Dems and the war resolution

[jpgray]

First of all, 23 Senators and 123 Representatives voted against it. Keep that in mind when poeople tell you Democrats are all spineless, politicking panderers or idiots.

Second, a "yes" vote is not black and white. Just as Dean supporters will parse Dean's "no" stance on gay marriage, or Kucinich supporters his flag vote, or Kerry supporters his "get over it", there are some nuances. Gephardt and Lieberman are in a league of their own, in my opinion. Even late in the game (June) Gephardt was quoted saying he believed WMDs would be found, and then of course there was the Rose Garden. Lieberman as I'm sure everyone here knows was very hawkish--even more so than Gephardt--and also stood with the president in the Rose Garden. He still believes this was a great thing that we have done.

The senators who gave anti-war speeches and then voted 'yes' on the resolution are those whose reasons are ripe for interpretation. Why do you think Dem leadership was generally lockstep with the President on this? What political capital could possibly be gained?

I don't believe those Democrats were spineless or idiotic. That leaves naked and seemingly purposeless fence-sitting or something else. Perhaps the same force that shut the closet door on the skeletons until after the war has influence with the power broker Democrats? Get the war through and then hang Bush by his thumbs? That's the strange part of all this--all this evidence was there long before the war. So why did the media wait to bust him until after the war? Why did the Dem leadership sell out its party until after the war? Are these two related?

What do you think?

[jiacinto]

1. What I think

I think they knew that Bush was lying about the information, or at the very least, was being less than truthful. They were also afraid of being labelled "unpatriotic" and having the war go well with their votes of opposition being on record. They didn't want to be in that position.

I think they voted for the resolution because they wanted to give Bush the benefit of the doubt. They wanted to look they were giving Bush the chance to prove his case. They wanted Americans to think that they were willing "to trust" Bush.

And now that the war efforts seem to go awry they can attack the Bush administration without looking "partisan" because they can say that they voted for the resolution and "gave Bush the benefit of the doubt".

Maybe I am thinking too much in Machiavellian terms, but this is what I think may have happened. I don't necessarily agree with this strategy, but that may be what happened.

[Terwilliger]

9. I'm just astonished that you could come to such a conclusion!!!

:eyes:

[jpgray]

12. I thought of that, but is there a precedent?

It seems so counter-intuitive.

[kentuck]

15. I think you may be right Carlos...

But there is a price to pay when we are wrong. No one could have predicted that a vote for the war might affect their next election negatively. Seldom, if ever, has that happened in history. It's usually a safe vote to vote for war. But it appears that this time it might be different. They may be on the wrong side of history. Which also shows us that what might appear to be politically correct today may not be so correct tomorrow. It's much better to vote with your heart and conscience than to vote for political advantage or a perceived political advantage.

[OrdinaryTa]

2. Hillary Voted for the War

The senators who gave anti-war speeches and then voted 'yes' on the resolution are those whose reasons are ripe for interpretation

Frankly I don't care what Hillary's motivations were, she voted for the war against the wishes of her constituents. I'll never vote for her again or for the amiable Chuck Schumer, who also voted for the war. What possessed these two Democrats to do such a thing? Maybe we'll read it in their memoirs. But in the meantime there has to be a penalty for such a completely wrong vote. If it doesn't cost them votes, it only encourages them to do it again.

[jiacinto]

3. And do you want a far right wing Republican in those seats?

I really hate this mentality. Those who are there on the issues 60-80% of the time should be "voted out" because they deviated one bit from the far left agenda. Thus they should be, according to this reasoning, replaced by those people who are there only 20% of the time, if even that much, because the first group wasn't there "100% of the time".

But then again why I am not surprised? This board is filled with extremists who would rather defeat Democrats than defeat Republicans.

[Eloriel]

4. And I really hate the mentality

you express. Especially the kind of remark of your concluding sentence.

Eloriel

[jiacinto]

5. It's the truth, Eloriel

Every day I come to this forum I see at least ONE post where someone says that he or she "will not vote Dem" in 2004 or will work to defeat a Dem Senator or Congressman who doesn't meet the plethora of litmus tests here.

[pasadenademocrat]

10. The unnecessary death of 250 young americans

is more than a litmus test.

If they can't be trusted on a decision this important, what can they be trusted on?

I believe most of them knew what they were doing was wrong, but went ahead with it for political gain.

If young Americans have to pay with their lives for those decisions, I think those that made it, democrats and republicans, have some hard thinking to do about what they can do to atone for this disaster.

[Classical_Liberal]

11. It wouldn't be if the knocked them out in the primary

The trouble is this country was set up limiting our alternatives, so we end up beating each other up over it. They aren't necessarily extremist. The electoral college winner take all thing is dysfunctional. That is why Gray Davis is about to go down in a recall. He is a corrupt sob, less corrupt than his republican opponants. Nobody likes him, or approves of the job he has done. He is just less bad than his opponant. It is hard to understand why in all of California they couldn't come up with anything better than Davis.

[Iverson]

16. speaking of truth ...

Sometimes we need a reminder that truth is not the province of one individual or one viewpoint, especially when "truth" is in danger of becoming apologia.

I am astonished that insistence upon minimum standards of civilization, such as not engaging in pre-emptive invasions of countries that have not attacked us, is construed as intransigent extremism.

It seems to me that more than 50 years of the Geneva Convention, not to mention bloody obvious human decency, would make this issue something more than a "litmus test" of radicalism.

[kentuck]

17. Wells said, Iverson...

It was hardly "extreme" to speak out against this war. To support this war for political expedient reasons does not excuse the radical extremism of the act itself.

[sangha]

18. Nice way to make it easy on yourselves

The tactic is called "straw man argument" and is accomplished by misportraying your "opponents" argument.

In this specific instance, you misportray Carlos as being opposed to people who "spoke out against the war" when the truth is, Carlos made it clear that he was talking about those DUers who impose a number of "litmus tests" on the candidates.

It's an attempt to ignore the intolerance of litmus tests that some espouse, and to misportray your opponents as intolerant of dissent

[CWebster]

21. And he wasn't suggesting that the war vote wasn't a litmus test

by some of those "fringe elements"?

What would his argument be--that we should have no standards other than a D next to the name -- otherwise our only other choice is a reactionary Republican(slippery slope).

Why must he always make these determinations based on dominating Republican perceptions, suggesting that Democrats must play the game by Right-wing rules, scorning "fringe leftists". jiacinto is in the habit of placing blame on "fringe leftists" for divisiveness while he, in essence, is beong divisive.

Lieberman's campaign is in trouble--obvious evidence that moving Right is NOT the popular choice for Democrats.

[sangha]

25. The argument would be

no litmus tests. Litmus tests are counter-productive.

If you have a problem with that argument, then argue against that. Just don't pretend that Carlos said something else.

[Iverson]

23. back to school we go

As I have posted elsewhere, the essence of straw man is unfair restatement of the opponent's argument.

The context was established by jiacinto's note #3 which responded to #2, a posting criticizing Hillary Clinton for her vote to give Bush a blank check to conduct war (my paraphrase). His response concluded with "But then again why I am not surprised? This board is filled with extremists who would rather defeat Democrats than defeat Republicans."

Clearly, this conflates the criticism to which he responded with extremism. We can all see it.

When Eloriel called him on it (note #4), his response was the line about litmus tests.

Now, one of two conditions applies:
1. The complaint about litmus tests was wholly unrelated to the discussion, in which case it is a non-sequitur;
or
2. The complain about litmus tests was related to the line of discussion.

I grant you and him the benefit of coherent thought by assuming condition 2.

Thus, my note #16 was not a straw man argument because it dealt consistently with jiacinto's argument and did not restate it unfairly. You are correct that I did not treat this line of discussion as a separate thread on the merits of litmus tests, nor should I have.

This leaves us back at my point about basic human decency and minimums of civilization. Do you have any energy left to address that one?

