Pro-war Democrats

[pberq]

Can someone explain to me why the Democratic establishment is pushing two pro-war candidates for 2008?

Whlie both Hillary and Joe Biden may criticize Bush for the way he has handled the Iraq war, they have been staunch supporters of this illegal and immoral disaster since day one.

Now with Cindy Sheehan and the incredible outpouring of support, it puts the DLC hijacking of the Democratic party into greater perspecitve as one of the major disasters of American politics.

[jrthin]

1. Since Hillary and

Biden are so pro-war, maybe they too would like to send their children to Iraq to put their children where their mouths are.

[moddemny]

99. "Since Hillary and Biden are so pro-war"

I don't think Hillary or Biden are pro-war they just don't like give awaying national security issues to Republicans like everyone's friend here, Howard Dean.

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

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

[moddemny]

112. Automactically calling someone a dlc operative.......

is the brain dead reply.

[mattclearing]

122. But the DLC bot that can't spell automatically is clearly sporting high IQ

:D

[moddemny]

125. Clinging to a typo to win a debate?

...

[mattclearing]

127. You cast the first stone with your "brain dead" comment.

If you took people seriously, perhaps you'd read what you've written. If you did, you'd see that you've made no cogent argument either.

[moddemny]

128. I cast the first stone?

You haven't been following the thread very well, I didnt make the first "brain dead" comment. I was replying to someone aiming that comment at me....... reply 109 (I wish the mod hadn't deleted the message, I'm a big boy, I can take the insults). You have 1000+ posts you should be able to follow a thread by now and figure out who is replying to what.


"If you took people seriously, perhaps you'd read what you've written. If you did, you'd see that you've made no cogent argument either."


I am taking people seriously, Biden and Hillary are serious candidates. Whether you find the argument cogent or not depends how closely you followed the Presidential race in 2003 and early 2004. Most people would recall Dean flinging the term "Bush-lite" at every candidate who was trying to sound strong on national security. Putting forward a coherent national security policy doesn't necessarily make one "Pro-War". Hillary and Biden know much better the audience they are playing too. I am going to leave the interpretation of that little hint to you. Some things require a little reading between the lines and are better left unspoken. It may seem a little puzzling but the best chance for peace may be with a Democrat who is "Pro-War".

[mattclearing]

129. This is just like what Kerry did...he voted for the war and then

the Right Wing hung him for it. You can't put up a decent opposition if you aren't willing to stand up on principle against things you genuinely don't believe in.

When Republicans vote for war, it's because they're pro-war. When Democrats do it, it's because they're afraid of looking soft. It's pandering, and Kerry proved it doesn't work.

Good luck in '08, cause you're going to need it.

[moddemny]

134. Part of the problem ......

.....here I guess is the fundamental way people view the world........


When Howard Dean says we can't beat Bush by being Bush-lite, he makes it sound like there will no longer be any threats to America or our Allies the day he becomes President. I personally don't think there will be true peace on earth for at least another 100 years (40 years is the most optimistic I get). Others may disagree, they may think it can happen tomorrow, many will say it will never happen or take much longer, at least 500, 700, 1000 years or more, who knows? Until we reach that ideal state, there will be individuals who, no matter how hard or how long you try to constructively engage them, will continue to want to harm us and others despite our best peaceful efforts. Therefore a Democrat who espouses a strong national security isn't necessarily being disingenuous, they just have to portray Republicans as being warmongers who actively seek confrontation before exhausting all forms of diplomacy, economic penalties/sanctions, etc. It's not a matter of sacrificing principles, it's a choice between a party who will only use war as an extreme last resort or a party who is willing to sacrifice the last 50 years of international progress and cooperation and make war a routine part of their policy.


As far as 2008, I think it's to far away to tell what will be the dominating issue......... my complaint is the way 2004 was handled. Democrats could have made a better case of how they are competent on national security/military matters by pointing what Clinton did in Bosnia, Kosovo, Haiti (especially since Clark was on our side) but were afraid of the Dean base going nuts. Many swing voters in 2004 wanted a party that would fight if necessary but at the same time not rush to war. Kerry was interested more in appeasing Dean's mailing list than winning over national security swing voters, hence he came across as soft. Dean supporters seem more interested in losing the whole election like Naderites in 2000 than gaining a foothold in a Presidency much more receptive to their ideals. They want to seize the objective all at once and are not satsified with step by step progress. The end result is you lose everything.


Note: Before you all jump down my throat I am not saying there weren't plenty of other factors in 2004 am I just pointing one out that is often overlooked. What I wrote above is a slight oversimplification. I don't have the time to write all I would like to right now (I'm going to get flamed anyway).

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. The DLC is just a home for "moderate" Republicans.

And, of course, ambitious politicians with the ethical standards of land developers or pharmaceutical companies.

[Autonomy]

3. We were going to war

with or without the support of a single Democrat. It was a political necessity for Senators with presidential aspirations to toe the line on Iraq. Remember it is Bush's war, not Clinton's or Biden's or any other Democrat's.

[BillZBubb]

4. True to a degree

But by supporting the war in any way, they have pretty much eliminated themselves as effective critics of the war.

Look at how badly Kerry did with his nuanced criticism. There simply isn't enough wiggle room for the IWR supporters to differentiate themselves from whomever the Repugs put up on Iraq. Anything they say can and will be painted as a flip-flop by the Repugs and the corporate media.

BTW, I think you are incorrect about the necessity of toeing the line on the IWR vote. There were plenty of effective (and correct) arguments against voting for it.

[Autonomy]

12. Yeah, remember Kerry and Clelland

Two highly decorated veterans who they smeared as 'soft on defense'. Imagine what they would do to an actual anti-war candidate. So Clinton's and Biden's message becomes uncomfortably nuanced... they can't go back now, or else be labeled... you guessed it: flip-floppers.

This scenario is a lot like 1968, after Johnson dropped out. Nixon positioned himself as the moderate, "slow withdraw" candidate, and Humphrey was the closest to an anti-war candidate. Nixon, of course, trounced Humphrey. And you all know what happened next.

[Armstead]

19. Kerry was done in by the "flip flop" attack

The GOP would have attacked Kerry as an anti-war peacenik even if he'd grabbed a machine gun and heasded to Baghdad personally.

His "yes" today, "no" tomorrow, "maybe" the day after is what caused him problems.

IMO if he had come ouit clearly against this war from the beginning like Ted Kennedy, and stuck to his guns, he would have had a lot more of an electable position.

