Should the Democrats adopt a strong-anti-war platform at the convention?

[WI_DEM]

Shades of 1968? Some delegates--many DK, Dean and even some Kerry delegates are talking about forcing a floor fight at the convention so that the party will adopt a strongly stated anti-Iraqi war statement. Some pols, are against rocking the ship and don't want to have this kind of debate disrupting the convention. But the anti-war dems think this is exactly what a convention is all about.

What do you think?

[no name no slogan]

1. I preferred a strong anti-war plank adopted by the platform committee

but it's fairly plain to see that things did not come out that way.

I don't know if a floor fight is necessarily the best thing at the convention, but I think the anti-war Dems deserve some face time in front of the nation, to explain why they think continuing the Iraq occupation indefinately is a bad idea.

[LoZoccolo]

2. They should adopt an anti-glacier platform as well.

:eyes:

[CharlesGroce]

3. I hosted a similar poll a couple of months ago

88% of DUers are against the war but will support John Kerry for President...Americans are against the war...too bad we don't have a candidate who really wants to win and will start agreeing with the American people.

[LoZoccolo]

5. "Americans are against the war."

Prove it. Last I heard they thought it was a mistake, but that doesn't mean they want to take advantage of the cozy American luxury of pulling out and letting more Iraqi leaders get assasinated.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[LoZoccolo]

13. Read the paper sometime.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5705013

[CharlesGroce]

28. Get some independent media regularly

http://www.democracynow.org

[LoZoccolo]

30. So I suppose the fact that they don't cover it there...

...means it never happened?

Oh geez.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

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

[LoZoccolo]

36. Nice try.

We're talking about Iraq. Please don't try to imply that I don't know anything about informed citizenry and it's essential role in democracy.

[CharlesGroce]

11. I just can't believe....

You think it would have to be because of some "cozy luxury" ideology to believe that we should withdraw, that is just filth. It doesn't make sense.

[LoZoccolo]

12. Not to believe it...

...but to disregard the consequences.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

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

[CharlesGroce]

20. That remains to be seen

Anything else to add to what I said?

[LoZoccolo]

22. Yeah.

I did not support the war, so the rest of whatever you said is bunk.

[CharlesGroce]

25. You do now!

By implying that it must be some ideological luxury to believe that we should withdraw from Iraq, you, actually, are supporting the war.

Maybe you didn't support it then, but you support it now, which is worse!

The Iraqi people's blood is on our hands. Just "try" to break the media made chains that squeeze your beliefs. Just try for a minute.

Your argument is losing because there is nothing to it. This war is wrong, always has been, always will be! The Iraqi people want us out, always have.

And now your ideology enables the corporations of this country, and the world (corporate fascists) to steal these peoples resources "in the name of freedom!" It's sick, and leave it at the door the next time we talk.

[LoZoccolo]

29. Pretending that the war never happened...

...and taking everything and going "well, see ya! Hope you don't mind we blew the piss out of everything and didn't fix much of it, and oh by the way, I hope all the people that helped us out when we were trying to restore some form of government can cope with being attacked by other Iraqis" is not responsible, does not respect Iraqi lives, is basically what Bush I did to the Kurds (do you agree with that?), and is something you can decide to do flippantly with no consequence to your own life whatsoever.

I noticed you just flat-out ignored the news I posted about the assasinations that took place recently, and which would probably take place not only for members of the governing council, but just ordinary Iraqi civilians who cooperated with us just to get people to stop running around stealing shit. It's easy to make decisions about what would happen to those people when you're on the other side of the world.

See I'm willing to take some responsibility for what we already did, which was regrettable, rather than go "la la la la I'm just gonna forget it and look the other way."

[tinanator]

56. the assassinations that are taking place on our watch

i hope you arent calling that an argument

[Imperialism Inc.]

58. I was thinking the same thing.

What is the argument? That we should stay to watch some more assassinations up close? They just aren't as fun to watch if our troops aren't there when it happens.

