thought

[Q]

19. It's not just whether it was a 'mistake'...

...it's also about WHO made that mistake. Democrats have agreed to NOT make Iraq or Bush's* prewar intelligence manipulation an issue. This gives Bush* yet another free ride to act like a 'war president' and brag about 'accomplishments' in the war on terror.

- Does the Democratic leadership even understand that they're hurting their own chances for election and allowing Bush* to grow STRONGER when they don't campaign against his lies and deceit?

[BillZBubb]

54. Q, I agree with what you are saying but...

... I think it's a matter of political calculation. Kerry must have polling/focus group data on this. It must be telling him the public is not ready yet to hear the truth about this mess--that it was pure folly based on deceit. Most people probably still have that old cognitive assonance going: America did it to "free" the Iraqis, we're noble, we're good, etc.

I also think they are addressing this, but more subtly for that reason. Kerry and Edwards will begin talking a lot more about truth in government and truth as a value. People will get the connection indirectly.

I share your frustration that the Democrats never seem to go for the jugular, but Kerry has a history of being a shrewd campaigner, so I'll give him every benefit of the doubt on this.

[Q]

61. Those who live by the poll, die by the poll...

- Hayzeus...whatever happened to the type of politician that would simply campaign on the truth? Have we gone so far astray that we don't even CARE if politicians are honest...as long as they 'win'?

- I don't WANT a 'shrewd' campaigner. I'm much more likely to vote for an honest than a shrewed campaigner. That's why Dean had such wide appeal. People RESPOND to a politician that tells the hard, cold truth....knowing that nothing can be fixed until the people are aware of what's broken.

- I'd like to believe you when you say that Kerry and Edwards will 'begin' telling the whole truth at some point. The fact that they're already willing to lie about Iraq is not a great start in that direction.

[BillZBubb]

80. OK, now you lost me.

It is totally naive to think any politician can tell the absolute truth at all times and have any chance of winning. Dean is a good example.

Plus, exactly what lie about Iraq are Kerry and Edwards telling? Please be specific!

[Q]

18. Not everyone had those 'thoughts'...

...and the most telling aspect of this is that when the Bush* administration first 'took' office...they made bold claims that Iraq had been defanged and demoralized. They went on to say that Iraq wasn't a threat to anyone.

- Kerry or no other Dem who voted for the Iraq 'war' will apologize because they wanted what Bush* wanted: Saddam gone, Iraq's oil and military bases.

- Welcome to Vietnam II.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

20. Thousands dead so BushCo. & some Dems could look "tough".

It wasn't a "mistake". Neither by Boobya or the Dems who supported him. It was a cynical and vicious bloodletting as a response to an angry and fearful American public who wanted revenge and that "something be done".

The occupation continues because there is no way out that won't fit neatly into America's notion of "We're Number One".

Both Bush/Cheney and Kerry/Edwards are paying, with lives not their own, the price of running for office in an America that refuses to admit that it has been corrupted by nationalism parading under the banner of "patriotism".

What I find amazing is that here, a supposedly "progressive" site, the number of apologists willing to accept the killing of people as a mere ploy to win an election.

[Q]

21. You're right...'mistake' is too timid of a word...

...the unprovoked, aggressive war against Iraq was intentional and all the participants were willing to 'accept' a large number of Iraqi and American deaths.

bandera: "What I find amazing is that here, a supposedly "progressive" site, the number of apologists willing to accept the killing of people as a mere ploy to win an election."

- My advice to those Dems (and GOPers) who think Iraq was not a 'mistake' and that we must 'stay the course': please run right down to the recruting office, grab a gun and go fight for your president*.

[RichM]

28. Dem Party apologists are no better than Republicans - In fact, they're

even worse, in many ways. They're worse because they labor under the self-righteous delusion that mere hatred of Bush makes them morally superior to Republicans. Meanwhile, they ignore the extent to which the Dem position on Iraq abets the main thrust of Bush's policy (ie, successfully installing a puppet govt in Iraq), & prevents the public from seeing the great crime that has been committed on a bipartisan basis.

The responses to this thread by Dem apologists basically argue that "Kerry had no choice but to vote for IWR," & that "IWR was not really a vote for war."

This is laughable horseshit. What you people are saying is that Dem complicity in the Iraq War can be overlooked, if overlooking it leads to a Democratic victory.