(edited for grammar)

[sangha]

27. Still building the straw man?

You are now also guilty of "quoting out of context". In post#3, which you cite, Carlos said, but you left out "I really hate this mentality. Those who are there on the issues 60-80% of the time should be "voted out" because they deviated one bit from the far left agenda."

This is obviously a description of a "litmus test". Though he didn't actually use the exact phrase "litmus test" the fact that he spoke about "not voting for a Dem" because they "deviated one bit" should have tipped you off. IOW, your two choices are both wrong. "Litmus tests" were the subject that Carlos spoke of in his first post. He didn't bring it up "after the fact"

And no, I have no energy to fight your straw men.

[CWebster]

29. Always missing the forrest for the trees

or debating for debating sake.

"because they deviated one bit" was the reference to the war vote relating to the thread topic.

[Iverson]

36. repetition does not make you correct

You accuse me of quoting out of context, even though I already provided the context and explanation. That is one of the weakest rebuttals I have ever encountered. No, I have no intention of providing the entire posting to which I respond. That is just goofy.

"This is obviously a description of a "litmus test"."

This excerpt from your reply (which is only part of it, not the whole thing!), is problematic because it presumes as correct that which is dubious: that opposition to the recent invasion is reducible to a litmus test. To some, this past invasion of Iraq touches on some very basic principles. Framing those as a far-left litmus test is really an unfair restatement of a principled objection.

Gee, that's just about the definition of a straw man! Ah, irony.

I appreciate that you want to defend an ally, but I urge you to look beyond partisanship. Truth and reason count for something.

"And no, I have no energy to fight your straw men."

With such a devastating riposte, surely you have the tools to engage my serious point about the minimums of civilization. You may not like it or agree with it, but it is a serious point. Nearly every other reader here can see this, and I bet that you can too.

[kentuck]

38. Right on Iverson...

Some people would not know a straw man if they were sitting on it... :)

[sangha]

44. Are you OK?

I didn't repeat anything. And you didn't provide any context; You took a line from Carlos' post which had nothing to do with his main point.

No, I have no intention of providing the entire posting to which I respond.

Of course not. You have no intention on commenting on Carlos' main point either.

This excerpt from your reply (which is only part of it, not the whole thing!), is problematic because it presumes as correct that which is dubious: that opposition to the recent invasion is reducible to a litmus test.

And again you misportray Carlos as objecting to anyone who criticizes the war. I repeat it for those who prefer straw men:

Carlos wasn't criticizing those who oppose the war. Carlos criticized those who make the resolution vote a "litmus test". Once again, you've ignored the distinction.

People have posted to the effect that "I won't vote for anyone who voted for the resolution" By definition, that's a litmus test.

To some, this past invasion of Iraq touches on some very basic principles. Framing those as a far-left litmus test is really an unfair restatement of a principled objection.

Carlos didn't say anything about those who oppose the war. He agrees with them. Carlos criticized those who make the resolution vote a litmus test. Carlos hasn't misportrayed "opposition to the war" as a "litmus test". The people who have a litmus test have identified themselves with posts saying "I won't vote for anyone who voted for the resolution". You may think that's a legitimate position, and argue in favor of it without being deceptive. But it is dishonest to claim that Carlos has criticized anyone who opposes the war.

[sangha]

46. And here's from post#2

which is the post Carlos originally responded to:

"Frankly I don't care what Hillary's motivations were, she voted for the war against the wishes of her constituents. I'll never vote for her again or for the amiable Chuck Schumer, who also voted for the war. "

That's a litmus test. Post#0 also expresses opposition to war, but Carlos doesn't object to that position. Post#2 expresses opposition to the war AND the litmus test. Carlos does criticize that position.

I repeat:

Carlos does not criticize opposition to the war. Carlos criticizes the use of the resolution vote as a litmus test.

[CWebster]

50. You are so full of it

No one ever objected to Carlos stand on the war, it was always about his view of it being a litmus test. You just created the strawman argument.

[sangha]

56. Be honest

Carlos doesn't see the war as a litmus test, but some DUers do. Like this one

"Frankly I don't care what Hillary's motivations were, she voted for the war against the wishes of her constituents. I'll never vote for her again or for the amiable Chuck Schumer, who also voted for the war. "

Tell me again about how there are no people who use the resolution vote as a litmus test

[Iverson]

59. little reminders

from posting #44: "I didn't repeat anything."
from #18: ""The tactic is called "straw man argument" ..."
from #27: "Still building the straw man?" and "...I have no energy to fight your straw men."
from #20: "Another straw man"

from #44: "You have no intention on commenting on Carlos' main point either."

You are incorrect. I commented on that in posting #16. Your effort here is to rehabiliatate his argument by fixating on a statement about litmus tests as if in a vacuum.

from #44: "And again you misportray Carlos as objecting to anyone who criticizes the war."

You are incorrect. I accurately portray jiacinto's argument as reading principled opposition to pre-emptive invasion as some kind of far-left litmus test. I did not make the claim above that you now wish I'd made. Please reread posting #16 with comprehension.

from #44: "Carlos wasn't criticizing those who oppose the war. Carlos criticized those who make the resolution vote a "litmus test". Once again, you've ignored the distinction."

You are incorrect. I did and do recognize that distinction, and no piece of subsequent writing suggests an error there.

from #44: ""I won't vote for anyone who voted for the resolution" By definition, that's a litmus test."

Finally, you are standing on slightly firmer ground. However, I also call it a criterion, a prerequisite, and other things too. If you are going to position yourself as sensitive to the meaning of terms, then you had better grapple with the difference between connotation and denotation. By your terms in this thread, not committing mass murder is a "litmus test." Not harming babies is a "litmus test." The term "litmus test" carries with it in this context exactly the dismissive connotation that we all know it does.

Not all "litmus tests" are equal. When we come to such basic, basic elements as those to which I referred in note #16, they are, as I say, something more.

from note #44: "But it is dishonest to claim that Carlos has criticized anyone who opposes the war."

I shall remember that in case I ever make the claim. It is also dishonest to equate minimal civilized behavior with far-left intransigence and to project into others positions that they did not take. It is also dishonest to lecture to me about what my intentions are when the claim is demonstrably false.

However, I realize that people do err honestly, so I will resist calling the two of you dishonest.

[sangha]

61. LOL!

So that's what you meant. Do you really think that I have to stop saying that it's a straw man in order to argue that it is a straw man?

[Iverson]

66. you aren't even trying

If you are going to keep up this losing battle, at least engage the substance.

[sangha]

68. The substance is

that a poster said that s/he won't vote for anyone who voted for the resolution, which is a litmus test. In response, Carlos criticized the use of litmus tests, and then you twisted his words as if he equated any opposition to the war with litmus tests.

[Iverson]

70. I see you're not reading my posts all the way through.

Come back when you're serious. You can't expect to have people address your point while you run away from theirs.

[sangha]

72. Giving up?

I ignore your point because it is a straw man. Everyone in this thread opposes the war, but Carlos has only criticized those who make it into a litmus test. But you won't talk about that because it puts the lie to the idea that Carlos can't stand criticism of Dems.

[Iverson]

75. since you asked

I do not continue to engage people who make a show of not listening. Other readers, though, will see our exchange, and see whose arguments are stronger.

As for your need to tell me my motive, that is a sign of a weak argument indeed.

[sangha]

79. That's a "Yes"

.

[HFishbine]

100. My vote

"Other readers, though, will see our exchange, and see whose arguments are stronger."

I vote for Iverson.

[welshTerrier2]

26. wrong again, my friend ...

let's take a look at the following phrase:

Those who are there on the issues 60-80% of the time should be "voted out" because they deviated one bit from the far left agenda.

answer this question please: what was it that Carlos was labeling as the "far left agenda" from which these candidates deviated ??

let me give you a hint ... he was responding to a post that said the poster would not vote for a candidate (here comes the hint) who supported the war in Iraq ... Carlos is labeling opposition to the war in Iraq as a "far left agenda" ...

you, once again, have twisted the flow of the conversation to suit your own purposes ... this is not a "straw man' argument ... Carlos clearly labeled those that opposed the war as having a "far left" agenda ...

