Is there a Democratic position on Iraq?

[joemurphy]

Sure, it's a mess. But does our party have a position on it? If so, who is articulating it? And what is it?

[tk2kewl]

1. that is a fine question.

it is getting kind of late. a unified position should have been articulated long ago

[thoughtanarchist]

2. Look around.

Grassroots are defining the democratic position on Iraq. It's happening right now.

:toast:

[jsamuel]

17. It seems we are the only ones who have the guts to do it!

[Sgent]

3. Nope

its anywhere from the broken vase theory to the run away theory -- and none of it has been vetted by a large portion of the party.

I doubt in all honesty that we could agree on a theory either. :(

[DemonFighterLives]

4. The plan is get the dubbin hell out

Whatever it takes and let's get back to being peaceful humans.

[izzie]

5. I want them out now but the plan seems to be all over the place

Congress seems to be in a funk. What can they say? they voted for the GD thing, as if they were in fear of Georgie Boy and for got they did not have to turn over their power to the president.Plus they seem to have missed placed the fact that our FF set it up for people like us, who were to question our govt. Most every one seems to for get the war in Iraq is just what our FF did not want and they did want us to have power to question. :patriot:

[Telly Savalas]

12. Actually a majority of Democrats in the House voted against it...

and nearly half in the Senate did as well.

[madfloridian]

6. Well, Dean came around and said a few things.

He said the president as commander in chief needs to come up with a plan, as it was his blundering that got us there.

He did say he thought it would be soon, probably after the constitution was signed. He expressed sympathy for the women.

The party has a problem. We will see what happens in September when the fall conference is held and the agenda is formed. Here is the problem....the DC congressional leaders don't want Howard Dean as chair to set the policy on anything.

Trouble is they aren't setting the policy either. Many of them voted for the way, and many still approve of it...so they are in a bind.

Dean went as far as he could go Sunday, admitting we would most likely need to leave soon. The DLC type Dems want to stay....so it is problem.

[loverevolution]

26. excellent!

I am so glad that Dean now realizes we have to leave soon.

Here's the problem though, even the democrats who say we have to leave soon are suggesting that Bush come up with a plan.

Okay, who thinks that Bush is the best guy for this job? He is the fool that got us into this mess, it is his friends making all the money...does anyone really think he'll come up with a good plan for us to leave?

I think the dems should come up with their own coherent plan(ask Dennis Kucinich) and then use their opportunities on TV to explain it.

Bush is never planning on leaving. never.(see PNAC)

[leftchick]

7. yes.. it is "more troops"

ask biden, hillary, lieberman or reed to name a few.

[bpilgrim]

8. thats the DLC position, fer sure

we will know them by their words and deeds.

they are being very foolish trying to swim against the massive ground swell of opposition rising from every corner of this great land but i guess thats why they get paid the BIG BUCKS ;->

thank GORE he 'INVENTED' the INTERNETs :bounce:

peace

[leftchick]

10. I agree bpilgrim

If any of them have a hope of getting the Dem. nomination in 2008 they had better start fucking paying attention to their base.

[welshTerrier2]

18. and Kerry to name another ...

many are speculating that bush will reduce the number of troops in Iraq next year just in time for the 2006 midterms ...

don't be fooled by this though ... the battle for control of the oil markets, and that's ultimately what this is really about no matter how sophisticated others may get with their analysis, is not just going to end ...

look for troop strength to be increased after the US elections ... and the Democrats? ... they'll be standing with bush yet again ...

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

9. When you figure it out, let me know.

Seriously though, I think there are many varying approaches. Most sensible folks recognize that we cannot pull our troops out tomorrow, or set artificial timetables when we will pull them out. I think there is debate about when we should pull troops out, or if we should reduce or increase troop levels.

Of course, there is the overall debate about the war itself. You have your hawks (like me, Joe Biden, etc), and those that opposed the war and still oppose it.

[bpilgrim]

11. no one is saying "pull our troops out tomorrow"

but wtf is wrong with setting up "timetables" for pulling out?!?

"You have your hawks (like me, Joe Biden, etc), and those that opposed the war and still oppose it."

oh, you are a war supporter... never mind!

BTW: are you posting from iraq or afghanistan?

tia :hi:

peace

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

19. While we views have been automatically invalidated in your mind,

I'll answer your question anyway.

If you set an artificial timetable, in forces us to work within what may become an unrealistic framework of victory. Also, it simply tells the terrorists and insurgents when we're leaving, thus allowing them to hide for awhile, thus giving us a false sense of security. I realize this may be hard for you to grasp, due to the fact that Bush has made this his policy, but one plus one doesn't stop being two, just because Bush said it equals two.

Oh, and I'm writing this from America, thanks to the freedom our troops risk their lives daily to defend.

[bpilgrim]

22. "Most sensible folks recognize" - that is YOUR quote from your OP, hello..

"If you set an artificial timetable, in forces us to work within what may become an unrealistic framework of victory. Also, it simply tells the terrorists and insurgents when we're leaving, thus allowing them to hide for awhile, thus giving us a false sense of security."

that's all you got, the neoCON & DLC line and you got the nerve to call that an ANSWER and me closed minded - :crazy:

Oh, and I'm writing this from America, something that myself and my family, friends and neighbors wore the uniform for, to defend and PRESERVE, NOT what is going on now-a-days, our foreign policy, crafted by the FUCKING CRAZIES and executed by our military and intel are putting every single american in greater danger with each pass'n day.

two

peace

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

25. I never questioned your service. I honor it completely.

It wasn't my intention to offend. There are plenty of sensible people who oppose this war for legitimate and principled reasons, but I just think the "pull out now" approach is a mistake. That may be the DLC line, but it's not exactly false.