[Autonomy]

25. If that were true

wouldn't an anti-war candidate have won the nomination in the first place?

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

30. Anyone asked Hagel or Jones if they are 'flipflopping'?

[dsc]

58. Had Saddam not been captured in December

an anti war candidate would have won.

[Larkspur]

65. The Dem Establishment is enslaved to corporate interests who profit off of

war and/or are enslaved to AIPAC and the Likkudites running Israel. They will willingly sell the soul of the Dem Party to make sure an anti-war candidate does not win. That's what happened to Howard Dean, who is not a pacifiist but correctly opposed the 2003 Iraq war.

I will not vote for a pro-war Dem candidate in '06 or '08. Sen. Lieberman is up for election in '06 and I will write in Rachel Corrie's name instead of voting for that traiter.

[pberq]

76. That's it in a nutshell, Larkspur!

"The Dem Establishment is enslaved to corporate interests who profit off of war and/or are enslaved to AIPAC and the Likkudites running Israel. They will willingly sell the soul of the Dem Party to make sure an anti-war candidate does not win."

This needs to be told to all Democrats.

[Zhade]

82. I can think of two easy examples: Feinstein and Harman.

Feinstein, whose husband's Carlye Group-linked company directly profits off the war, and Harman (L.A. rep) who receives 70%+ campaign contributions from weapons contractors.

[Armstead]

74. Because the media and Democratic establishment...

convinced too many primary voters that it would be fatal to nominate an anti-war candidate because it would make the party seem "too far left."

They didn't support those who had principled support for the war either, like Gephardt. Instead the "maybe this, maybe that" strategy of the Bob Schrums won out.

[pberq]

41. Yeah, except the problem was, Humphrey was not a true antiwar candidate

[BillZBubb]

71. Some revisionist history there.

Humphrey was not, and did not run as an anti-war candidate. That was his biggest mistake. He wanted to remain loyal to Johnson's policies as the sitting Vice President, so he didn't criticize the war at all until almost the end of the campaign.

Bobby Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy were the anti-war candidates, not Humphrey. Humphrey was tied to Johnson's pro-war policy, that's why he lost.

Nixon was free to criticize the war because he had no IWR equivalent on his record.

[Autonomy]

75. Ok, it was a poor comparison

but I was trying to highlight the fact that Nixon's "secret withdraw" plan was disingenuous, like Hagel's position now. Humphrey did call for a bombing halt and continuation of the Great Society, but it was too little too late.

[pberq]

5. O.K. may be that was true in 2002, BUT this is 2005!

The quagmire in Iraq has been increasing for over two years, the majority of the country believes Bush lied to us, the huge support for Cindy Sheehan has shown that the country is against this war.

So why can't these "leaders" come out against the war. Who do they need to toe the line for, other than the neocons in the DLC?

[NYCGirl]

8. So they won't be painted as "soft on defense,"

one of the more effective RW smears that's been used against Democrats.

[Zhade]

47. So they should embrace an ongoing war crime for PR purposes?

Let's be honest, if not "soft on defense" it would be some other lie.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

6. Explain the 'necessity' of it please. And why is it not 'necessary' for

Repubs like Chuck Hagel to 'toe the line' now? I don't see the RW media machine bearing down on him for speaking 'heresy'.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. "Political necessity" cost thousands of lives.

If anything, they are even more contemptable than Bush and his cronies.

[TankLV]

20. Right. So much for personal integrity and sticking to one's beliefs.

Sigh.

Got to go which way the wind is blowing in order to "get elected".

Really serves us well (sarcasm off).

[JanMichael]

89. "We were against the war, our deputies, our Ministers, were all against...

...the war," cry the French petty bourgeois : "Therefore, it follows, that we have the war forced upon us, and in order to realise our pacific ideals we must pursue the war to a victorious end." And the representative of French pacifism, Baron d’Estournel de Constant, consecrates this pacifist philosophy with a solemn "jusqu’au bout !"—war to the end !

That pretty much sums it up.

[renaissanceguy]

95. Well, the political climate changes.

As you can see, the American public obviously no longer supports this war. Now how will the politicians explain themselves? If they had stood strong on principle, and not look at temporary poll numbers, they will fare much better in '06 and '08.

This is not just Bush's war. Constitutionally, only Congress can authorize war. Had they stood on principle, the chimp wouldn't have been able to declare war.

I won't be surprised if in '08 we experience what we did in '00: true liberals and progressives voting Green, and the Dems getting pissed off at them. It seems the Dems (especially DLCers on here) want the liberals to line up and vote for center-right politicians who just happen to have a "D" next to their names. They don't respect people voting their conscience--it's all about political calculation with them, and that is what turns people off to politics.

If the Dems want my vote, they better act like Dems. I have no problem voting my conscience--it is my right. And if the Dem party loses because of it, well, maybe they should rethink their "strategy."

[KnowerOfLogic]

98. No. F-ing. Way. A vote on war is the time to stand up, not the time

to consider the next election. Period.

[Inland]

7. "Pro-war". Nice sound bite. Short and slanderous.

Putting either Clinton or Biden as "pro war" or "staunch supporters of the illegal and immoral disaster" is incredibly unfair.

Both, along with most americans, made the mistake of thinking that a president must know what he's talking about, or at least not out and out lying, when it comes to matters of peace and war.

Both made the mistake of believing Bush when Bush said he would seek to make the war, well, legal by going to the UN.

But to call them staunch supporters since day one is to pretend that they are basically Bush, or Wolfowitz. That's not true.

We all know that the republicans will lie about democrats. YOu help them: now as democrats try to force troops to come home, they can say that they are flipping, because before they were staunch supporters.

Putting the lie out there simply makes it easier to prolong the war.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. Humbug. They voted for the war and still support the occupation.

They made it possible for the slaughter to take place in deference to their political ambitions.

[Autonomy]

14. The first order of business for a politician

is to get elected. Without that, they have nothing. That's the sad truth about living in a democracy.

[Zhade]

54. Yeah, even if it's on the graves of the innocent.

What's really sad is that you actually think this is a democracy!

[Autonomy]

78. Well, I don't think I am posting on a site called...

DictatorshipUnderground. :7

[Zhade]

81. Nope, I checked, you're not.

Of course, the name of this website has zero to do with the political reality of the country...

[Autonomy]

85. And so does wishful thinking

[Zhade]

87. There's a difference between wishful thinking and idealism.

The former is useless, while the latter can help us strive to make things better - like breaking out of the 'lesser of two evils' cycle we seem to keep repeating.