[sangha]

28. wrong again

It's about who voted for the resolution, not who supported the invasion. There's a difference between "supporting the invasion" and "voting for the resolution", a point that was made in the very first post.

IMO there's a correlation between a "far left agenda" and those who equate "voting for the resolution" with "supporting the invasion"

[Terwilliger]

30. that like a Homosexual Agenda?

Or a Jewish Agenda?

How about a DLC agenda?

All these agendas, eh, sangha?

[welshTerrier2]

39. Resolution "Yes" Vote = Empowering Bush to Wage War at Will

let's turn to a noted left wing extremist to understand his thoughts on "voting for the resolution" and its connection to "supporting the invasion" ... sangha, ain't nobody can dance like you do ...

Indeed, we may have sparked a new international arms race as countries move ahead to develop WMD as a last ditch attempt to ward off a possible preemptive strike from a newly belligerent U.S. which claims the right to hit where it wants. In fact, there is little to constrain this President. Congress, in what will go down in history as its most unfortunate act, handed away its power to declare war for the foreseeable future and empowered this President to wage war at will.

As if that were not bad enough, members of Congress are reluctant to
ask questions which are begging to be asked. How long will we occupy
Iraq? We have already heard disputes on the numbers of troops which
will be needed to retain order. What is the truth? How costly will the
occupation and rebuilding be? No one has given a straight answer. How
will we afford this long-term massive commitment, fight terrorism at
home, address a serious crisis in domestic healthcare, afford behemoth
military spending and give away billions in tax cuts amidst a deficit
which has climbed to over $340 billion for this year alone? If the
President's tax cut passes it will be $400 billion. We cower in the
shadows while false statements proliferate. We accept soft answers and
shaky explanations because to demand the truth is hard, or unpopular, or may be politically costly.

May 21, 2003 ... Radical left-wing extremist, Senator Robert Byrd

[CWebster]

40. When I read that , the words of Byrd

my blood boils to think that Kerry now cries "we were all misled".

[tomp]

42. exactly! if one can see, others have no excuse. nt

[sangha]

47. Byrd was not only wrong. Byrd lied.

Congress, in what will go down in history as its most unfortunate act, handed away its power to declare war for the foreseeable future and empowered this President to wage war at will.

It is IMPOSSIBLE for Congress to "hand away it's power to declare war". Congress' power to declare war is the result of the Consitution, and no law overides the Constitution. The ONLY way for Congress to lose that power is with a Constitutional Amendment.

[welshTerrier2]

51. again, you distort the truth

by only arguing against a portion of the statement you highlighted ... the vote of the Congress "empowered this President to wage war at will" ...

you were trying to argue, in a previous post, that "voting for the resolution" did not equate to "supporting the invasion" ... the essential part of Byrd's statement relative to this point was that the vote for the resolution "empowered this President to wage war at will" ... the point is that there is obviously a direct connection between voting to "empower the president to wage war at will" and voting to "support the invasion" ...

your denial of this linkage is absurd !!

[sangha]

60. You are distorting the truth

by only arguing against a portion of the statement you highlighted

It was you that highlighted that comment. Not me.

your denial of this linkage is absurd !!

I didn't say there was no linkage. I said the linkage was based on a lie that the resolution gave Bush* the power to declare war. That's not true, and Byrd, a Constitutional "scholar", knows it's not true

[welshTerrier2]

78. the resolution authorized bush to wage war in Iraq

look at the subject of my post that contained the highlighting you referred to (that you also highlighted, btw): Resolution "Yes" Vote = Empowering Bush to Wage War at Will

and you failed to even respond to this portion of Senator Byrd's remarks ... you constantly do this, sangha ... you respond only to parts of what is said ... you distort by omitting ... you change the subject to talk about Byrd's statement about "declaring war" when the relevance of including the statement was to respond to your misguided point that tried to disconnect "voting for the resolution" from "supporting the war" ...

i wrote: your denial of this linkage is absurd !!

because you wrote: There's a difference between "supporting the invasion" and "voting for the resolution" ... yes, there's a difference ... but the greater point is that one leads directly to the other ... you never seem to acknowledge that !!!

the resolution did not give bush the Constitutional power to "declare war" in a general sense ... that power, at least in my view, is reserved for the Congress ... but it did give bush the authorization to declare war on Iraq ... and it gave him the authorization to wage war in Iraq ...

from the resolution's authorization section (i.e. Section III):

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The president is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

parse this anyway you like ... the Congress provided its authorization for bush to wage war in Iraq "as he determined to be necessary and appropriate" ... and too many democratic hawks endorsed this position ... and Carlos was wrong to label opposition to the war as a "far left agenda" ... and if you don't think that's what he said, see my post #22 ...

[sangha]

82. Not it didn't

A resolution has no legal authority, and therefore cannot "authorize" any action. And what I responded to was what YOU emphasized by highlighting.

because you wrote: There's a difference between "supporting the invasion" and "voting for the resolution" ... yes, there's a difference ... but the greater point is that one leads directly to the other ... you never seem to acknowledge that !!!

I don't acknowledge it because it's not true. Bush* was going to invade Iraq no matter what, even without UN or Congressional approval. He said it. Since Bush*'s decision was not contingent on Congressional approval, it's false to claim that the war would have been prevented if there were no resolution.

the resolution did not give bush the Constitutional power to "declare war" in a general sense

What do you mean by "in a general sense"? Either it transferred the Constitutional power to declare war or it didn't. Byrd said it did (and not "in a general sense"). He was wrong about that, and he knows it.

parse this anyway you like ... the Congress provided its authorization for bush to wage war in Iraq "as he determined to be necessary and appropriate" ... and too many democratic hawks endorsed this position

Wrong. A resolution has no legal authority and so it cannot authorize military action. Furthermore, the Constitution does not require that the CINC receive "authorization" to order military action.

Carlos was wrong to label opposition to the war as a "far left agenda"

Wrong again. Carlos didn't say that opposition to the war was part of a "far left agenda". Carlos himself opposes the war. Carlos said that litmus tests were part of a far left agenda

[Trek234]

123. Wrong again

This resolution DOES have legal impact.

1. The war powers act is nullified by this resolution. If this resolution was not given in 90 days our troops would COME HOME!

2. The president can no longer be held accountable for whatever he does in direct relation to what the resolution authorizes with out taking the congress down with him because they consented to whatever it is he may do.

3. The president no longer speaks by him self. He now is speaking/acting both for both him self AND the US congress.

[Trek234]

124. Wrong again

This resolution DOES have legal impact.

1. The war powers act is nullified by this resolution. If this resolution was not given in 90 days our troops would COME HOME!

2. The president can no longer be held accountable for whatever he does in direct relation to what the resolution authorizes with out taking the congress down with him because they consented to whatever it is he may do.

3. The president no longer speaks by him self. He now is speaking/acting for both him self AND the US congress.

[CWebster]

52. Byrd is know as the constitutional scholar

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

BTW, you wouldn't be complaining about a Democrat here, would you?

;-)

[Trek234]

122. Wrong

Congress gave the president LEGAL right to take military action ON HIS OWN WHEN AND IF HE CHOSE TO DO SO. He was given the LEGAL ability to act as if Congress had declared war IF AND WHEN he so chose.

[HFishbine]

19. Why not

Being a member of the democratic party does not automatically bestow a candidate with unasailable qualifications. Policies and positions matter more than party label.

[sangha]

20. Another straw man

Carlos didn't criticize anyone for criticizing Dems. Carlos criticized those who have a plethora of litmus tests.

Why don't you confront the argument Carlos actually made?

