Democratic leaders support Bush's war

[pberq]

Sure, they may criticize him on tactics, but they have never criticized the invasion, which was based on a pack of lies.

<snip>
So far, only one likely 2008 presidential candidate, Sen. Russell Feingold, has called for a complete withdrawal – by Jan. 1, 2007 – although, in a television interview Sunday, he stressed that the date should considered a "target," rather than a "deadline."

On the other hand, five of the party's most prominent leaders – 2004 presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Sen. Joseph Biden, Sen. Evan Bayh, and Sen. Hillary Clinton – have not only opposed setting a date for withdrawal, but have also, at various times, supported substantially increasing the number of troops in Iraq, as well as the size of the U.S. Army and Marine Corps. The last three are all considered by the party establishment as strong presidential candidates.

"If we were to artificially set a deadline of some sort, that would be like giving a green light to the terrorists, and we can't afford to do that," Clinton, whose ex-president husband has also refused to publicly criticize the war, noted last February.

http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=7092

With friends like these, who needs enemies?

How stupid does Hillary think we are? The idea that withdrawing from Iraq "gives a green light to terrorists" is nothing more than Republican propaganda!

As I've stated elsewhere, the ongoing occupation is the CAUSE of the insurgency. If "staying the course" was of any help, we would know it by now. It's been alomost two and half years, and things are only getting worse.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

1. ic

[Richardo]

2. We call them "Democratic" leaders, not "Democrat" leaders

And as Colin Powell tried to warn Idiot Boy "You break it you buy it." Well, it's broken, but the guy bought it on OUR credit card and our families' lives. Now it's up to US to fix it. That's reality, and there's no good answer, and no way to prevent more people from being killed thanks to the neocon's short-sighted abomination of a takeover.

BUT: Cut and run from Iraq is a horrible idea. It will just set up a new Afghanistan - a failed state that serves as the World University of Terrorism.

On the other hand, I'd think that our erstwhile allies in Europe and elsewhere might be willing to lend more active support (troops? probably not. But money? Perhaps) if they and THEIR reconstrtuction companies were cut in for a piece of Halliburton's pie.

[pberq]

3. So explain how more of the same is going to solve anything.

It's been two and a half years, and the current strategy has been a complete and utter failure, and you're recommending more of the same?

See this thread on why we must leave Iraq:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4452182

[emulatorloo]

5. again you advocate that Democrats be irresponsible and immoral

George Bush screwed the people of Iraq with his bs invasion based on lies, and you want Democrats to throw up their hands and throw the Iraqi people to the wolves. The problem is George W Bush and his policies. You want to make it the "Democrat Party."

[pberq]

6. They are already thrown to the wolves now

and the cause is the continued occupation by the U.S. military. Remove the cause (the occupation), and things will have a chance for improving.

This is not about the Democrats throwing the Iraqi people to the wolves. This is about getting the U.S. military out of an unwinnable quagmire.

[emulatorloo]

12. Extremists are not killing Bagdad barbers because of US troops

They are killing them because the barbers violate thier version of "morality."

OTOH the barbers are being killed because of the INCOMPETENCE of the Bush admin.

You want to blame the troops, democrats, anybody you can except Bush for the human rights disaster that Bush has created.

I have no clue what the real solution is rather than getting rid of Bush and internationalizing. But I know the solution is not to eliminate Democrats.

[pberq]

4. Thank you, I fixed the title - nt

[bemildred]

7. We can't even fix our own country. nt

[FlemingsGhost]

8. This should smoke-out the DLC apologists.

Funny. When it comes to the war, specifically the IWR, Democratic senators become the purest, naive most trusting individuals. Victims of the new BushCo hard ball they play in the Beltway. At least in the eyes of those who claim, "they didn't know, they were lied to," etc.

Let's watch ...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. The "good German" defense. "I knew nothing".

They thought all those troops in Kuwait were just getting some good tans and all the warships were just indulging in some harmless pleasure boating.

The obvious answer to that defense is that any politician that stupid shouldn't be in office. Not that they are that stupid, just that totally corrupt.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. They just want to "help" Iraq. Like Bush and Rummy do.

They want to "fix" it with more military power, more troops, more killing.

It's a "noble" cause and the cannon fodder are worth "sacrificing" for further their political careers.

They are "smart" politicians. "Realists". "Pragmatists". In other words, they are willing to have people killed to show that they aren't liberals and they are tough on "defense".

They are worthy only of contempt.

[pberq]

10. Well said, Tierra

It's amazing to me that anyone, even a Republican, could think that continuing the occupation is going to solve anything. Actually,
there are some Republicans coming out against the war now.