Just because this country is right-leaning and protofascist doesn't mean we have to find that acceptable.

[Autonomy]

91. The difference between idealism and wishful thinking is

the former is your personal moral compass, and the latter is your belief that everyone else should have the same ideals. You're right; wishful thinking is useless.

[Zhade]

93. That's not wishful thinking, that's arrogance.

Granted, I'm arrogant enough to think everyone should believe that it's wrong to attack and invade countries that didn't harm or even threaten to harm us, but hey, I'm just a big narcissist that way.

[Autonomy]

97. Hey, why not both?

There's no reason why they have to be mutually exclusive failings.

I believe the same as you, but I don't think the same as you. I just leave out the operative "should" from your statement and aim more for "could".

That's why I shun Democratic party cannibalism.

edit: grammar

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

66. Yes. At any price. Even the bodies of people.

Fortunately, living in an alleged democracy gives us the right to not vote for them when they show such egregious disdain for human lives sacrificed to further their careers.

[Inland]

28. No, they didn't "vote for the war."

I'm not going to defend what they actually voted for--giving Bush the authority to make the decision, after going to the UN and exhausting all alternatives in his judgment--but I'm sure not going to make it what it wasn't.

I don't know who is helped by mis-characterizing what they did, or are doing, besides republicans. Now anyone who is anybody can be portrayed as a war supporter who has simply flip flopped. Now republicans can claim, "but it wasn't Bush's war, Hillary and Biden were for it too!".

All you do is portray the war as a mainstream proposition that everyone but a few particular people supported. It doesn't so much slap them around as make the war a mainstream, popular war. It lets everyone off the hook in exchange for making sure that Hillary or Biden don't' get the nomination.

Which is, of course, typical of democrats. Doing the repubs dirty work for them, thinking we have a way to win and as we maneuver for advantage in the primaries, self destructing.

[pberq]

40. Sorry, but they knew what they were doing when they voted for

the Iraq resolution. There was plenty of evidence in 2002 that Bush was lying, which meant there was no good reason for them to give their support

So why do you defend their immoral actions?

[paulk]

79. What were they doing?

They weren't giving "support" - they were giving permission, under a certain set of conditions, to use military force in making Saddam Hussein comply with certain UN resolutions. One of which was to get arms inspectors back into Iraq after an absence of four years, which the IWR did accomplish. Bush, of course, didn't allow them to complete their job.

In fact, Bush met none of the conditions set out by the IWR. He cited WMD and the imminent threat Iraq posed to our national security as his reasons for invasion. Both of these claims have proven to be false, which makes Bush not only a liar, but a war criminal.

Why do you accuse the Senators who voted for the IWR of being "immoral"? They acted in good faith, considering the information supplied.

Bush is the immoral one here.

[Zhade]

84. If we go with your interpretation, a question arises:

What of those dozens of Dems who voted NO on IWR? Did they just have more foresight into how things would play out? Did they realize there was no threat from Iraq?

How do you explain the discrepancy? I'm genuinely curious to know your view.

[paulk]

96. I'm sure there were different reasons for different people

Some, like Robert Byrd, voted no because they felt that a war resolution skirted the prerequisite of declaring war, which is a duty of the Senate. Others felt Bush was lying, or that even if he wasn't, Iraq posed no threat. Others voted no because it's what their constituents wanted and they knew there would be no political price to pay.


I don't think "foresight into how it would play out" is the right question. Bush would have invaded whether there was an IWR or not, for the same reasons he gave in the notification requirement of the IWR. So, a lot of it did come down to political calculation, being in the midst of the midterm elections and all. Some of them still have explaining to do AFAIC - blue staters like Clinton, Biden, and Lieberman especially. Kerry, who I was initially the most upset with, probably did include an element of political protection in his decision. He was shut out of being Gore's VP because of his vote against the 1991 resolution, after all. On the other hand, I think Kerry really did think that Saddam was a threat to the stability of the region - and that is supported by things he said in the late nineties when Clinton was still Pres. Kerry felt that the threat of the IWR would force Saddam into letting arms inspectors back in, which in fact it did accomplish.

[Zhade]

114. Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

He was shut out of being Gore's VP because of his vote against the 1991 resolution, after all.

Do you have a source for this? Not questioning your conclusion, just curious, since I haven't heard that before.

[paulk]

117. well, it's known that Kerry was on Gore's shortlist

along with Lieberman, Edwards, Evan Bayh, and Dick Gephardt.

I can't link to anything definitive, I've just read in several places over the years that Gore's decision was infuenced by what I mentioned - he was afraid that Kerry would be smeared as too much of an anti war liberal based on the 1991 vote - that and his VVAW Senate hearings.

[Zhade]

120. Sad that we live in a country where such views would be a liability!

NT!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

68. Hillary and Biden were for it. And, still are.

Whose purpose does it serve to apologize for those who supported the slaughter because they claim to be Democrats?

[Inland]

101. What purpose does the truth serve, besides peace and justice?

The TRUTH is that NO dems "voted for war." The TRUTH is that those who voted to give Bush the authority were defrauded.

The LIE is that there is no difference between Bush and the democrats who voted on the authorization, that all are equally pro war. It's a lie that's as easily told by republican neocons trying to escape blame by saying that everybody is equally to blame--and in fact, if you try to blame Bush for the war, THEY TOO trot out the authorization vote.

Because, after all, the neocons don't care about blame as long as it doesn't translate to somebody else being elected. The next Bushite can have 33% approval for backing the war, but as long as the democrats can't capitalize, they win. And one way the democrats can't capitalize is someone pulling out some bullshit about most congressional democrats being "pro war" and "staunch supporters from day one" and "supported the slaughter." What they supported was disarming Saddam, and while I don't defend their naive belief in the president's assertion that's what was going on, a representation of bloodiness is an insult to the citizens of the US who also believed the president and also backed the war until the truth started coming out.

Me, I prefer to stick to the truth. You may call that a pointless apology, but I call it the truth. This war was built on lies and it isn't going to end by making up more. Lies and misrepresentation of political opposition is the Bush administration ocean, and if you think that you can swim faster in it than those sharks, fine with you.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

103. The "truth" is that they acted like the opportunistic politicians they are

Get over it. The ones who voted FOR the war do not deserve the support or the votes of those against the war and occupation.

If you can rationalize their obvious collaboration with the other war crimimals that launched the invasion, have at it.

"They too trot out the authorization vote..". With good reason. Because a number of alleged progressives supported, and still support, the occupation.