[LoZoccolo]

60. The argument is...

...that all these factions are trying to grab power. It'd be worse for the people if we left them with no way of restoring order. I'm sure if you thought about it for a few minutes you could have figured that out.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

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

[LoZoccolo]

74. Yeah.

That's what I'm saying (except for the raghead part). They have not much of anything in the way of police or law enforcement or an army there yet. We have to wait till that gets set up to replace the old system. It'll take time.

But I mean it in a much different sense than you are implying anyways; not in a racist sense. I'm not gonna support getting innocent Iraqis victimized and killed just to dodge an accusation of racism by far lefties. It's a matter of we broke up their infrastructure and government and have the resources to replace it until they get it back.

[LoZoccolo]

75. That's not to say they won't get there.

But for now, yeah, after we tore shit up, we're gonna have to help out.

I wouldn't be surprised if you said we should have pulled out right before the statue went down and left everyone to looting and stuff as an exercise in showing we're not racist (even though any country would be given to that had people torn shit up in it - but let's forget all that, we've gotta make sure that the far left can't accuse us of anything despite any cost to Iraqi lives).

Don't even go there. I could just as easily construe your argument as "well who gives a fuck if they're left with no security - they're just ragheads". But I won't. Because I'm not pretending to be Malcolm X (or rather, the impression some people have of him having not even been born when he was around).

[LoZoccolo]

76. Honor killings on the rise.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040726-665048,00.html

This is one of the reasons we have to wait until they get their security infrastructure back on it's feet - women getting killed for not being virgins because of the lack of security there.

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

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

[LoZoccolo]

79. Yes, they must have made it all up.

In the same issue where they're probably talking about all the problems with the war. Give me a break. I'm not going to ignore the Iraqi citizens to try and cram what I believe happens and doesn't happen into an ideological hole.

[LoZoccolo]

80. I can't believe this shit. It's like a cult.

It's like believing the dinosaurs didn't exist.

[tinanator]

81. theyre not in the bible...

take the red pill.

[LoZoccolo]

82. At least read /some/ of it before you discredit it.

At the same time, as the power of Iraq's Muslim clerics has grown, the everyday freedoms that Iraqi women enjoyed under Saddam's secular Baathist regime have eroded.

Yes, pro-war propaganda that implies things were better in this case under Saddam. Yepyepyepyep. :eyes:

[tinanator]

83. gee, how about them Afghani women?

Fool me once, wont get fooled again?

[LoZoccolo]

84. We're not talking about the Afgani women.

If anything, the fact that we didn't continue pushing back on the Taliban supports my case. You make my argument for me.

[tinanator]

85. lol whatever

same clowns running the Iraq scam as ran the Afghanistan op.
Whats that hackneyed definition of insanity?
How about them Iraqi boys? How do they feel? think they like it that way?

[LoZoccolo]

86. Doing the same thing and expecting different results.

Which is why we shouldn't do the same thing. (The question of who is not doing the same thing is irrelevant - the definition is not "being the same person and expecting different results").

Which reminds me, I've got to get to bed.

[LoZoccolo]

77. Fuck it I'm getting your post nuked.

Call me a racist at your own peril. I'm just looking after Iraqis.

I can't fucking believe you.

[LoZoccolo]

14. Same thing with voting for third parties.

It's pretty much a white, middle-class, college-student luxury.

[CharlesGroce]

19. Dismiss third parties all you like

People like you don't represent in any way what the good working people of this country believe: hard work, brotherhood and sisterhood (aka loyalty), it's only a matter of time friend, until the working class realizes their true purpose: to run the country.

And I'll be helping them while you watch TV. Hell, maybe you won't even here about it on TV.

[LoZoccolo]

21. The revolution will not be televised.

The revolution will not be brought to you by the 
Schaefer Award Theatre and will not star Natalie
Woods and Steve McQueen or Bullwinkle and Julia.
The revolution will not give your mouth sex appeal.
The revolution will not get rid of the nubs.
The revolution will not make you look five pounds
thinner, because the revolution will not be televised, Brother.

I would imagine even Gil Scott-Heron would vote for Kerry this time.