[Iverson]

24. see note #23

n/t

[HFishbine]

33. Geez!

You must be enrolled in Debating 101. But instead of seeing a straw man around every corner, you'd do better to pay closer attention. I was not responding to Carlos, but rather to post #5.

The argument implied in that post was that a litmus test should not be used to disqualify a dem candidate. The point of my response was that it matters not whether a candidate has the dem label, but ineed, whether or not their policies and positions are in line with my views.

In other words, don't expect this voter not to apply distriminating critera to a candidate just becuase he or she is a democrat. Got it?

(edit: spelling)

[sangha]

48. That's not what you said

In Carlos' post#5, he objected to the use of a litmus test. In your response, you said it was OK to criticize Dems (I agree) and said nothing about the litmus test. If your point is that litmus tests are OK, even against Dems, then that's what you should have said. What you said is that it was OK to criticize Dems, which is a straw man. I can only read what you wrote. I can't read your mind.

In other words, don't expect this voter not to apply distriminating critera to a candidate just becuase he or she is a democrat. Got it?

Got it. But that's NOT a "litmus test". "Discriminating criteria" imples that you will take more than one vote into account. "Litmus test" suggest the complete opposite.

Got it?

[HFishbine]

92. Well

If you can't read a post with an undersanding of the ongoing context, then I'm afraind you'll be better off ignoring my posts.

[sangha]

93. The "ongoing context"

was about "litmus tests", something your post failed to address. You shouldn't expect others to read your mind.

[HFishbine]

95. Har!

"You shouldn't expect others to read your mind."

That hasn't seemed to stop you from reading "implications" into my posts.

Here, you want me to clear it up for you? If I want to apply a litmus test to a candidate on a policy or position, don't tell me I'm wrong to do so because the candidate is a democrat.

Are we done with the semantics now?

[sangha]

98. No, we're not done. You're still twisting.

If I want to apply a litmus test to a candidate on a policy or position, don't tell me I'm wrong to do so because the candidate is a democrat

No one, not even Carlos, said it was wrong to apply litmus tests to Democrats only. Litmus tests are stupid, which is why I would like to see Dems discouraged from using it, and Repukes encouraged.

Once again, you are implying that Carlos said something he didn't. The issue isn't who is being criticized. The issue is litmus tests.

[HFishbine]

109. Wow!

Now your logic is getting really twisted.

"No one, not even Carlos, said it was wrong to apply litmus tests to Democrats only."

No, but he said it was wrong to apply litmus tests to democrats (you added "only") and I was responding to that. I was responding within the context, which was about democrats.

"Litmus tests are stupid"

There you go! Now that's an intellegent argument!

"Once again, you are implying that Carlos said something he didn't."

Nope. I don't think so. I think once again you are "reading my mind" in order to perpetuate your annoying arguing.

"The issue isn't who is being criticized. The issue is litmus tests."

Then why are you focusing on decontructing everybody's argument. I think you would have everybody else stick to the "issue" as you narrowly define it, while you go off in a any direction you please -- as long as it's confrontational and accusatory.

You may think you're helping the disussion somehow by acting as the logic police, but your inability to understand context, to allow acceptable synonyms, to appreciate the expansion of the discussion, and your haranguing of other posters make you immenently unqualified.

Peace. Get some rest.

(edit: spelling)

[Eloriel]

62. Oh, bull, Sangha

Carlos criticizes anyone and everyone who criticizes Dems. I'm not going to go back and read his stupid post -- reading it the first time was bad enough, thank you very little. But it's disingenuous to try to claim that Carlos wasn't inherently making that point, whether it was explicit or not (but IMO "far left agenda" covers it) because that is one of Carlos's core motivating beliefs in life: we will all surely die if we dare criticize Dems.

Eloriel

[sangha]

71. Oh bull, Eloriel

The post that starts this thread alaso criticizes Dems, and Carlos did not criticize jpgray. You just can't stand it that people disagree with you. You think people are robots because they dont all think like you.

that is one of Carlos's core motivating beliefs in life: we will all surely die if we dare criticize Dems.

Bullshit. I have criticized Byrd in this thread, and you won't see one post from Carlos criticizing me for criticizing a Dem. Peddle your emotional clap-trap somewhere else, cause I ain't buying.

[Iverson]

73. "You think people are robots..."

There, that's a straw man, the one that you just used on Eloriel.

[sangha]

83. No it's not

In one of yesterdays thread, ELoriel characterized people who disagree with her position on the resolution as robots.

[sangha]

99. Actually, Eloriel used the term "Bushbots"

which is against DU rules.

[lifelong_Dem]

81. Well...

If you, or anyone else for that matter, are so pissed about the war resolution, why don't you go out and defeat a conservative Republican who supported it, and replace him with a liberal anti-war candidate of your choice?

[PurityOfEssence]

76. and your riposte is to just flush them

People have the right to blow off steam on subjects, that's a lot of what this board is about.

Anything that isn't in accord with your self-proclaimed practicality is subject to extreme derision. What makes that point any better than any other extremism? Extremism generally springs from a feeling of being unfairly put-upon and having such a superior stance that brigandry is fully acceptable. Is a leftist firebrand any more counterproductive than a centrist practicalitymonger? It's a matter of taste.

The problem with compromisers is that they often don't know when to stand up, and the endless history of accomodation leaves a bad taste in the mouths of the observers.

Yes, it's tiresome listening to people throwing down the gauntlet, but it's much more annoying hearing how we are by nature so marginal that we should crush some of what's best about the left just out of some kind of defeatist self-loathing that's cloaked in "sense".

What distinguishes your flat dismissal of somewhat impractical idealists from the close-mindedness of conservatives?

Your original post actually makes some sense, but from that you have to automatically snap back to left-baiting. You've certainly gotten emotional and extreme on ideas and individuals; if you were really a centrist COALITION BUILDER, you'd have commiserated with the person a bit and tried to present your position, rather than just labeling this human being as a foolish screaming fringe bolshevik who's going to personally destroy your world.

Every day you see at least one post where someone does this. How many posts are there a day? It's the end of the earth.

[welshTerrier2]

22. the highest disdain !!

because they deviated one bit from the far left agenda

you really need to stop this name calling ... i hold arguments such as this one in the highest disdain ...

how dare you refer to those of us who could see the truth about Iraq as having a "far left agenda" ... is it just possible we had the best interests of the U.S. and the global community in mind when we opposed this demonic war? take issue with those who will never again vote for war supporting democrats all you want ... i have no problem with that ...

but your foolish labeling of those who were dead on about the illegal war in Iraq as "far left" is beneath contempt ... and your refusal to acknowledge the horrors brought about, or at least enabled, by the democratic hawks who supported the war is totally disingenuous ...

[jiacinto]

113. I will take issue with those people

because there war isn't the only concern facing this country. I think of programs like Head Start. Defeating Democrats means that poor children will suffer. That is why I am adamant on this point.

[welshTerrier2]

119. there are 2 issues here, not one ...

your original post raised 2 different issues:

1. you disagree with people who will not support democrats because of one specific issue (e.g. the war) AND
2. you referred to those who opposed the war as having a "far left agenda" ...

The focus of my post was on the second point ... not the first ...

in your own words: Those who are there on the issues 60-80% of the time should be "voted out" because they deviated one bit from the far left agenda.

the "one bit" from which the poster accused certain dems of "deviating" was their support for the war resolution and thus the war ... your statement, therefore, implies that the "far left agenda" the poster referred to was the failure by certain dems to oppose the war ...

OPPOSITION TO THE WAR IS NOT, AND HAS NEVER BEEN, A "FAR LEFT" AGENDA !!! The war was and is insane ... we had no right to invade Iraq ... it was an illegal action ... those who supported it should be held responsible ... and what has the war accomplished? our fighting men and women are being slaughtered in a senseless guerilla war that will not end until we leave Iraq ... we have "codified" the new standard for pre-emptive war ... we have weakened the U.N. ... we are spending more than $4 billion a month in a time of record budget deficits ... is opposition to this madness a "far left agenda" ???

we can agree or disagree whether dems who supported this madness should be supported against bush ... each of us must carefully weigh this issue ... but to call opposition to the war a "far left agenda", and your statement clearly shows that's what you implied (is that what you meant to say?), is just plain wrong ...