As for insulting the "citizens who also believed" - tough. They deserve to be insulted for backing an obvious act of military aggression against a non-threatening sovereign country that killed tens of thousands of people.

You can call what you are rationalizing "the truth" or you can call it strawberry ice cream. Don't make it so.

[Inland]

104. And your proof of that, is that they didn't agree with you. Nothing more.

And you can't even get close enough to the truth to admit that they didn't "vote for the war."

Now its "obvious collaboration with war criminals". Now its a "non-threatening sovereign country", as if that wasn't the very fraud perpetrated.

All you are doing is ratcheting up the rhetoric, and in doing so, getting farther and farther away from the truth, without the brevity of the "pro war" soundbite.

But we can see where it is going...they don't deserve the support of those against the war, like you, so you can make things up.

I didn't support the war, either. I didn't support the authorization vote, I didn't believe there was sufficient danger.

Why don't I get to lie about people who I don't want to get reelected?

Here I am, caught between republicans who want to neuter democrats and third party people who want the same thing, collaborating--and I use the word for its connotation of betrayual--on a consistent set of lies. The third party people think that with this disasterous war, their time has come---with a strategy that involves insulting people for trusting politicians and then telling them they deserved it.

I think you end up with a 2000 result, more war, and less peace. Yeah, if I could see the Iraq debacle coming, I sure can see the 2008 debacle at least that clearly.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

106. Well, keep on defending the politicians who put their ambitions first.

And, you can keep on calling it the "truth".

"I didn't support the war or the authorization vote..". Then why are you defending the politicians that did? If you could see through the sham, why would you support those you consider too stupid or naive that did? Not that I think that they were too stupid or naive, but scheming, ambitous politicians who went along with the program as laid out by BushCorp to further their own ends.

Why would anyone in their right mind trust politicians of any stripe?

As for a "third party" whose time has come. I sincerely hope so. It would be ever so nice to have a democracy in this country instead of the domination of the two capitalist parties beholden to their fatcat masters.

And, if the folks too dumb or gullible to question the motives of politicians want to take it as an insult to be called on it, so be it.

Maybe it's time for them to start paying attention.

[Inland]

110. The truth is the truth. You can decide if it's a defense.

I don't get the idea that if the democrats did something you consider indefensible--like give Bush authority--that you get to make stuff up about them. My guess is that we all know that the sin of believing Bush isn't good enough to get rid of them, so you feel that you have to spice it up a little with a few lies.

I don't support stupid or naive. But I don't see the fact that someone is stupid and naive as reason to say they are intentionally complicit with the Bush means or ends. In fact, I rarely see a reason to spread lies.

But then again, I'm not trying to kill the democratic party, either, without another alternative available besides republicans.

Good luck with the concept of a thrid party while saying that a) people shouldn't trust politicians and b) making lies an acceptable tool. Let me give you some advice: if you are going to stretch the truth to the voters, you can't simultaneously tell them that politicians aren't to be trusted. See what I mean about republicans being better at the whole lying to people thing? You can't even do it right.

Back to the future. 2000 redux.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

118. Just where are the "lies" you are talking about?

You seem to be fond of flinging the words "truth" and "lies" around without any backup to your assertions.

Just because they "are naive or stupid" doesn't make them complicit? OK. As I said, I don't believe that the politicians who voted for the war..er, "authorization", are either "naive" or "stupid" as you believe.
Therefore, they, like most of the rest of the world knew that Bush was going to war in Iraq. That makes them complicit. Or, are you relying on the "good German" defense of "I knew nothing."?

Do you trust politicians? Do you really think that Biden, Kerry, Hillary, Lieberman, and the rest of the collaborators didn't know what they were voting for? That they were amateur that they didn't take the polls and the vengeful mood of the country into account when they jumped on the Bush ship? Then your naivete is beyond redemption.

Back to the future redux 2000 indeed. When the Democrats ran a candidate who tried to become a Republican - and lost. Just as they did in 2004.

Your loyalty to a party that has sold out (and continues to do so) is touching. The bosses appreciate it.

[Inland]

121. What, haven't I been clear?

"Pro war."

"Staunch supporters from day one"

"Complicit". Yes, naive and stupid doesn't make one complicit in the fraud. It makes them a victim of the fraud.

Nor does it make them "collaborators". A collaborator is one who betrays in order to give aid and comfort to the enemy. It's a conscious act. That's why I don't list Hillary and Biden and many others as collaborators, since they were signing on to a war for anything except the threat which Bush knew was far from a proven fact. A collaborator would be someone who, while pretending to be a democrat, takes up a republican line, like "all these democrats are just as pro war as Bush". It isn't true.

And by the way, loyalty isn't a bad thing in itself. It sure beats pretending to be a democrat and yet taking the side of republicans--and that, by the way, is what happened in 2000 and what you are doing now. All you are doing is equating centrist democrats with far right wing republicans, with the hope of dooming centrist democrats.

That will have the effect of a) making the neo cons look like the mainstream, when they are not, and b) destroying the centrist democrats and giving the republicans a victory. Again.

No, I'm not naive. I'm not naive enough to think that if one just clears the centrist democrats out of the way, the country will pick leftists. That's the silly hope you are riding on: that if you limit the choices by eliminating the democratic party. You will get half way there: the republicans will join you in hurting democrats but that's as far as you'll get.

But go ahead and take up republican neocon themes, as if that weren't naive. Swim in the sea with those sharks. Save your true bile for those who are close to your position. The republicans will help with money and everything.

[karynnj]

105. The best clue to those who genuinely want to get out

as quickly as possible without causing greater chaos - Is whether they are willing to lobby for NO LONG TERM BASES in Iraq.

[liberaliraqvet26]

13. Amen...

they are not "Pro War". They are looking for a way to clean up the Bush mess in Iraq without an immediate pullout. Dont forget they were lied to like everyone else. Lets not skin our own, there are many on the other side of the aisle to go after.

[TankLV]

21. So they are opportunists whores, willing to sell out to the highest bidder

then.

Nice qualities.

[Telly Savalas]

22. There were 21 Democratic Senators and well over 100 House members...

who were "lied to like everyone else" yet somehow were able to cut through the bullshit and vote against the Iraq War Resolution.

[Autonomy]

And name one

who has a chance at being elected president.

[wuushew]

27. Russ Feingold 2008

no on Patriot Act, no on IWR.