[no name no slogan]

67. Last poll I heard on NPR this morning

said that 50% of Americans are now AGAINST the war-- NOT just Democrats or Republicans, but ALL Americans.

The war could easily be a winning issue for us, but Kerry and his people on the platform committee are to AFRAID to challenge Bush on this. So, we ended up with a watered-down statement that sounds a hell of a lot like what Bush has been trying to do the last few months.

We could use this issue to beat the living sh!t out of the Repubs, but unfortunately, for a variety of reasons, we no longer can. We could get ALL the anti-war vote (including those "lefties" the moderates like to demonize), but now we won't.

Yes, there's a difference between Democrats and Republicans. But on this issue, the difference is not much.

[hansolsen]

71. You are wrong to label them "Iraqi leaders". The Iraqis being killed now

are members of the coalition appointed "government" that is not representative of the Iraqi people. They are being killed because they are collaborators, and they will continue to be killed until the U.S. gives up military control of Iraq. Our continued military presence is the proximate cause of the killing now going on.

Now it may very well be that if we pull out, civil war will ensue and more killing may follow. And Kerry may be right, that the U.N. (I really doubt NATO) could play some role in stopping genocide in Iraq after the U.S. military stands down.

The key point that needs to come out of the main convention speeches is as follows:

1. You don't need to be a left wing, starry eyed pacifist to be aginst this war. This was simply an unjust war, and never should have been launched. John Kerry needs to say so.

2. Kerry cannot embrace the war and simply bash Bush for poor execution, and he cannot try to get to the right of Bush now on "staying the course" in Iraq -- he will lose the base if he plays that tune.

[CharlesGroce]

Nomination

without debate. Isn't that indicative of a sick system?

DOWN WITH THE TWO-PARTY SYSTEM!

[IndianaGreen]

4. If you guys want to turn Iraq into a Democratic war...

Before you take such a fateful step, I suggest you read about what happened in this country during the Nixon Administration when Nixon, who had been elected as the "peace" candidate in 1968, decided to "stay the course" in Vietnam in order to get "peace with honor."

[CharlesGroce]

8. They don't (see above)

John Kerry does. But I suppose, we as third party supporters, could assert that by voting for a pro-war candidate, that makes one pro-war.

I think that is an honest, soon to be substantiated assertion.

[merh]

15. I believe Kerry is fully aware of the problems associated with

the "stay the course" policy in vietnam. Come to think of it, I believe he was a war protestor. Don't forget his experience and back ground. Have you read his site and the section on first 100 days? He intends to reestablish international cooperation and let NATO take over the security efforts.

Don't forget his past, don't think you are the only one that remembers that war.

[CharlesGroce]

23. I'm too young to remember that war

What about what comes out of his mouth sir?

Sure, bring NATO in, blah blah blah, all the while American and international companies are still allowed to steal these peoples resources.

And oh yeah, Saddam needed to be disposed of as leader, yet his debt remains with the Iraqi people.

What are John Kerry's stands on the debt of the Iraqi people and the privatization of their resources?

[merh]

33. How the heck can he have a stand on unknowns and uncertainties?

This is the most secretive admin in our history. Who the f knows what things are really like and how badly the * has screwed things up for the country until Kerry gets into office and finds out the truth? My gosh, with all of the bad intel that we know about, have discovered since 9/11, how can anyone trust what the admin says. If you were in congress would you trust anything that the admin tells you?

They play shell games and they probably sent their personnel to the school of Ollie North to learn how to destroy records.

If NATO is involved, you better believe that things will be more equitable for all involved. The costs of the war, the profits to be shared and better allocated to the iraqi people and maybe used to repay loans (if not loans forgiven).

I personally prefer Kerry being cautious over the idea of him making wild eyed promises that cannot be kept. How can you make a promise about an unknown?

If you are too young to remember vietnam, then you have no room to doubt someone who fought in vietnam and returned home to fight against it when it was unpopular. What I find so hard to understand is that the RW tell everyone that he is too liberal and folks here say he is not liberal enough. The RWers say he was unpatriotic because he was an anti-war protester that threw his medals over the WH gates, but folks here forget that he has fought against wars, long before a good many on this board ever took their first steps. The man has the experience and personal insight that drove him then and that continue to drive him today to protect the interests of the troops. If DU had been in existence 35 years ago he would not only be posting on this board, he would be marching on D.C., which is exactly what he did.