[Trek234]

120. Not voting Clinton does not mean a republican will come in

Come time for here reelection the dem party should pull support for her and put someone else up in her place for election. That's all.

What good is a dem that votes like a republican on a matter - the most important matter - of life and death for thousands of people?

[sandnsea]

6. They could have been completely right

If they had gone into Iraq and secured stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons immediately, they would have been completely right. Trusting the intelligence the way it was presented and believing that more was being discovered with Special Ops troops on the ground, it isn't inconceivable that in October they believed a yes vote would be appropriate. I haven't read everybody's floor statements, but the one's I have read are pretty clear that Bush was only getting authorization to work with the UN and disarm militarily only if needed to protect U.S. security. They really had no way of knowing the extent these people were willing to go with their lies. With no clear indication that Saddam was actively cooperating, it was tough to come out on the side of even more inspections. And again, they just as easily could have been right.

[ParanoidPat]

13. RE: "they would have been completely right"....

....

WRONG!

:evilgrin:

Two words, preemptive attack!
Do you mind showing me where in the Constitution of the United States of America it lays out the conditions that allow for a President to order an attack without any proof of an imminent threat?
Can you square the preemptive murder of people who've been mistakenly identified as wanted criminals? Have you forgotten the innocent civilians ( A mother and her 18 month old child! ) that died as a result of a Hellfire missile hitting their home when it missed a convoy of the wrong people?

I've read it over and over again and I can't quite find any reference that allows the concept of 'due process' to be suspended by the government for anyone under any circumstances.

Am I missing something? :shrug:

[Parche]

126. nobody voted "FOR" the war

It was a vote for the use of force if necessary and if all means
of diplomacy were exhausted, which they were not, it was not a vote
for any war, bush took it to the next step and illegally invaded on his own.

[lkinsale]

7. Yes, why? Graham said it was all bosh on October 13...

But did anybody listen?

Misfiring in the War on Terror, October 13, 2002

The resolution that was passed last week in Congress erroneously suggests that Saddam Hussein is the ultimate bully in the world, and that taking him out now and for good is to be our nation's top priority. Hussein may be the baddest guy in the Middle East, but he is just one of the bad guys -- and he does not pose an immediate threat to our homeland, according to a recently declassified assessment from the CIA.

I think we need to realize that there were voices (well, at least there was Graham's) but the media simply refused to pay attention.

[JNelson6563]

8. The answer is easy, if not obvious.

Here was the plan.

Vote yes on the Iraq resolution. Easy win, rifin' the misAdministrations heels. Be able to claim you were shoulder to shoulder with the Simian, er, I mean pResident. Issues of Security take a back burner to the struggling economy.

Looks good. On paper. Those fools.

Julie

[CWebster]

14. The way I see it is

Bush is losing credibility fast on all fronts. Barring some spectacular turnaround, it is almost a given that he is doomed - even a 100 million dollars and the biggest election fraud scam is unlikely to turn the tide.

The contest is between the Democrats. Lieberman is out. Gephardt is a loser. Kucinich is a good and decent man, but painfully vulnerable, Edwards is too compromised. Kerry is a out-of-touch political phony and coward who doesn't resonate with the base. Sharpton can't win so he can tell the truth. Dean ruffles the establishment's feathers.

It is our shot to put up our best to confront and energize the party--Don't throw the opportunity away to support a candidate who supported possibly the worst regime in US history--only to have them brush it all under the rug due to guilt and compliance. Let's use this chance to come clean.

[Q]

31. Let's not mince words: they voted for a war of aggression...

- Votes for the war resolution gave credibility to Bush's* (fascist) policy of preemptive deterrence. Those who voted for the 'resolution' were agreeing with a war of aggression against a country that everyone knew had no ability to strike the United States.

- Even if they thought that Saddam had a nuclear program...they had no good reason to approve a preemptive strike...especially one that included a shock and awe plan that would kill thousands of civilians.

[Terwilliger]

32. They voted for US Imperialism

and they will pay that price.

[BurtWorm]

34. I believe it's unwise to expect perfection of any person

least of all politicians. The best we can hope for is that they won't lie to us (much), will admit their mistakes and demonstrate the capacity to learn from them, and will not respect money more than constituency.

I am still sore with Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Chuck Schumer (among many others) for voting in favor of the Iraq resolution. But I cannot rule out supporting any of them in their future campaigns based on that one vote, as egregious an error as I believe it was for all of the above. I am softening my stance toward them (right after the vote, I was convinced I would never vote for Hillary Clinton again, and wrote to tell her I considered her vote a betrayal). But I'm not going to allow my lack of support for Hillary to enable a Pataki or a Giuliani or an Al D'Amato clone to represent me in the Senate. Better an imperfect Hillary than a perfect jackass like D'Amato.

[CWebster]

35. Why chose them

and validate their complicity, their lack of integrity, their pandering for political points, their dishonesty, their willingness to be acquiescent and passive while the criminals were at the helm, to only speak out when others forged ahead---why reward them when there is the choice not to which will not result in the lesser of two evils?

Is that the best we can ever expect? To vote for only to vote against?

[BurtWorm]

41. Because I view their votes for the Iraq resolution as an error

but their Iraq resolution vote is not all any of them are. It seems foolish to me to hang all of my decision on a single action. I could, if I wanted, express my own political purity in public and my outrage over this one single act, because I am outraged by it for many of the reasons that you cite. But the truth is, when it comes to their election, I am going to base my own vote on how safe I think Hillary, for example, is or isn't. If I believe she's safe, I'll consider registering a soft protest with a vote for an alternative candidate--probably a Green. But just this ambivalence about my own vote suggests to me that I really don't have enough of a problem with Hillary Clinton representing me in the Senate. I'd like her to be less centrist, less cautious, more progressive, more aggressive, and I'll continue to write to urge her to be all of the above. And I will not easily forgive her for the Iraq vote. But I'm basically a Democrat, when you get right down to it.


To clarify: I support Dean right now. But I will not have a problem supporting Kerry, despite his Iraq and "get over it" warts, if he wins the nomination.

[RichM]

43. It's dishonest to call the Iraq vote a "single action." What you're saying

is the moral equivalent of "Well, it's true that this guy murdered my whole family. But it was only a single action. It's really not fair to judge him on that basis alone."

[sangha]

49. Too bad

you have to resort to such lurid mischaracterization in order to make your point. I guess logic and reason are not enough. You need to announce "moral equivalency"

Rove would be proud.

[RichM]

53. Please

go annoy someone else. _|_

[CWebster]

55. Well he is good for somethin, Rich

It keeps the thread kicked up.


;-)

[sangha]

63. That sounds like

the "moral equivalency" of "I'm leavin and I'm taking my ball with me"

[Eloriel]

67. Oh, for Pete's sake

It's an ANALOGY. And a pretty good one.

Unbelievable.

Eloriel

[sangha]

74. Oh dear! Oh my!

your expressions of shock are hilarious.

And it's the sort of "analogy" (ie a morality play) that the Repukes just love.

[BurtWorm]

77. No it isn't a good analogy, Eloriel.

It's dishonest and overblown. The Dem collaborators are like the spineless collaborators who let the Nazis take over France. But they're not the Nazis. They're bad, but they're not as bad as the Bushists.

[BurtWorm]

57. It's more like this:

"Well, this guy froze and didn't call 911 when he knew the next door neighbors were being murdered. True, someone was pointing a gun at him at the time--an unloaded gun, as it turns out--but his inaction makes him complicit in the murders in some way. Not as much as the murderers, but almost as much."

Or does it?