Kerry, repellant lying swine that he is, says,

“The point here is not to revisit history, but to forge a new policy based on what we know and what will be most effective. We still have an opportunity to prevent Iraq from becoming a failed state...”

Thus, he takes the view that it "isn't important" to argue about why we went into Iraq. Oh, really!? How can such a monstrous, enormous thing be "not important"? The language about preventing Iraq from becoming a "failed state" is also right out of the Republican playbook, encouraging fear of "terrorists." Kerry, no more than Bush, would dare advance the idea that the Iraqi resistance might actually be fighting not to be occupied. Kerry, just like Bush, will keep using the language of "thugs and murderers" for the resistance.
If the Democrats were a real opposition, they would be arguing that the Bush regime has committed historic & indelible war crimes. Instead, they are trying to urge people to "not revisit" the real reasons for the invasion (because they are just as interested as anyone in covering it up) -- & are content to merely carp at Bush because he didn't "plan well for the occupation." Thus, they themselves reduce major war crimes to the level of "poor planning."

The morally defensible position is to oppose the war, and to be honest about what the war is really about. The Democrats are no closer to this position than Republicans. The only difference is at the level of tactical sniping.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

32. Well said. Every word.

In France, in the '40s, they were called collaborators.

[moondust]

34. So what happens

when you vote NO on IWR, it passes anyway, Bush wrongly invades without the facts, and the troops do find WMD and concrete evidence that SH had a new friend named Osama?

Enlighten us.

[Forkboy]

35. Then you have the courage to admit you were wrong

instead of letting thousands die so you get to like you were right.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

39. You point out that Iraq posed no imminent threat to the USA.

Apparantly, 23 courageous senators were willing to take that risk rather than give the green light to an illegal invasion and occupation that cost thousands of lives.

Such a stance took courage and ethics. Something in short supply with "our" candidates, who still deny that the "war" was even a mistake, let alone outright aggression against a sovereign country.

[moondust]

42. So

in this little scenario it (accidentally) turns out that Saddam DID have WMD and WAS developing a relationship with OBL yet you are going to try to convince Americans that that does not represent an imminent threat to the USA (and the rest of the world)?

Good luck.

[Forkboy]

43. But he didn't and he wasn't

we can play what if games all day.

[moondust]

45. Obviously

nobody in the U.S./U.K. KNEW one way or the other on the day of the IWR vote including Bush, Cheney, Blair, CIA, Hans Blix, Kerry, and Edwards.

[Forkboy]

47. Obviously

but some were smarter and had more integrity than others that day.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

44. So...carrying on the farce.

If flounders had feathers, would that make them flamingoes?

There is no evidence that either of your hypotheticals are real.

Ponder this:

If it could be shown that the invasion was based on manipulated and distorted evidence, that the "war" was unnecessary, that the occupation of Iraq is illegal, that thousands were killed on a false premise, that the American military committed war crimes, that POW's were tortured, etc, the Democratic candidates should admit that their votes in favor of all the above were, at best, a "mistake" or, at worst, a ploy to gain votes?

Or, do you think that we should all just shrug, wave our flags, and write off the dead as unfortunate casualties of American politics?

[moondust]

48. On the contrary

the hypotheticals have essentially been proven false/unreal. But nobody in the U.S./U.K. knew that at the time of the IWR vote including Bush, Cheney, Blair, CIA, Hans Blix, Kerry, and Edwards.

The "war" was clearly a mistake...given 20/20 hindsight. The IWR should have been defeated for all the reasons given by Sen. Byrd and more. But in practical political terms if you end up on the wrong side of the (accidental) nightmare scenario--which could not be ruled out at the time of the vote--American voters will probably not trust you to be President. Senator maybe. All Bush would have to do is say he "knew"...(lies)...(lies)...(blah)...(blah)...so he went ahead and "saved thousands of American lives."

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

51. And, now?

Kerry and Edwards continue to support the occupation.

[moondust]

52. I may be wrong but

I don't perceive that they support it with the same vigor or for the same selfish reasons that Republicans do. I'd guess that Kerry genuinely believes that it is in Iraq's and the world's best interest and "our" responsibility to get the place stabilizied and on the road to recovery before pulling out. Unfortunately that could take a long time.

Fucking Republicans. :puke:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

60. We'll be leaving Iraq when the Iraqis throw us out.

The only question is, how many lives will it take before whatever government is in power here decides to declare victory or "peace with honor" and gets the hell out.