[IndianaGreen]

26. The Iraqis want us out of their country

Our skin color and Judeo-Christian values, whatever the Hell that is, don't make us wiser and better than the Arabs we see as "little people, a silly people, greedy, barbarous, and cruel." *

* Lawrence of Arabia (1962)

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

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

[IndianaGreen]

37. Sorry, but I don't support Cobb or Nader this year

but I also live in Indiana, so my vote won't count as Indiana goes on the GOP column within a minute after the polls close.

[merh]

38. How do you make promises about uncertainties?

He cannot do anything until he gets in office and determines how badly the weed that would be king and his band of rethugs have screwed things up. Why is that so hard to understand?

Yes, they want us out - but they also want us to rebuild what we broke. Odd dillema, ain't it. Rebuilding our relationships in the inernational community, obtaining NATO assistance, those are vital to pulling out without foresaking those we have butchered.

Kuwaitt never received any assistance from us after they helped us in the Gulf War, that did alot of good for us didn't it. And what about that silly country Afghanistan. Do you know why OBL really hates us, not just because of our presence on their holy land, but because after Afghanistan helped the US end the cold war by turning back the Soviet Union after their invasion, after the U.S. had trained, armed and financed the war, do you know what we did? We f'n left them, turned our backs and walked away from them and did not help them rebuild their infrastructures and their bombed out homes and the ruined cities. We f'd 'em and didn't kiss 'em. That is why OBL can't stand us. Like GWB, he finds his reliance on Allah gives him strenght and respectability with his people, but in truth, he despises us for our lies and our disrespect for him and the Afghan people that helped us.

There are too many unknowns and nobody can say what can be done to correct things until Kerry gets in office.

[IndianaGreen]

39. "obtaining NATO assistance"

The Iraqis have already said they don't want NATO in their country. Who is a member of NATO? Nations that had colonies in the Middle East, such as Britain, France, Turkey.

You might as well recognize that the so-called "Western civilization" is not welcomed in many parts of the world.

[merh]

40. NATO assistance to train security forces and to assist in the

rebuilding of the nation we destroyed and to assist them in securing their borders. A governing commission of iraqis that are not this admin's puppets.

To pull out NOW will only result in a civil war and the neighboring nations will be pulled into it and then, well nuclear weapons and ...

That region is so unstable because of us. It is impossible to pull out until we realize how unstable and try to determine what the iraqis truly want. We don't know, they haven't had the chance to tell anyone who will listen or who cares. We only hear what the admin wants us to hear.

[IndianaGreen]

42. Americans are the only ones that talk about an Iraqi civil war

We are still adhering to the discredited prewar assumptions.

We are the bad guys, and the sooner we get out, the better everyone will be.

Iraq had a thriving civilization when our European ancestors were living in primitive conditions.

[merh]

43. But the truth is we have destroyed their civilization and we must

try to help them rebuild it, preferrably with the help of NATO.

Like I said, OBL hates us because we were instrumental in the destruction of Afghanistan and did not help them rebuild their land.

The discredited pre-war assumptions are not what we are basing it on. It is the war results - we broke, now we need to try to help fix it.

As stated earlier (and over and over) K cannot know what he can do when he takes office until he gets in office and finds out how badly *&Co have f'd things up. Be realistic - the man has a record of experience in war and as an anti-war protestor.

[IndianaGreen]

44. Pay compensation to Iraq

but leave the Iraqis alone. What is this obsession about America having to stick her business into everyone else's? This is like asking the rape victim to spend some more time with the rapist to help her get over it.

I fear that those in the ruling elites that call for the US to continue to play a role in Iraq are more interested in their profits than they are in the Iraqi people.

We are not voting Bush out just to have Halliburton's Iraq contracts be replaced by contracts with a Massachusetts corporation!