[CWebster]

45. Really Burt?

Then it applies to Bush as well? It was just an "error"?

The "purity" charge is a slur. That would be like claiming that some public figure was greater then their racism, but anyone who objected to that small "error" is being a purist. Yet it was the "purists" who were responsible for progressive change, like civil rights, precisely because they refused to give it a pass.

This was more than an error, it was a betrayal of the nation, and if Kerry wins the nomination, the wound still festers and there will be many not willing to hold him in high enough esteem to cast a vote for him when the third party beckons. So, it is up to us, us who protested this illegal invasion from the start, to do our utmost to make sure that we can vote for a Democrat who stands up for what they believe in.

[BurtWorm]

54. Bushists are the authors of the Iraq policy. They *are* the Iraq policy!

The Dems who voted for the resolution are collaborators, no doubt about it. But some are owed consideration of mitigating facts.

But Bush's "single act" of pushing for war in Iraq is only part of a chain of acts, a larger picture of interconnected acts, that make it imperative he gets his imperialist, conniving, anti-democratic ass kicked out the White House at the soonest possible moment. For me, this period of American history, from now until November 2004, is all about the vindication or defenestration of the Bushism as a popular "ideology." Nothing is more important to me than seeing George W. Bush's head roll in the basket under the electoral guillotine. I don't give a shit about third parties. I don't give a shit about ideological purity. I want to see some electoral tyrranicide. Then we can talk about purifying the Democratic Party.

[CWebster]

58. Why fucking wait

When we don't have to settle for a collaborator NOW?

There is no excuse for installing Kerry just because he thinks it is his as number one insider.

[BurtWorm]

65. I'd prefer Dean. I'm going to support Dean.

But if Dean doesn't make the nomination, I'm not going to make it easier, if I can help it, for Bush to win or steal the next election. I'm going to vote for the not-Bush most likely to win, whoever that may be. (The only one I am having any difficulty at all voting for is Lieberman, himself one of the enthusiastic authors of the collaboration, if not the policy in Iraq itself.)

[Eloriel]

80. Mitigating facts

They were amply warned by others -- Graham, Byrd, our own CIA. We begged them not to pass that damn thing. They had 1-1-2 years of history of Bush's lying and cheating. They even should have known about our official National Security plan and the PNAC.

Here are the mitigating facts:

1. They were willing to sell out the country, and an unknown number of innocent lives (including combatants on both sides), to avoid being called "unpatriotic" by Bush and the GOP.

2. Some were especially willing to sell out the country, and an unknown number of innocent lives (including combatants on both sides), to avoid being called "unpatriotic" by Bush and the GOP as they sought the Democratic nomination for President.

IOW: pure, crass, political calculation -- MIScalculation as it thankfully turns out. Losing votes is the least they deserve. My personal preference would be to have them tried for treason.

And something else: IF WE DON't HOLD THEM RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR SPINELESSNESS, what the hell else do we deserve? Sorry, but AFAIC, anyone who knew the truth about the Iraq war in advance here at DU who is still willing to vote for them for anything (even dogcatcher) ALSO has blood on their hands.

If anyone wants to call that a litmus test, just go right ahead. I call it the very goddamned least I expect of the people who are elected to represent ME and serve the nation.

Eloriel

[BurtWorm]

84. Main Mitigating Fact: Iraq is not the only thing on their plates

It's a big thing, no doubt about it. It's about their willingness to set their Constitutional duties aside because some dictator demands them to, to greenlight an illegitimate foreign policy by an illegitimate "president." No doubt about it, you have to consider the seriousness of their collaboration when considering them as a whole. And how mitigating their attention to other details has been is in question.

But you finally have to ask yourself if it's moral to allow things to get worse--and they will get much, much worse if Bush is greenlighted by the electorate--before they get better. If it was immoral to greenlight Bush's drive to war, is it any less immoral to enable him to hold onto power with another term? I think not. You may disagree.

[Tinoire]

85. I'm with you! YOU GO GIRL!

I have the same litmus test and will NOT back down.

If MY party wants MY vote, then let them run the people's choice!

Let them run a candidate who gives a rat's ass about the people! Let them run who we want instead of who the corporations and the Republicans want!

One citizen one vote. Anyone preferring to sell me out need not count on my vote!

Year after year of voting for the lesser of two evils got us to the despicable state of ABSOLUTE EVIL! we're in now. Finally, I am saying ENOUGH.

[BurtWorm]

89. And if Bush wins or steals another term

who among us will have blood on our hands for that?

[Tinoire]

103. I tossed and turned over this one Burt

Have been tormenting myself for over a year. To be perfectly honest, even after that post, I can't guarantee what I would do in the election booth. These are scary times indeed and I don't want Bush anymore than you do. But I also don't want to reward my reps for reprehensible behavior.

If the fear of losing our votes can't reign them in, what will?

This is supposed to be a democracy. I am supposed to be able to vote for the better man/woman, for the one who will best represent me. Why am I denied that choice? It's always boiled down to the lesser of 2 evils with our system and now, after all this time, the liquid has evaporated and we're left with mostly gunk at the bottom of the pot.

I want a new pot or I want fresh water in the pot. I just can't settle for this gunk anymore. My naive little eyes have been opened to the co-habitation between certain Dems and the Republicans.

I can't endorse them anymore. I do believe in the Living God and do believe that I will stand in front of Him one day- explaining all the conscious choices I made. Right now, even as I stand on the brink of losing everything I worked for my entire life, I refuse to be selfish and only care about me. They've opened my eyes too much and I care about what we've been doing to the rest of the world, to my brothers and sisters. Can you understand that?

Maybe I'll cave in and vote against Bush as opposed to for someone but that is PLAIN ROTTEN and WRONG. ROTTEN and WRONG that the Dem leadership has sold out and that they still have the nerve to count on my vote with no accountability to the voters.

We are in a total mess. Maybe we should just let the whole rotten house fall down so we can start rebuilding. Maybe the entire foundation is so rotten that we can't even build on it anymore. Maybe even if my ideal candidate won (Kucinich) his hands would be so tied that he couldn't accomplish anything. Clinton was DLC- he was one of the boys and look how tied his hands were when he tried to do anything they disagreed with! It wasn't until his 2nd term that he was able to act a bit more independently.

And if the DLC let Gore lose, helped Gore lose to that vile reptile occupying the White House, it's because they knew Gore would be even more of a head-ache than Clinton.

Why would I endorse them? Give them my vote? We're talking about war enablers and people who wouldn't stand up for Gore! Will such people stand up for you and me? Have they?

Difficult question and only in the election booth will I know the answer.


On edit: And if Bush wins/STEALS another election again, it will be because they ALLOW him to-like they did last time. They abandoned Gore, stabbed him in the back. And for this, they are brazen enough to demand my vote? Kucinich, Sharpton, Dean, Braun... The others... that will really be an angry call to conscience!

[BurtWorm]

111. I here you loud and clear, Tinoire

Just had a lengthy response eaten by a failure to connect to the database. In essence I thanked you for writing such a thoughtful and exactly right reply. As I was telling CWebster a while ago, my leniency toward Kerry is a contingency to prepare me for the event that Dean, who I believe should be the nominee, not get the nomination. Kerry is my second choice. I wish I thought Kucinich could win, but I don't. What motivates me most now is my desire to end the Bushist regime. But I'm not so controlled by that desire that I think Dems should settle for anyone less than the candidate whom they want with all their heart.

Again, thanks for an excellent post!