[paulk]

36. No. The worst sort of moral superiority is persons like yourself

who advocate and vote for 3rd party (socialist) candidates who have no chance of effecting anything. Then you can sit in your ivory tower and throw your intellectualisms down on those of us who understand that change involves compromise.

[Forkboy]

38. damn socialists!

[paulk]

62. it's not about socialism

It's about the constant trashing of the Democratic party and Kerry when the only alternative offered is a third party that has no chance of a voice in our political process.

What goal can possibly be served by calling Kerry a "repellent, lying swine"? I expect attacks like that on sites like free republic, not here on DU.

Mr. M has consistently advocated against the only realistic alternative we have to Bush in this upcoming election. He takes every opportunity to demean Kerry and the Democratic Party. What is served by this?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

40. "Compromise" - is that like "collateral damage"?

or, "regrettable civilian casualties"? Or, "fraternity hazing"?

Darn. Just 20,000+ dead (er..compromised) Iraqis and those durn Socialists are complaining again.

[Astarho]

37. Well said, Rich

welcome back

[G_j]

53. damn

it pains me greatly to say you are right in that the invasion was a crime against humanity and that we find ourselves being asked to support a platform that is essentially condoning this horrendous crime.

[Q]

71. All of this sounds rather familiar...

- After the 2000 selection...we were told to 'move on' and not worry about a stolen/fraudulent election....that 'looking forward' was more important than looking back. But how can we look forward until we understand the past and make necessary changes? Will 2004 be another 2000 because we didn't LEARN from the past and act on it?

- And what about 9-11? Is it none of OUR business that Bush* and Cheney obstructed justice and covered up evidence that implicated their Saudi friends? Should we NOT be concerned that our party helped cover it up?

- Many, many Americans knew that it was wrong to attack Iraq and they marched in the street...only to be called a 'focus group' by the so-called president* and completely ignored by the Dem party bosses.

[bigbillhaywood]

29. The whole fucking rotten system needs to be smashed

The Democratic Party is the graveyard of progressive causes. Better than the Republicans, but still hawkish, America-first, imperialist and corporate-dominated, and increasingly over the years, anti-labor.

[greatauntoftriplets]

41. Excellently stated as usual, Q.

The Iraqi invasion was destined to be FUBAR from the very first time it crossed the PNACers' minds.

If ***I*** could recognize that, why couldn't our leaders??? Except that I have no political ambitions, and so am not willing to sell my soul for votes that may or may not come to me.

On a side note, a good friend of mine is a supervisory psych nurse at a big VA hospital. According to her, the hospital is packed with young men injured in Iraq. The psych unit is overflowing with PTSD cases.

Meanwhile....check out the Iraq Body Count numbers, they keep growing and growing.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

[Tweed]

46. Edwards conitunes to say that the Iraq War was not a mistake... Kerry, not

Those are the two new leaders of the party. I don't think we have a clear answer to that one.

[Pepperbelly]

49. One thing I believe ... the Party MUST ...

absolutely MUST be sensative to those who have lost family members in that debacle or who have been wounded, of body or mind.

I do not know what would be best. I shrink back from telling a grieving mother, father, wife, fiance, child ... that their loved one died for NOTHING. I don't know that I am cruel enough to take away from them some meaning from the life and death of that person, some comfort that they can glean, rather than using those deaths for political gain or as a test of ideology.

I think that would be wrong.

A mistake, if you will.

[Q]

58. Bush* plays politics every day with the lives of soldiers...

...that he sends into harms way. He tells the relatives of the fallen that they're dying for 'freedom' against those who 'hate us for our freedom'. He doesn't go into detail to the point where he has to explain how killing Iraqis defends our freedom...but then few are asking for details.

- Those of us who protested the Vietnam war can see it happening all over again: American soldiers and innocents die by the score because the 'government' can't admit it made a mistake. Kerry needs to ask the question again: who wants to be the last to die....

[Pepperbelly]

65. my point is that it takes far more tact and sensitivity than your ...

original post indicated. I served in the military during Vietnam and I know the seriousness of the matter. Yet, the insane foibles demonstrated by Bush, the snickering, murdering giggler, do not justify pouring salt into some already bloody and painful injuries.

There is always more to consider than black and white.

on edit ... my son is also serving now although, thank hevens, he is far, far from the middle east.