:dem:

[Autonomy]

34. I've not seen a poll that includes Feingold

But it's still early. I tend to look at http://www.pollingreport.com/2008.htm to keep track of where potential candidates stand.

[pberq]

70. Yes! Feingold is our best bet as of now

[FightinNewDem]

119. A whiff of hypocrisy

Yet Feingold cavorts around New Hampshire supporting an anti-labor, special-interest captive like Manchester Mayor Bob Baines?

Physician, heal thyself.

[wuushew]

124. Anti-War > Pro-labor

Here is our good "friend" Dick Gephardt sticking up for American Imperialism



Also the AFL-CIO consistantly gives Feingold good marks on his voting record. I would hardly call 90% + voting marks as sign of being anti-labor.



Votes Lifetime
Votes 2004
Right Lifetime
Right
Senator 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 * R W R W % %

Feingold (D) W R R R R R R R R R R R Y 11 1 117 7 92% 94 %

http://www.aflcio.org/issues/legislativealert/votes/member.cfm?state=WI&page=1

[Zhade]

60. So it's okay to allow oneself to be 'fooled' for political expediency?

Are you trying to say that having a chance at being elected president excuses not digging into the truth as much as the Dems who voted NO on the IWR?

[Autonomy]

No, but I am not expecting an excuse

I am saying that voting against the resolution giving Bush the authority to go to war would NOT have stopped the war, but would have stopped that candidate's chances of molding foreign policy as president later.

We already have the proof: Democrats nominated a pro-resolution (which is not the same a "pro-war"!) candidate in 2004. I suspect the same will be true in 2008, but that remains to be seen.

[pberq]

72. I don't believe that for a second.

You are trying to say that going along with an immoral, dishonest and illegal war is the only way to have a chance of molding foreign policy as President later?????

Sorry, but I have greater faith in the American people than that.

[Zhade]

73. I think you actually answered me in the affirmative.

"...voting against the resolution giving Bush the authority to go to war ... would have stopped that candidate's chances of molding foreign policy as president later."

In other words, 'they had to vote yes because otherwise they wouldn't be able to become president'.

Now, I understand your other point - that a Dem president might craft a different FP than a Republican one (though that's iffy, see Viet Nam) - but you're still basically saying that having a Dem in the WH overrode the need to make as informed a vote as possible.

Some (not saying you) might argue that those who voted yes WERE informed, to which I'd have to argue that if they were informed, they chose political expediency over the truth, and that's not acceptable to me.

[Autonomy]

77. I don't think it's all that iffy

Clinton was the quintessential DLC president and did not, in 8 years, change the policy of containment of Saddam Hussein, even when cajoled by the now-infamous neocon memo.

[Zhade]

80. Yeah, and the 'containment' including constant bombings...

...horrific sanctions, and illegal non-U.N.-sanctioned 'no-fly' zones.

If your point was that Clinton was marginally better on Iraq than b*s*, I'll grant that - but only because Clinton was not stupid enough to invade a country that didn't attack us.

He had no problem yanking weapons inspectors and bombing unprovoked, though.

Regardless, Lyndon Johnson shows that it can, indeed, be iffy.

[Autonomy]

83. I'll take a Democrat who is "marginally better" on FP

and hands down, no comparison, vastly better on domestic policy, than a Republican anyday. Those are the choices, as I see them.

edit: addendum: tho I would argue that Clinton was more than just "marginally better" than Bush on Iraq!

[Zhade]

86. So the only choices in this country are 'kinda militaristic'...

...and 'full-blown nutjob militaristic'?

Remind me why people think the U.S. is the greatest country on earth, again?

[pberq]

88. Cindy Sheehan might have changed that

Isn't it possible with the incredible response to Cindy Sheehan that, just maybe, we may have a choice other than the better of two evils?

I know that the power structure is doing everything they can to keep the status quo, but guess what, we outnumber them!

[Zhade]

90. I think it was possible long before Cindy.

Not taking anything away from her, but I do think it's clear that if we had a media that didn't fucking LIE 24/7 that we wouldn't be faced with two similar choices, at least FP-wise.

[karynnj]

107. It's not that black and white

Assume the IWR lost, Bush would have had an excuse not to go to the UN, and the inspectors would likely never have gone in. There were already soldiers postioned in the Gulf, do you seriously believe there would have been no "perceived immediate threat" and that the Iraq war would not have happened?

The DSM show it was ALREADY decided. In the summer of 2002, the Democrats argued against the war and argued Bush should go to congress and the UN. This was an attempt to stop the war. Getting the inspectors in was probably the only way to avoid war. Bush violated the IWR when he ordered the inspectors out WHEN THEY WERE SECURING WEAPONS AND DESTROYING MISSLES.

I think there were good Senators on each side who wanted to avoid war. Bush was hell bent on going to war and as CIC could. (I know the constitution - but the last war declared before we entered it was WWII. There was also Clinton precident in not going to Congress before going to war in the Balkans. The Republicans attempted to equate Bush's and Kerry's role in going to war - it was not true then and is not true now. Kerry was a loud voice against the war in the months before it began. (I suspect the Republicans did this to confuse the issue and to try to provoke a response from someone more used to being labelled a "longtime Senate Dove" )

[Zhade]

115. "...that the Iraq war would not have happened?"

Of course not - I'm not a complete idiot.

However, voting no would have given those Senators and House members more of a position from which to point out things like the DSM and the immoral, illegal nature of the war - ESPECIALLY illegal if b*s* hadn't gone to (and failed at) the U.N.

[pberq]

43. Sorry, but there was plenty of evidence out there that Bush was lying

back in 2002. See ny other post about Scott Ritter. He tried to meet with Kerry, but wasn't listened to.

[wuushew]

15. the IWR was equivalent to holding a gun to someone's head

The whole concept of bluffing by threat of deadly force is immoral and sickening. We have no right to interfer in the affairs of other countries. How will you explain her upcoming yea vote in regards to the (Iran) War Resolution.

[Dr Fate]

16. Swingvoters & moderates dont buy that. Neither do Liberal DEMs.

We all know why they voted for the war- it was politicaly popular at the time.

Splitting hairs over this like Kerry did during the election does not work. No one understands it- you are either "for it" or "against it"- nuance just does not work.

They need to come clean.

I have never heard them say, outright: "I made the mistake of believing Bush- I should not have supported this" Or what ever- they wont even talk about the Nigerian forgeries or the DSM because they think it will make them look like "flip-floppers."

Your excuse for them is that Bush lied to them- I agree- but they wont even say that.