[Tinoire]

115. Aw shucks, you're such a gracious and thinking person

((I've learned to Ctrl + C anything I write before I hit post because I've lost so many and can't stand re-typing them! ))

I understand wht you mean about your leniency towards Kerry! I'm so far out to the left that I'm just beginning to prepare myself for Dean, in the event that Kucinich doesn't win! :) BLM is a Kerry fan and soon I have a feeling I may be asking you and her for Kerry info. If Kucinich doesn't win, I will be heart-broken because I really believe he's the best choice for our country but I know I had better get prepared for that eventuality. So looking at Dean and looking at Kerry. Not sure how much further I can go without screaming :)

Good luck! I wish all of us here good luck. This isn't going to be an easy decision for most of us and I really hope all act according to our consciences so that the best man wins because it will take the best man, with the passion of his supporters behind him to beat * (or whoever succeeds Bush). May the best man, whoever he is, win.

Peace

[BurtWorm]

118. "Not sure how much further I can go without screaming"

You can say that again!! (You don't have to because I did it for you.)

Good luck to you too, and to all bravehearted Democrats.

[GreenArrow]

104. and if the PNAC plans unfolds before our eyes

under a Democratic presidency, and it will, what then? Does an iron fist cease to be an iron fist if it is wearing a glove?

[BurtWorm]

114. What makes you so sure this conspiracy is inevitable?

Your argument is a rationalization to do nothing.

"PNAC has everything all plotted out. We're powerless to stop them anyway. So why not all go rushing like lemmings over the cliff into the sea of marginality?"

PNAC is a neo-con power center/think tank. They are not the all-powerful Devil incarnate. They are imperialists, and their grip on foreign policy can be released, finger by finger, as their already-implemented plans are shown up to be the ill-thought out disasters they are.

[Tinoire]

116. How do we get their grip released finger by finger though?

The only way I see is to expose them and gradually vote them out. This is going to be very difficult because even within our own party, they still have some support and then we have a lot of uninformed Dems who have no idea what PNAC or AEI are.

It's times like these...

[BurtWorm]

117. The scariest thing about them is that you can't vote them out

You can vote the Bushists out, which would clear most of them out of government, but you can't clear out the ones who work in the media and the other think tanks and academia... But you can vote in an administration that won't give them seats of power.

[GreenArrow]

121. Conspiracy

The evidence of this conspiracy is all around. You know it. Many of us know it. Many more of us are asleep. Or don't want to admit what they are seeing.

No, I don't know what to do. And no, I'm not really advocating doing nothing. Or anything. I just think that playing by the old rules expecting anything to change is only going to lead to more disillusionment. Bush is a horror. But whether he's in two years from now, or not, he's opened a Pandora's box.

[BurtWorm]

125. On that last thought, I wholeheartedly agree with you.

I don't believe the PNAC conspiracy is as much a threat as you do. But I'm open to being convinced.

[sangha]

87. So then why does Dean say

that it's "unthinkable" that Bush* lied about Iraq?

After all, "They were amply warned by others -- Graham, Byrd, our own CIA" and he had "1-1-2 years of history of Bush's lying and cheating" and "should have known about our official National Security plan and the PNAC"

So why does Dean say Bush* lying is "unthinkable"? Doesn't Dean know that "IF WE DON't HOLD THEM RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR SPINELESSNESS, what the hell else do we deserve?"

[CWebster]

91. That was Dascle.

But it is unthinkable, lying about such matters nonetheless. It doesn't obscure the lying, even if the act is "unthinkable" for the president.

[sangha]

94. Dean said it too

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/politics/2324514/detail.html

Kerry, Democrats Question Bush's Iraq Credibility

...The former Vermont governor, who opposed the war, added: "The only other possibility, which is unthinkable, is that the president of the United States knew himself that this was a false fact and he put it in the State of the Union anyhow. I hope for the sake of this country that did not happen." ...

You criticized Daschle for saying it was "unthinkable". Will you criticize Dean for saying the same?

[CWebster]

97. depends

Dean frames it as the lie being an unthinkable act for the president, Daschle suggests that the thought that the president would lie is unthinkable.


hehheh

[sangha]

101. shameless

.

[CWebster]

106. I thought it was pretty

sharp, lol.

[Tinoire]

108. Well put! May I use/quote in the future? n/t

[GreenArrow]

37. They knew

they complied. In some cases, maybe they contributed actively. If they knew or believed Bush was lying, they had an obligation to say so, and vote against that ridiculous resolution.

Are they stupid people, are they naive and gullible, these Kerrys, these Liebermans, these Clintons, Edwards, and Gephardts? I don't think so. They knew what they were doing. They were hanging our soldiers out to dry, sending them to die for lies and the filthiest of lucre, they were helping to bankrupt our country, they were assisting in the destruction of a country and a culture, its environment and people, and the theft of their resources, and they are complicit in the murder and deaths of thousands.

But maybe, like Madeline ALbright said, with medusa-like coolness, the price is worth it.

[Tinoire]

69. Thank you Green Arrow. This happened under Clinton ALSO. Rant

This is NO time to bury our heads in the sand! THIS is our chance to start fixing the entire, cancer-ridden, rotten system! PNAC, AEI, DLC, it all needs to go!

--

Not to put too fine a point on it, since it distracts from the primary struggle, which is with the "fascisti" in the WH; but a week ago every single Dem in the Senate, and most of those in the House, voted to support Bush "as commander-in-chief" and the troops ("Sorry, but the chick got in the way") as they maraud through the cradle of civilization. And it was Richard Holbrooke, the architect along with Mad "a hard choice, but yes, it's worth it" Albright of the destruction of Yugoslavia and the ethnic cleansing of the Serb population in Kosovo, who boasted a few weeks ago that he and Clinton and Sandy Berger didn't let such niceties as the UN get in the way of their assaults, and that Bush was a weak-kneed pantywaist for seeking a second resolution in the Security Council. "We don' need no stinkin' badges!" I may have missed something, but I don't remember Honest Al resigning over differences with Clinton on that score, or over the terrorist bombing and destruction of the pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan that supplied most of the medications and aspirins to east and north Africa. As a matter of fact, it was Al who was dispatched to South Africa to warn them to stop making generic anti-AIDS drugs available to their HIV-positive population, as it interfered with drug company prerogatives (you know, the copyright they were given free of charge by the government, which used public funds to research the drugs) - the right to profit off people's misery, a sacred right under every president of either party in America. And isn't it Al whose investments in Occidental Petroleum are being protected, in the true spirit of bipartisanship, by the troops we fielded in Colombia?

<snip> the details may differ, and certainly Dubya is far more reckless than anyone outside of John McCain, but the real reason the fascist right carried off their coup was for the loot: the tax cuts, the gigantic contracts, the unlimited fraud, the opportunity to steal on an unimaginable scale, the vast and unprecedented concentration of power and terror. The global imperium, one may safely assume (as the corporate crime lords in the CFR undoubtedly did), would be in good hands whoever won. That's why they fund the Republican wing of *both* parties, the wing which, in the case of the Democrats, nestled within the DLC, chaired for a time by Al Gore.

(Even with regard to Iraq, Clinton never wavered from his position that, contra UN 687, only the exit, graceful or otherwise, of Saddam and his associates would suffice to lift the sanctions, which killed over a million Iraqi civilians, around half of them small children, while he held office. Further, it was during his term that Saddam's son-in-law, the highest-ranking defector ever, revealed to the UN, the CIA and MI6 that he himself had been in charge of the Iraqi weapons program, and had personally overseen the destruction of the bulk of their chemical and biological and all of their nuclear weapons capacity after the first Gulf slaughter. His testimony on the size of the program, which was larger than the west had known, was considered credible enough to trot it out on innumerable occasions for the next eight years under both Clinton and Bush; his testimony that he had overseen the destruction (so that no commander would b tempted to use the weapons, which he and Saddam knew would result in the nuking of Iraq, under Clinton as well as Bush I and II) was fit only for the ears of his interlocutors, and effectively covered up by both presidents. (He was executed when he returned to Iraq the following year.) Finally, it was Clinton who ordered the inspectors out in 1998, after using them as spies to develop target locations for his planned bombing, which commenced immediately afterward. And it was Clinton whose sanctions were described by the head of the UN relief organization, when he resigned in protest, as "genocidal," a judgment concurred in by his successor, who also resigned for the same reason.)

http://www.kansasgreens.org/pipermail/kansas-list/2003-April/002013.html

[GreenArrow]

110. Thank you!

It's a real treat to have someone actually understand that what is going on is much, much, much bigger than the traditional Democrat versus Republican (false) dynamic. Both parties are corporate owned and controlled, and they exist to serve their interests, not ours.
Divide and conquer is a time tested way of controlling people.