But, hey, I'm open to persuasion. Convince me why I'm wrong.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

13. "We Democrats don't govern like those STUPID FUCKS"

"If you like FUCKTARDS who invade countries for no reason and wreck the economy, then vote Repuke. If you like a great economy and intelligent foreign policy, vote for us."

That's good enough for me. They don't have to come up with a solution to IDIOT SON'S disaster.

[RSchewe]

14. Yes! Of course Democrats have a position on Iraq...

There are 3 camps:

a. for the war
b. against the war
c. well it depends on what the meaning of war is...

[Zorra]

15. Rep. Kucinich is articulating the Democratic position on Iraq. The DLC

is articulating the republican position on Iraq.
http://www.kucinich.us/archive/report/display.php?r=36&d=2005-06-10+18%3A34%3A44

[joemurphy]

16. Well, we better get a f...g position pronto, dontcha think.

It seems to me any position we take should be based on truth, pragmatism, humanitarian principles, and our own long-range self-interests.

I think our position should be something like this:

1. There will be a full investigation of the Bush manipulation of pre-war Iraq intelligence under a Democratic administration. We won't be naming any airports, schools, or public buildings after George W. Bush until this investigation is concluded. We will have to see to it that wars like Iraq never occur again and those that manipulated intelligence are revealed and removed from positions of power.

2. We should explain to the American people that there were no WMDs and that our original rationale for war was either mistaken or consciously manufactured.

3. While our rationale for war was bogus, at least one positive thing resulted from our intervention. Saddam Hussein -- by anyone's measure, a monster -- was removed from power. As a result, Iraqis were given an opportunity to run their own country as they desired.

4. We have tried to assist the Iraqis in implementing a democracy and helping them to train security forces.

5. Unfortunately our continued presence in Iraq is exacerbating Iraq's problems and not making them better. Too many Iraqis rightly or wrongly perceive us as occupiers. Our building huge military bases and erecting the largest embassy in the Middle East have not allayed Iraqi perceptions that we intend to remain there permanently.
We must assure both the Iraqis and the American people that we have no plans to stay in Iraq and desire to leave responsibly, but rapidly.

6. We have to explain to both the American and the Iraqi people that in view of the foregoing we are implementing measured withdrawals of our military and civilian personnel. This will be done without any expressed or pre-announced timetables. This should be done expeditiously but responsibly. UN, NATO or Arab League peacekeeping troops should replace ours if this is at all feasible.

7. We need to assure the Iraqis that we wish to remain friendly with any legitimately elected government they install and that we are leaving because the American people never intended to exploit their country or be its occupiers in the first place. We will continue to assist the Iraqis financially with the reconstruction of their country so long as our desire for peace and friendship is reciprocated by the Iraqis.

8. When we withdraw, the supposition is that Iraq will then either sink or swim. We need to prepare for any contingencies. If the country devolves into a violent civil war or breaks apart, we will have to pursue the most reasonable options and do our best to lessen the violence and broker a peace. But whatever happens, we must make it clear that Iraq will have to ultimately be responsible for its own fate.

9. We then have to take care of our troops. VA has to be funded. Their sacrifices honored. Our military has to be rebuilt and its capabilities and staffing issues thoroughly examined and reconsidered.

[oasis]

20. The Democrat position on Iraq covers the spectrum. Not a party of

people prone to fall into lockstep.

[rumpel]

21. Here is Tom Hayden in the LATimes:

An exit strategy for Iraq now
By Tom Hayden, TOM HAYDEN is a former state senator and the author of "Street Wars" (Dimensions, 2004).

PRESIDENT BUSH HAS so far fended off Cindy Sheehan, a grieving mother demanding to know the "noble purpose" of her son's death in Iraq. However, Bush has been forced to address the existence of the antiwar constituency for perhaps the first time, if only to distort and discredit its message of "troops out now." It is the right moment for the peace movement to turn its slogan into a strategy.

The rallying cry of "out now" expresses the belief that the Iraq war is not worth another minute in lost lives, lost honor, lost taxes, lost allies. But its very simplicity makes the demand easy to ignore or dismiss.

snip

Peace movement advocates have lobbied successfully for members of Congress to hold Capitol Hill forums in mid-September to explore exit strategies. Here is a starting point that is being discussed in peace circles. It is based on deciding now to get out of Iraq and outlining how to do it. The basis of the plan is a shift from a military model to a conflict-resolution model, then to a peace process that ends in a negotiated political settlement alongside a U.S. withdrawal. The main themes are these:

First, as confidence-building measures, Washington should declare that it has no interest in permanent military bases or the control of Iraqi oil. It must immediately announce goals for ending the occupation and bringing all our troops home — in months, not years, beginning with an initial gesture by the end of this year.

Second, the U.S. should request that the United Nations, or a body blessed by the U.N., monitor the process of military disengagement and de-escalation, and take the lead in organizing a peaceful reconstruction effort.

more at:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-hayden16aug16,0,7169089.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

[KharmaTrain]

23. Why Should There Be?

Give Repugnicans ammo to ridicule or to use in running from their own lies and hypocrisies. They created this mess, now let them figure a way out...we didn't help them create the mess, why give them a lifeline?

Also any proposal that is "official" surely opens up places like DU into a battle ground of various factions who will think the position doesn't go far enough.

[bpilgrim]

24. they don't call'm leaders for noth'n

and then there are those who are call'n for sending in MORE troops as a plan :argh:

we need our leaders to point out bush's failures, to point-out there is no military solution!!! and to begin demanding an exit strategy with TIMELINES for bringing our troops home asap.

peace