I agree with you that it's not fair to paint DEMs with a broad brush- but at some point we need to start calling some of these guys out- their "me too" strategy is not working.

[Autonomy]

23. Perhaps they would say they made a mistake

if anyone asked them. I would hope they would, if it didn't damage them politically. I don't know. But the issue on the table is when to pull out, and that's vastly more complex than "was it right in the first place?"

Yeah, Kerry got slaughtered on this question during the campaign. He said it was wrong in the first place, but nuanced on whether he'd do it again. His mistake was in addressing it. Any Democrat will lose on this issue if they take a defensive posture. We have to keep the heat on Bush, aggressively.

[Dr Fate]

26. Does someone have to ask them to speak the obvious?

They have all the media access in the world to say anything they want.

You get my point- lets not split hairs over this.

My hope is they will all come around as Bush's numbers continue to drop.

[sue_66]

31. You are so right!

We have to stand for something, and stand firm. The Dems look wishy-washy. WE need more like conyers to speak the truth!

[Inland]

32. And when they do "come clean", we'll be here to call them liars

just changing position for the primaries, and claim that they were "pro war" all along,

basically joining republicans in calling them flip floppers. Oh, not you and me, perhaps, but it's pretty clear that there's plenty willing to mischaracterize their previous positions to do them harm. Which is okay, because they are DLC-types, apparently.

And the repubs will say the same thing. First they were FOR the war, then they were AGAINST it...and we have proof because there are democrats who say the same thing.

Working for another loss in 2008, because the ;point is knocking down democrats before they have a chance.

[Dr Fate]

35. They should have listened to the base from the get go...

...then they would not be in this bind.

They need to come clean and call Bush's fraud what it is.

Republicans are going to call them flip-floppers no matter what-

Response: "I'm not flip-flopping, Like most Americans, I just cant support or trust the Republican plan anymore- and here is why..."

If they did that, the progressive DEMs would see this a s positive- we would defend them- I know I would.

[Zhade]

59. Your premise is confusing.

You say when they come clean as to being lied to and 'making a mistake' (dozens of Dems in Congress DIDN'T make the mistake of voting for the IWR, but whatever), and that we'll call them liars and "claim that they were "pro war" all along".

That makes no sense - if they say they were lied to, that makes them pro-war? :wtf:

[Inland]

100. The OP says they were "pro war."

And to further call them "staunch supporters of the war from day one", when we NOW know that "day one" was when the Bush adminstration began planning at the presidential level in 2001.

Having been mischaracterized by their own party (supposedly) as pro war and staunch supporters, now they are going to be mischaracterized by republicans as flip floppers as they successfully defend Bush as being in the mainstream.

The accusation of being flip floppers and Bush having the affirmative support of everybody isn't true. But that's the effect of the first falsity, that the democrats are "pro war" and "staunch suppoeters from day one" because they feel that, now that the deed is done, we can't withdraw right away.

I'm not sure what the goal of lying about Democrats is, buy I'm pretty sure it comes from the same people who tell us a third party is necessary while claiming to be "democrats", and who can't see the connection between democrats losing and Bush winning.

[Zhade]

116. Well, some of them ARE pro-war.

Like Clinton and Biden, for example, and Feinstein, whose husband profits off the war.

THAT is not a lie.

[K-W]

18. As long as they support continued occupation.

They are pro-war.

Although I do agree with you about the rest. And we should try our hardest to get them to change thier views. They may not be ethically dependable, but they dont have to be to work for us.

[Inland]

33. No, they aren't.

They are pro the best of two bad alternatives, in their judgment.

There's going to be war either way. The only question is whether it's going to be a small american war now or a big Iraq war after we go. At least, that's the theory: I think the better judgment is that they aren't mutually exclusive so let's do without the small american part.

But to call someone "pro war" because they are trying to deal with Bush's mess...like I said, it's a good sound bite because it's short, sweet and totally unfair, making Bush seem more like a mainstream politician than hurting Hillary. Typical of how dems do things.

[pberq]

46. "there's going to be a war either way"???

Says who? The old excuse of "if we don't stay there, things will fall apart"

What could be worse than what is happening over there right now? The primary cause of the insurgency is the occupation.

[K-W]

51. Pro-war is pro-war, you are spinning.

I know why they are pro-war. They think a little more war is neccessary. That is still pro-war. Even if you think that is the right thing to do, it is still pro-war.

[Skidmore]

37. This argument that those politicians, who have access to

more intelligence and inside information than any of us ever will, voted for war out of trust and in ignorance alway galls me. From the hinterlands and with nothing more than the biased cable news channels and reading the newspapers, there were many of us who knew that this rationale did not pass the smell test. We also knew * was going to war regardless of any dissent. The one thing that stood a chance of not creating the patriot police was for the Dems at least to stand up and protect the war powers which belong to the people. They couldn't even dissent on the use of war powers but were willing to hand a blank check to that bastard and not ask for actual evidence in advance. This jerk and his cabal had already STOLEN the presidency. Now if someone picks your pocket in broad day light, then tells you that he needs to go into your house to protect you from an arsonists, are you going to trust him? The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. This whole bunch had a history of many years of lying, thieving, and manipulating their way both in the private and public sectors. Half of the people who work for him were in Nixon's government, for Christ's sake. When you have Iran-Contra people out there being tapped as outstanding citizens for public service, doesn't that give you pause? It did for me. Do these Dems need a friggin' tractor-trailor to run over them with billboards on the front advertising the freight train that is behind it to get a clue? Do none of them have any common sense? Can none of them step back and really see the world? I cut these "Me-too Dems" no slack.

[pberq]

48. Well said, Skidmore

It amazes me that we have DUers who will fall for the "we were lied to" excuse.

[Zhade]

61. DAMN STRAIGHT!

I'll add an example: Kerry voted to confirm Negroponte.

Kerry - who investigated IranContra - voted to confirm Negroponte - who was involved in IranContra.

Now, someone try to tell me Kerry didn't know this about Negroponte when he voted for the murderous fucker. Just TRY. I'll point you right back to Kerry's own work on IranContra.

The fact that dozens of Dems in Congress DIDN'T vote 'yes' on the IWR shows that it was not impossible to see that b*s* was full of shit and dangerously intent on invading.

[pberq]

39. Sorry, but there was plenty of evidence

that Bush was lying bakc in 2002. Remember a guy named Scott Ritter? Everything he said about the lack of WMD has been proven true, and he had been saying it for several years before the Iraq invasion.