[Tinoire]

64. All answers are in this thread which everyone should read in its entirety

and then go do your own digging and googling:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=18394&mesg_id=18394&page=#18772

In answer to the question. I will NEVER vote for any PNAC/AEI enabling DLC types because they were lock, step and barrel in agreement with this from the beginning. Nor would I vote for any non-DLC types who went along. They knew from the beginning what a lie and charade this was! They played along because they WANTED to. I still have the obscene response Dianne Feinstein sent me when I wrote against the her blood-lusty war vote. They KNEW. They knew they were working with MANUFACTURED evidence and they KNEW where it came from. If people can't open their eyes now and get the entire cancer out- then we are LOST as a nation.

For those of you who do not believe the DLC, the AEI, and PNAC have been working closely together, research the DU archives on the PNAC and AEI. The dots were connected long ago by some of our best researchers at DU who I hope will weigh into these threads.

*******

Lagniappe:

Turning now to the actual use of the phrase "the price is worth it," we come to U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's reply to Lesley Stahl's question on "60 Minutes" on May 12, 1996:

Stahl: "We have heard that a half a million children have died . I mean that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And -- you know, is the price worth it?"

Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it."

In this case, however, although the numbers dead are mind- boggling--the ratio of dead Iraqi children to deaths in the WTC/Pentagon bombings was better than 80 to 1, using the now obsolete early 1996 number for Iraqi children--the mainstream media and intellectuals have not found Albright's rationalization of this mass killing of any interest whatsoever. The phrase has been only rarely cited in the mainstream, and there has been no indignation or suggestion that the mass killing of children in order to satisfy some policy end was immoral and outrageous.

http://www.refuseandresist.org/normalcy/111601edherman.html

November 1, 1999
Albright's Tiny Coffins
Back in 1996, when the number of Iraqi children killed off by sanctions stood at around half a million, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright made her infamous declaration to Lesley Stahl on CBS that "we think the price is worth it". Given such pride in mass murder at the top, it comes as little surprise to learn that the State Department views the truth about the vicious sanctions policy with the same insouciance as their boss regards the lives of Iraqi children, now dying at the rate of four thousand a month.

"Saddam Hussein's Iraq", released by the State Department on September 13, is an effort to persuade an increasingly disgusted world that any and all human misery in Iraq is the sole fault and responsibility of the Beast of Baghdad. The brazen tone of this sorry piece of propaganda can be assessed from the opening summary: "The international community, not the regime of Saddam Hussein, is working to relieve the impact of sanctions on ordinary Iraqis." An examination of how the sanctions system actually works tells a very different story.

<snip>

There appears little prospect of change in this miserable situation. Last year, Denis Halliday, the UN coordinator for humanitarian relief in Iraq, quit in protest over a policy that causes "four to five thousand children to die unnecessarily every month due to the impact of sanctions". White House officials expressed their delight that this irksome voice of moral outrage had been removed from the scene, but Hans von Sponek, Halliday's successor, is showing signs of treading the same path, publicly appealing for the end of sanctions.

Friends say he is on the verge of quitting. For Albright that will be no less acceptable a price than the thousands of little coffins that will serve as her memorial.
http://www.counterpunch.org/tinycoffins.html
***

And the fucking sanctions! The obscene CRIMINAL sanctions! No these people knew and worked hand in hand. Never again will anyone tainted by this get my vote. Never, ever again! I did not sacrifice my evenings, my week-ends, my nights, my marriage to fight them only to go into the voting vote and vote for anyone who enable them! My vote is worth more than that and people have to earn it!

Look at these pictures and tell me how anyone can support this!

----
I have recently received large numbers of photographs of horrendous birth deformities that are being experienced in Iraq. I have not, quite frankly, ever seen anything like them. I urge you to copy this page / these pictures and circulate them as widely as possible.

In an act of stark cruelty, the US dominated Sanctions Committee refuses to permit Iraq to import the clean-up equipment that they desperately need to decontaminate their country of the Depleted Uranium ammunition that the US fired at them. Approximately 315 tons of DU dust was left by the use of this ammunition.The Sanctions Committee also refuses to allow the mass importation of anti-cancer treatments, which contain trace amounts of radio-isotopes, on the grounds that these constitute '...nuclear materials..'

http://www.web-light.nl/VISIE/extremedeformities.html


http://www.dopcampaign.org/

Kucinich 2004!

[CWebster]

86. An independent investigation into prewar intelligence

was struck down by the Senate yesterday by a vote of 51 to 45.

Kerry, Lieberman and Edwards didn't vote?


Why isn't anyone beating them over the head with this?

Don't bother to answer.

[ewagner]

88. Another view

"The first responsibility of any institution is to survive."

In the context of being in the middle of a political campaign in which the ultimate litmus test was patriotism in the guise of being for or against the war, survival was the issue.

[CWebster]

90. And what about now?

Is that any excuse for now?

Do you really want to vote for someone who cynically put right aside for what, in their poor judgement, was a more popular political attitude of the moment?

Someone wrote earlier that we deserve what we get. Well, there is alot of indignation around these parts from folks not feeling they were personally responsible for the war and the consequences, and they railed against the politicians who supported it for reasons of self-interest and fear, but now they are willing to give it all a pass... Even when the candidates don't even show for a close vote for an independent investigation? Bush will be easy to beat if this keeps up, we should not settle for just anyone as our only option, dismissing it as "purity" to dismiss their lack of honest leadership.

[BurtWorm]

96. You're right, CW

We should not settle for just anyone as our only option, dismissing it as "purity" to dismiss their lack of honest leadership.

In this moment, before the primaries, I wholeheartedly agree with you that we should not be settling on a collaborator just because we believe he is "acceptable" to the electorate at large. We should not settle at all, but push for the candidate we believe answers Bushism with a slap across the face. And that is precisely why I'm supporting Dean.

But in the aftermath of the primaries, or of the convention, when it becomes clear who the winner is, if that winner is one of the collaborators, what are you going to do then? Are you going to bolt? Would it be acceptable to you if a lot of similarly principled Dems bolt and help make a second Bush term inevitable? Or do you believe that anyone other than Bush and his Democratic opponent, whoever that may be, has a real chance to win the election? If your guy doesn't win the Democratic nomination, do you even care who wins the election?

[CWebster]

102. I hope and pray that i don't ever have to worry about that

that is why the energy against Kerry NOW...


Do you believe Kerry didn't vote in a 51-43 vote against an independent investigation of the prewar intelligence yesterday?

[BurtWorm]

105. That's another strike against him

Let's call the "get over it" a foul tip. I would so much rather have the party united behind Dean from now until November 2004. I would so much rather not have to worry about supporting a sell-out and all that shit. I am just preparing myself for the eventuality that my party is going to disappoint the shit out of me yet again. Story of my Democratic life.

[CWebster]

107. Can dig that

Oh well, time for my daily walk around the capital plaza with Frank.

[jpgray]

112. What happened here? LOL

about 10 to the point posts and somewhere near 90 candidate bashing and petty argument posts? Blah.

I still haven't thought of an answer I can wrap my head around. I'll give it some more thought while I bike. I don't think Dems wanted to bask in the Bush-glow. Just as the media wasn't jsut stupid and lazy. They both knew the word was out to wait until after the war, I think. But why? And if there is a force that can slow both Dems and the press from holding a POTUS accountable, that force needs to be identified and stymied. Most likely it is the super-corporation, but there could be some quid pro quos undert he table we just don't know about. Who knows?