[tinanator]

64. They already know

and there is nothing you can tell them. But they can tell you if you'll listen. Lila Lipscomb, is that her name? We both know what its about, and it aint the hokey pokey.

[dand]

50. It was a crime not a mistake, Dems were busy helping the

repubs loot the treasury, and cashing in on the pillaging and plundering in Iraq and Afghanistan, now they are all so fucking rich they could care less, they are set for life. the reasonable politicians who objected were treated like pariahs.

[Hippo_Tron]

56. The prolbem: You can't tell the troops that they are there for a mistake

Especially if you plan to stay the course. The fact is that the democrats made their bed and now they have to lay in it.

[mzmolly]

59. The official position is make up your own mind on the matter, we've

got to move forward - not look back.

I think the war was a mistake, but I don't speak for all Democrats.

[Q]

70. Move 'forward' and ignore...

...that OUR government is condoning everything from unprovoked, aggressive wars to war crimes?

- It's great that you think it was a 'mistake'. But that's not the 'official' party line. The official line is to tell all the 'complainers' to look forward, not back. AKA denial.

[mzmolly]

72. Ah yeah that's it.

:eyes:

It's not about denial. It's about recognizing (painful as it is) that not all Democrats agree on the war.

Can you provide the quote that refers to people like me as "complainers?"

[Q]

74. You mean they can't agree on the truth?

- Truth is fairly universal...like the sun rising in the east and setting in the west.

- What's the disagreement? That Bush* didn't exaggerate the threat? Sure he did...and every Democrat knows this to be a fact. That Bush* wanted to attack Iraq BEFORE he took office and dug up every lie, excuse and rationalization to accomplish his goal? Democrats KNEW that's what he was doing....as did the UN security council and most of the world's leaders.

- The division within the Democratic party will only get worse as one faction lives a lie and the other side CAN'T live with it.

- And yes...it IS about denial. The truth is that Bush* and our congress conspired against the American people to wage war against a country that posed NO THREAT to our security. WAR SHOULD ALWAYS BE A LAST RESORT. It was the FIRST RESORT when it came to Iraq. We need to encourage Democrats to tell the truth and let the chips fall where they may. Our soldiers and the Iraqi people deserve nothing less.

[mzmolly]

76. Your version of *truth* is not the version the entire body of America

subscribes to Q.

BTW, If you check the platform, some of your issues are actually addressed.

I suggest instead of "letting the chips fall where they may" we try to WIN THE FARGEN ELECTION.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

78. Black is White? 2 + 2 = 5? are just different "versions".

Because some people don't like the truth they are entitled to their "version" of it?

Well, I guess that falls under the same rubric of "truth" as:

The invasion of Iraq was to protect America.

The torture of prisoners was really just a version of innocent frat party hazing.

They aren't really dead civilians, they're collateral damage.

The insurgency in Iraq is just a handful of outside fanatics.

The people of Iraq love having American troops in their country.

War is peace.

[mzmolly]

79. I protested the war. I am greatly opposed.

Which is one major reason I want to WIN THE ELECTION.

The war was not a *mistake* it was a deliberate attempt to mislead the American public. To say it was a mistake is a "mistake" for obvious reasons.

Imagine if they find PROOF Bush lied before the election, and we've said in our platform "the war was a mistake." Or worse yet, What if they plant WMD's and the Democratic Party is on record saying "the war was a mistake"? No thanks. I'd rather leave it up to the individual to come to their own conclusion, rather then distract by characterizing this war in a manner that could be used against us later.

I mean shit, if it's about telling the truth, I suggest we go all out. Hell, why not put it MIHOP right in the platform?

Cripes people do we want to win this election or not!?

[Q]

81. There is only ONE 'version' of the truth....

...and that the 'entire body of America' doesn't understand this seems to be the crux of the matter. But then...they haven't been given all the information they need to make an informed opinion on the issue. Why? Because the corporate media and the Republican and Democratic parties don't WANT them to have the information they need to vote with informed consent.

[Disturbed]

73. PERSONAL issues.

Kerry's stands:

The illegal invasion of Iraq.
Support for continuing the Occupation
Voted for the Patriot Act
Gay Marriage- He's for civil unions and allowing the states to decide.
Israel-full support of Sharon

Yeah, I do have some PERSONAL issues.

[Hubert Flottz]

77. No it was lies not mistakes!

Premeditated lies!