[merh]

45. Will you just be practical and realistic? Get your head out of the clouds

and accept the simple fact that no one can say what they can do to fix the mess until they know exactly how messed up it is. How hard headed can you be and how naive?

"We are not voting Bush out just to have Halliburton's Iraq contracts be replaced by contracts with a Massachusetts corporation!"

I would certainly hope that we not just replace one corp for another and I sincerly doubt we will if NATO and the UN are involved. There are other nations and corporations in the other nations that can be used to help rebuild and if NATO and the UN are involved in this, they will be. It is called sharing.

Unfortunately, the truth is, U.S. corporations do have the better technical skills to rebuild quickly and efficiently.

BOTTOM LINE - don't make promises about what to do until you are in office and can see how badly things are and how much needs to be done.

Don't you think Kerry would just love to say "Pull out of Iraq immediately, that is what I intend to do"? He can't say that because he doesn't know what needs to be done to help Iraq and what the Iraqis truly want. For that matter, neither do you and neither do I. Just as some here say Dean and others say Edwards and others say Kerry and others say none of the above, so too are those in Iraq who want the assistance, others who say get the hell out and others say, I don't know, but I would like it fixed.

Caution and patience until * is out and until he has had a chance to see how bad things are and what options can be taken to try to correct things.

[IndianaGreen]

47. All I remember is that each day we stayed in Vietnam

was another day of bodybags coming home. The worst thing about the whole thing is that, according to the Pentagon Papers, the Government knew the war was lost years before yet it continued to "stay the course."

Let us not repeat the same mistakes of the past, otherwise the only thing we will be accomplishing is adding more names to a future war memorial.

[merh]

48. And to pull out without the proper exist strategy, involving

NATO and the UN will be repeating the crimes of Afghanistan that gave us OBL.

(IMHO)

[IndianaGreen]

50. The crimes in Afghanistan were the ones that Carter and Reagan committed

when they threw their support to the Islamists in order to drive a Marxist government out of power. It was the Marxists that gave women equal rights and free university education.

More often than not, America intervention in other countries have made matters worse. Can't we ever learn, or are we so proud of our own insignificance that we can't see ourselves for what we really are.

[merh]

59. And because the americans did not help in the rebuilding of

Afghanistan after they turned back the Soviets and helping our cold war efforts, OBL turned his hate toward the Soviets against us.

I will not deny that Carter & Raygun were responsible for the crimes in Afghanistan, Raygun especially since he refused to help them rebuild and since he claimed to be responsible for ending the cold war, which never would have happened if the Afghanistan people had not battled to turn back the Soviets, causing them financial ruin, thus assisting in the fall of the Soviets.

I will not deny that the invasion of Iraq was a crime, I will repeat however that there is no way that Kerry can say let's just pull out without first knowing how f'u things are thanks to idiot shrub and without first meeting with the leadership of iraq to see what it is they want. When I say leadership I mean all leaders, not shrub's puppet government. The assistance of the UN and NATO are vital to trying to resolve and straighten up this mess.

Stop focusing on the past and start dealing with reality. Pulling out without first knowing what is truly going on is impossible and impractical.

[no name no slogan]

70. That is a rather presumptuous assumption

"We destroyed their civilization"?

Um, no. We destroyed their infrastructure with bombs and 14+ years of low-intensity war. We destroyed their economy with our invasion. We destroyed the stability in their lives. But we most certainly DID NOT destroy their civilization.

The Iraqis are quite capable of taking care of themselves, and have done so before, during and after Saddam. Before the Gulf War, Iraq was one of the most technologically advanced societies, with a vibrant middle class and a well-educated population.

The only thing we owe Iraq is the MONEY they need to rebuild their country. We are the LAST people who should be doing the rebuilding. Just because we destroyed their infrastructure does not qualify us to rebuild it. Are we asking the families of the 19 9/11 hijackers to rebuild the WTC and the Pentagon? Of course not! WE are hiring the people WE want to rebuild things the way WE want them.