How is it that with the majority of Americans against this war Hillary is proposing sending 80,000 more troops? Is that not pro-war?

See this article in the Nation:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050829&s=berman

<snip>
In July 2002, at the first Senate hearing on Iraq, then-Senate Foreign Relations Committee chair Joe Biden pledged his allegiance to Bush's war. Ever since, the blunt-spoken Biden has seized every opportunity to dismiss antiwar critics within his own party, vocally denouncing Bush's handling of the war while doggedly supporting the war effort itself. Biden carried this message into the Kerry campaign as the candidate's closest foreign policy confidant, and a few days after announcing his own intention to run for the presidency in 2008, he gave a major speech at the Brookings Institution in which he criticized rising calls for withdrawal as a "gigantic mistake."

The Democrats' speculative front-runner for '08, Hillary Clinton, has offered similarly hawkish rhetoric. "If we were to artificially set a deadline of some sort, that would be like a green light to the terrorists, and we can't afford to do that," Clinton told CBS in February. Instead, she recently proposed enlarging the Army by 80,000 troops "to respond to threats wherever danger lies." Clinton, a member of the Armed Services Committee, appears more comfortable accommodating the President's Iraq policy than opposing it, and her early and sustained support for the war (and frequent photo-ops with the troops) supposedly reinforces her national security credentials.

The prominence of party leaders like Biden and Clinton, and of a slew of other potential prowar candidates who support the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, presents the Democrats with an odd dilemma: At a time when the American people are turning against the Iraq War and favor a withdrawal of US troops, and British and American leaders are publicly discussing a partial pullback, the leading Democratic presidential candidates for '08 are unapologetic war hawks. Nearly 60 percent of Americans now oppose the war, according to recent polling. Sixty-three percent want US troops brought home within the next year. Yet a recent National Journal "insiders poll" found that a similar margin of Democratic members of Congress reject setting any timetable. The possibility that America's military presence in Iraq may be doing more harm than good is considered beyond the pale of "sophisticated" debate.

[Zhade]

63. Look at Clinton servicing a Big Lie!

"..that would be like a green light to the terrorists..."

Because, of course, every single Iraqi fighting against those who illegally invaded their land is a terrorist.

:sarcasm:

And people actually want me to VOTE for someone this intellectually dishonest? What the fuck are they smoking, and where can I get some?

[Zhade]

52. You know, it's interesting - even if the UN had approved the war...

...it still would have been immoral, unnecessary, and contributed to making us less safe.

[GreenArrow]

111. exactly so!

That cannot be said often enough.

[derby378]

113. Excuse me, but WE knew the war was bullshit as far back as 2002

We all knew. And if we knew, that means Clinton knew, and that means Biden knew, since they are entrusted by their constituents to represent them on Capitol Hill.

If they did not know the war was bullshit, then they were derelict in their duty to those they represent. If they knew the war was bullshit and voted to give Bush the green light anyway - well, I'd rather not think about that.

[Dr Fate]

11. They are out of touch and 1 year behind the times- as always.

They fail to see that the voting public is turning away hard from Bush & his war.

What illustrates this misguided strategy perfectly for me is the proposed DLC plank that makes military recruitment on college campus mandatory. Huh? Shoot- not even Republican parents want these guys breathing down their kid's necks- it's just a do nothing idea that is supposed to some how impress swing voters. Kids go to college to GET AWAY from joining the military.

The seemingly pro-neocon DEMs are out of touch and 1 year behind the times- as always.

[Autonomy]

17. Do you remember when

Charlie Rangel was advocating reinstituting the draft right before the Iraq War? Was it because he was pro-war? Not at all! It was because, if the war could touch the white, suburban, middle-class directly, support for the war would drop.

[Dr Fate]

24. Rangel expressed that intention...

...I'm not so sure the DLC is coming from that angle- but an interesting concept.

I dont see how supporting either idea gets votes.

[Greyhound]

29. DrFate has hit the bullseye again. It is the reason the Democratic

Party doesn't appeal to 'middle America' any more. Most of 'our' candidates govern with their finger in the air, trying to guess what's going to be popular, instead of stating a position and sticking to it.
A by-product of being career politicians, instead of working for a living, serving your country, and then going back to their lives, as was intended.

[heidler1]

36. This discussion points out the need for a dark horse Dem. candidate.

If this need is real like I believe it is, one or more will emerge.

[Dr Fate]

38. Hackett did not use those failed DEM strategies- he used his gut.

I think some good, old timey Harry Truman style politics is what works for DEMs. Just tell th damn truth about them- if they think it's hell, too bad.

You have to be positive- but you have to stick it to the bad-guys too.

[CNewton]

42. "This discussion points out the need for a dark horse Dem. candidate."

I think Kennedy should run in 08, at least we know where he stands. He would crush the repubs, and his seat in the senate would for sure be filled by another democrat.

[wuushew]

44. Kennedy already ran in 1980

also the opposition would bring up Chappaquiddick

[Dr Fate]

45. Nah- why turn an election into a media murder mystery?

The media would just say "he killed that girl" over & over. No good.

[CNewton]

50. Let em talk

That "accident" was like thirty plus years ago, we got way too many young voters in our camp for that to be an effective stragedy for the right wing MSM

[Dr Fate]

55. Good luck with that one. n/t

n/t

[Greyhound]

94. I think you're right, but, once again, he/she will be slapped down

by the powers that run the party, and we'll be left the slightly lesser of 2 evils. Oh yeah, and the Amerikans will know it and vote for the fascist.
It is unlikely that another Truman or Roosevelt (Teddy) will ever rise again. The only thing both parties agree on is that nobody else is allowed in the game.

[Zhade]

64. Yeah, and all too often it's the MIDDLE finger.

NT!

[Oerdin]

49. I don't see them as pro-war at all.

Most people agree that just pulling everyone out and going home means civil war in Iraq. The question now becomes how do you draw down while still avoiding the carnage which a Civil War would bring? Another failed Islamic state which becomes home to Islamic extremists is not even remotely in our interests. Sure, the Islamists Weren't' there until Bush created the failed state but now we are forced to clean up Bush's mess. Informed people who knew Iraq's history understood this was a very real out come of a foreign invasion but Bush was so intent on revenge against Saddam that he wouldn't listen. Now we have to craft some sort of informed draw down strategy which still avoids Civil War.

The lead candidates from our party know this yet you call them pro-war? That simply isn't a very informed opinion.