It is unconscionable that we send "our people" over to rebuild their country at a time when unemployment there is at 80%. The Iraqi population has the skills to do 95% of the work-- give them the $$ to do it, and they'll get it done THEIR way.

The biggest problem in Iraq right now is US. We need to withdraw our troops as quickly as possible. Our corporations need to give up their ownership of Iraq's assetts, and return them to the people. We need to cede all control (military, political, economic) of Iraq to the people, and NOT establish a permanent military presense there.

If we do, we'll continue breeding Osama bin Ladens.

[merh]

6. A strong anti-new war or invasion YES

As to our troops in Iraq, I don't think K can say what he will do when he gets in office relative to Iraq until he gets in there and determines how f'upped things are and until he reestablishes relationships with other nations. So an anti-Iraq stance is not practical or realistic. This is the most secretive admin in our history and god knows what they have done and what they are hiding. (imho)

[mike_c]

7. it would certainly get my attention....

eom

[mzmolly]

10. I think that may be difficult being both candidates P and VP voted for the

war?

[IndianaGreen]

27. Neither Kerry nor Edwards owe any loyalty to the mistakes of the past

They can take the country in a totally different direction, if they are bold enough, and if they are willing to take a risk on a better future than the one we are now facing by continuing to do business-as-usual in Iraq and the Israel-Palestine conflict.

[mzmolly]

41. It doesn't look like were going to get that stong anti-war platform in

this so called era of terra. :scared:

People are out buying duct tape and plastic folks, the media has us where they want us.

We have to play it cool on this.

[Blayde Starrfyre]

17. There is only one solution to Iraq, and it won't make a good plank

The only option we have in Iraq is to nationalize the oil companies to got us into this, seize the personal fortunes of the Bush administration, and conquer Saudi Arabia (who brought 9/11 on us) and use that money to pay for the reconstruction. Then we sever all ties with Israel, beat Turkey into setting up a Kurdistan, and tell the rest of the world to fuck off.

But that would make a bad plank.

[IndianaGreen]

So you advocate having US troops occupy Mecca and Medina?

That would make Iraq look like a picnic by comparison.

Why must we have a testosterone-driven foreign policy at all?

[Imperialism Inc.]

24. No.

Kucinich supporters brought his petitions to the platform committee and did not have enough support to force a debate, let alone a vote. It is settled. We have what we have and we have to go forward with it.

[IndianaGreen]

31. This is what Orwell's newspeak defined as "blackwhite"

It is settled. We have what we have and we have to go forward with it.

blackwhite - The ability to accept whatever "truth" the party puts out, no matter how absurd it may be. Orwell described it as "...loyal willingness to say black is white when party discipline demands this. It also means the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know black is white, and forget that one has ever believed the contrary."

The Complete Newspeak Dictionary

http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/

[Imperialism Inc.]

52. I haven't forgot nor do I feel that the party's "truth" a good thing

in this case. My name was on the petition I mentioned and I've written the campaign on Iraq and other issues but it didn't work out. If I felt there were some reasonable chance that a floor fight might change the platform then I would consider it worthwhile. I just don't feel that it will accomplish anything other than split the party and lessen the chances for victory over Bush.

[no name no slogan]

68. Not quite.

The Kucinich and other anti-war folk DID get a minor concession from the platform committee in Miami. This was discussed on a couple of threads here last week.

Here's a good link to an article by John Nichols about how the Kucinich & the other folk did make an impression on the platform. To quote Nichols:

Pressure from anti-war activists, supporters of Dennis Kucinich's long-shot presidential bid and voting rights campaigners led by Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. brought alterations that, while hardly radical, represented enough of an improvement on the draft platform to suggest that even the play-it-safe Kerry managers are starting to recognize that the candidate could benefit from a little more muscle in his message.

What's really funny (not ha-ha funny, though), is this quote near the end of the article by Rand Beers, a close Kerry advisor:

Kerry adviser Rand Beers said, "We think we've come to an agreement with the Kucinich people that we think represents what has always been John Kerry's position."