[K-W]

53. Anyone who supports more war, is pro-war. This isnt complicated.

Whether you support 3 months of more war, or whether you support 3 years of more war, you are still pro-war.

[Dr Fate]

56. Nuance did not work in '04.

And I dont see it working now.

We need a plan to get out of Iraq and focus on real terrorism- and we needed it from DEMs yesterday.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

57. I don't think everyone agrees that US pullout = civil war at all.

[pberq]

67. So you still buy the big Civil War excuse?

Seriously, the reality is that the occupation is the cause of the insurgency. Sure, there may be more fighting if the U.S. were to leave, but nothing points to the idea that it would be any worse than what is going on over there now.

The idea that we have spend billions of more dollars and hundreds of more lives to clean up Bush's mess in Iraq is preposterous.

Ever heard the term quagmire? As in Vietnam. These people are going to fight until the foreign invaders leave, and they can't be beaten with military force.

[Zhade]

69. "...is not even remotely in our interests..."

Pardon me, but who the FUCK do we think we are that OUR interests override the IRAQIS'?

They want us gone. We should do what they want, if we want to even pretend to be decent people who believe in democracy.

But if Americans are more interested in THEIR needs than those of the people whose country we illegally invaded, fine - they should realize that civil war, if it happens at all, is likely regardless of when we leave. The only question for those so nationalistic as to believe American lives are more important than Iraqi lives then becomes: how many soldiers should die to delay - because we AIN'T gonna prevent it if it's really going to happen - that civil war?

1,000 more? 2,000? 20,000?

[no_to_war_economy]

132. only peace can be negotiated

more troops mean more war

we have to negotiated a cease fire with the Sunnis and grant them concessions

[pberq]

62. the Strategic Class

Here's some more of the article in the Nation exposing the incredible pro-war stance of the Democratic party elite:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050829&s=berman

<snip>
It's helpful to think of the Democratic strategic class as a pyramid. At the top are politicians like Biden and Clinton, forming the most important and visible public face. Just below are high-ranking former government officials, like UN ambassador Richard Holbrooke, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Assistant Secretary of State Jamie Rubin. These are the people who devise and execute foreign policy and frame the substance of the message. Virtually all the top advisers supported the Iraq War; Holbrooke, who's been dubbed the "closest thing the party has to a Kissinger" by one foreign policy analyst, even tacked to Bush's right, arguing in February 2003 that anything less than an invasion of Iraq would undermine international law. Many of the officials held high-ranking positions in the Kerry campaign. Holbrooke, frequently mentioned as a potential Secretary of State, urged Kerry to keep his vision on Iraq "deliberately vague," the New York Observer reported. Rubin appeared on television sixty times in May 2004 alone. Nine days before the election, Holbrooke addressed the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and reiterated Kerry's support for the war and occupation, belittled European negotiations with Iran on its nuclear program and endorsed the Israeli separation wall. Hardly a Dove Among Dems' Brain Trusters, read a headline from the Forward newspaper.

Underneath the top policy officials are the anointed regional experts, who play an instrumental role in legitimizing the politicians' arguments and drumming up support inside the Beltway for impending conflicts in faraway lands. Brookings fellow and former CIA official Kenneth Pollack's book The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq played precisely that function for wavering Democratic elites in the run-up to war, turning "more doves into hawks than Richard Perle, Laurie Mylroie and George W. Bush combined," wrote Slate's Chris Suellentrop in March 2003. "In Washington, it's not uncommon to hear fence-straddlers qualify their ambivalence about an Iraq war with the sentiment, 'Of course, I haven't read the Pollack book yet.'"

The likes of Pollack are greatly bolstered by a second front of national security specialists at prestigious think tanks like Brookings, the Council on Foreign Relations, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Center for American Progress. Though they often toil in obscurity, the think-tank officials form a necessary echo chamber for the political class, appearing on television and writing issue briefs while providing, through their organizations, a platform on which candidates can appear "robust" in the national security realm. As one example, Stephen Walt, a leading foreign policy expert and academic dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, says that "Brookings was basically supportive of the war in Iraq. If Brookings is signing on to a major foreign policy initiative of a Republican Administration, that doesn't give the Democratic mainstream much room to mount a really forceful critique of the incumbent foreign policy." Much of Kerry's campaign platform--with its calls to add 40,000 troops to the military, preserve the doctrine of pre-emptive war and stay the course in Iraq--read as if it had been lifted verbatim from a Brookings strategy memo.

[God Bless the USA]

92. Perhaps this illistrates the need for a true 'Liberal Party'

Since it appears that many in the Democratic Party are in lock step with the GOP perhaps it's time to take the cue of the Liberal Democratic Party of the UK and form a legitmate third party that offers a real alternative.

[salin]

102. Fear. Pure and Simple.

Idea is that the public will not go for anyone not seen as TOUGH - and that any candidate who is not prowar will be punked by Roveco.

Reality - is that ANY dem is going to be punked.

IMO, they really ought to start operating from real political strength rather from political calculations based on fear.

[Geek_Girl]

108. I'll vote in the primaries

but I refuse to vote for a pro-Iraq war candidate. Hillary not only voted for to give W the authority to go to war she was right out their front and center selling this war to the american public. I won't vote for her or Bidden no matter what!

[MadHound]

123. Well it is because their corporate masters don't want the war to end

Thus, seeing that the public is fed up with the "bad cop" dog and pony show known as Bushco, these corporatistas figure they'll put one of their Democratic lackies in office. The war will go on, and they hope the dissent will be quelled since one of the "good cop" Democrats are in power.

And the death and destruction will contiue while corporate America continues to make obscene profits, and the ordinary person will become ever poorer.

[Bombtrack]

126. The return of the BS construct that only serve the GOP to devide + conquer

which is the "democratic establishment".

Why don't you throw in a couple of meaningless Deaniac 'every democrat but me is a sell out' cliche's

[oasis]

130. This is Bush's war. The only "pro-war Democrat" is Zell Miller.

[Imagevision]

131. Hillary and Biden are the furthest thing from my mind - they don't show me

beans as far as standing up for something that doesn't benefit their own agenda/cause...where the hell has Obama been too...! someone advises him to just stay out it...it's a white thing or what!!! talk to us obama,,,say something!!

[mtnsnake]

133. Blame Democrats for not speaking up NOW, but enough w/blaming them

for the war itself or with labeling them as "pro-war Democrats". They were mislead into voting to approve of it by Bush's outright lies and propaganda. Neither Hillary Clinton nor Joe Biden is some fucking war mongering Democrat as you make it sound like.