If that is the case, then it should be noted that Kucinich's campaign, not Kerry's, made the platform more precisely reflective of the prospective nominee's stance. More significantly, the willingness of the platform writers to make the change garnered praise - and a pledge of unity - from one of the two Kucinich backers on the committee. Minnesotan John Sherman drew a standing ovation when he told the rest of the committee Saturday that the compromise language was "a message I can bring back to folks that we will end this madness and elect John Kerry."

I'm just glad that Dennis Kucinich and his supporters were there to "help" John Kerry find his "real" position.

:eyes:

[Senior citizen]

46. Don't roc k the boat, don't tip the boat over!

Wait until Kerry gets in. Then we can make waves and rock the boat until all the warmongers drown. This is not the time to do anything that might remotely be construed as divisive. The war will not end under *, and he might start another one. I don't want Kerry to alienate or frighten a single potential voter, and there are many who oppose the war but are against just pulling out because they think we have responsibilities there. Kerry knows all about war, and he knows all about protesting wars, and we have to get him into the White House before we have a chance to do anything about Iraq. I know people are dying, and Kerry knows people are dying, but if we don't get Bush out many more will die. Once we get democracy back, we can export the real deal, which is to let people govern themselves.

If AWOL is a war president, guess what kind of president war hero Kerry will be? But if we put ending the war in the Democrat's platform, it will give the pukes ammo to say that we're weak on defense, weak against terror, and lots of crap like that. We don't need to arm the enemy, we need to subdue them.

[no name no slogan]

69. Shades of 1992

That was the same language used by the DLCers and the "moderates" in 1992: "just get behind Clinton, and he'll help you out once he's in the White House".

We helped him win, but what did we get? "Welfare Reform". "Defense of Marriage Act". NAFTA. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". "Freedom to Farm". An immense gap between the very rich and the very poor.

Kerry needs to know who's getting him elected: not the money men at the DLC, not Rubin and his buddies on Wall Street, not his brother's clients in big media, but US: the progressives who will obediently hold their noses and pull the lever in November.

And I plan on reminding him of this fact DAILY-- from now until January 2009.

[LiberalFighter]

49. Any war?? NO!!

It should not be anti-Iraq war either.

If anything should be included it should be that we pursued a war in Iraq that was not ethical, legal, or justified.

We must stabilize Iraq so that it has a reasonable chance of success that allows all Iraq to have a hand in self-government.

We must relocate our embassy personnel to a new location that is appropriate for the size of Iraq and reduce the personnel appropriately.

We must cease arresting Iraqi's as it is illegal.

[IndianaGreen]

51. A morning kick for the poll takers

Good morning everyone!

[GreenArrow]

53. should

won't.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

54. I Thought Dean Is For A Gradual Withdrawl From Iraq

There wasn't much light between Kerry and Dean's plans for for a post invasion Iraq.


Did I miss something?

And if I did can you provide me a link to Dean's new thinking on the situation

[WI_DEM]

61. I didn't say in the original message Dean or DK or were behind this

I said some of their supporters are.

[Cocoa]

55. this question has been settled, by Kucinich himself

there isn't going to be any floor fight.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/14/1410234

[IndianaGreen]

57. Which proves the Democrats prior to 1990s were more democratic

than the highly scripted undemocratic informercials we now have for conventions.

Let's put a good show, but let's script this the same way the GOP has been scripting theirs since the days of reagan.

I miss the old Democratic Party of giants like Adlai Stevenson, who opened the convention to pick his running mate in 1956.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

62. But Adlai Stevenson Lost Twice...

Politics is war by other other means and there is no substitute for success....

[Feanorcurufinwe]

65. Winning? Losing? Do those things really matter?

:eyes:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

72. If You Lose The Campaign You Can't Do Shit...

The world is infinitely worse off because Gore lost....

[Feanorcurufinwe]

63. What DK has to say on the subject

AMY GOODMAN: Well, what about the charge that your delegates-- that you backed down because you didn't want to have a platform fight over what many considered a key peace plank in the platform that they wanted to get in.

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: Well, I still consider the withdrawal from Iraq as being central not only to America's security, but to peace in the world. However, we didn't have the votes to be successful in a platform fight. You know, we barely had enough to start the discussion. I've carried this campaign in challenging the war for two and a half years. But there comes a point where we have to realize, whether we have the votes or not, to be able to prevail in insisting on our point of view, or if we're going to create a rupture that would make it impossible for a Democrat to be elected president. You know, I think what we were able to do was get some recognition from the Party, of the urgency of not maintaining a long-term commitment to Iraq, and it's a step in the right direction. It is not everything we wanted by any means. But it manages to do two things. We carried the fight as far as we could in the Platform Committee, and we're intending to participate in helping to elect a new president, and our efforts are going to continue to try to guide the United States to a more constructive policy in Iraq.

AMY GOODMAN: Sandy Berger, who negotiated this agreement, was quoted saying, "we didn't give up anything."

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: Well, I think, you know, you could take that literally or you could also take it as we do, and that is that we didn't insist that they had to adopt our language. If we did, we were looking at a platform fight. But we still had to marshall dozens of votes in order to be successful in even getting a minority plank. And our people who were at Miami and contacting delegates, didn't see that there was enough support to be able to do that. So, the question is, you know, do we face the reality of what we have with the political terrain being as it is, or do we move forward and create a break that could make it difficult to get a Democrat elected president? And frankly, Amy, I think that when all is said and done, John Kerry is immeasurably better than George Bush and it's not even a close comparison. And while I'm going to remain to have differences with the Democratic Party, and with John Kerry, I think those differences are not insurmountable and we can move ahead and continue the debate within the Democratic Party and continue to try to reshape policy. There's no hope to do that if George Bush gets re-elected president.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0714-12.htm

Doesn't sound to me like there is going to be any floor fight at the convention.

[JVS]

64. I think so, but I'd like a look at some of the proposed statements

[true grit]

66. Dem Sen. Robert Byrd (D)WV has a book coming out

http://www.latimes.com/features/lifestyle/la-et-neuman21jul21,1,6248066.story
He doesn't fear the Bush steamrollers. He hopes to topple a "power-grabbing administration, a bunch of super hawks who took George W. Bush prisoner."

[zulchzulu]

87. You mean a pacifist isolationist pro-humanitarian disaster platform?

Should we develop a cut-and-run, isolationist, pro-humanitarian disaster pacifist platform that would be welcome fodder to the Bush campaign?

I'm all for having the platform do exactly what Kerry would have done when he voted for the IWR. Use the United Nations, our allies, NATO and other diplomatic and international forces to implement UN resolutions and use war AS A LAST RESORT, which was devised with ALL of our allies and with a defined, intelligent exit strategy.

Shall we leave Iraq now after we blew it up and destroyed the infrastructure? Let the Iraqi people to starve or get murdered in the next wave of endless civil wars? An uncharted number of innocent Iraqis died and the blood is on our hands. Should we be like the GOP chickenhawk cowards and leave them for dead and not actually tally up an accurate count of the missing and dead we inflicted on the country.

I'm for peace too.

But this is no time to be the isolationista, the pro-humanitarian cut-and-runner willing to watch Iraq and the Middle East explode while we sit back and polish our hash pipes.

Simplistic peacenik yammering is so last century, dude. We need real solutions to the problems today and not some pot-brownie-laced nirvana diatribe.

Gee whiz, what about the other issues?

[kaiso]

88. We would lose many to Nader's camp if we don't......nt

[zulchzulu]

89. Those that go to "Nader's Camp" can kiss my a**

Anyone who goes for St. Ralph this year is a complete, numb-nutted, clueless, idiotic buffoon.

The blood of this war is already on the 2000 election year Nader voters. Gore would not have done a few things:
- Ignore 911 pre-attack warnings
- Gone to Iraq unilaterally like Bush did
- Not completely fucked up our environmental laws like Bush did
- Not try to appoint right-wing asshole judges
- Etc., etc. etc.

Any idiot that votes for Nader this year and admits it to me after the election if Bush wins will get a nice black eye and a few broken teeth from me on my way to the airport to Europe for the next four years.