I am sick and tired of pro-war Democrats

Kerry is a disgrace ... i am truly sickened by his comments on continued funding for bush's Iraq (and Afghanistan) insanity ... here's what Kerry said about the proposed $81.9 billion in additional funding:

"I'm going to vote for this ... I think this money is important to our being successful and to the completion of the process."

with continued funding, the occupation will drag on for years ... i watched the Dorgan hearings on Monday ... reconstruction funds are NOT being used to make life better for the Iraqi people ... the ranks of the insurgents are growing, not shrinking ... there are allegations bush is seeking to fund the insurgency now because he didn't like the outcome of the elections ... Exxon-Mobil just reported record profits directly traceable to the high price of oil that has resulted from instability in the Middle East ... i don't hear any Democrats calling for a "windfall profits tax" on oil ... gee, what a surprise ... and what's next? Iran? Syria? the PNAC philosophy is a failed idea ... it can only lead to unending war with the U.S. acting as the world's policeman ... the war that Kerry wants to continue funding is bankrupting the American treasury and the American soul ... take a look in the mirror, John ... we are not the good guys anymore ...

and now Kerry and how many other Democrats are going to give bush more money to continue this madness ??? Kerry has the "warm and fuzzies" because he now believes bush is following some of the ideas he previously advocated ... time to turn off Fox news John ... it's OK to go there to see what the other side is up to but you're not supposed to follow their advice ...

where is the anti-war movement in the Democratic Party and what is it doing to have its voice heard?? it is time to call for Democratic Party town meetings all over the country so that we, each and every Democrat, can "have this out" ... ALL Democrats should be heard on this issue ... i am sick and tired of pro-war Democrats doing whatever the hell they want ... i suspect if ALL Democrats had a say on bush's war budget, the majority would be voting "NO FUCKING WAY" ... if Dr. Dean is truly the man of the grassroots, he'll put an end to this unrepresentative bullshit ... give the people a voice !!! let's make these war hawks toe the line or get them the hell out of office ...

as i approach my 5000th post, i can think of no issue more important than giving ALL Democrats a voice starting with the Party's position on the war in Iraq ...

i just love posts with no text in them ...

i'll assume, of course, that the reason we would be a "minority party into perpetuity" is due to my call to give ALL Democrats a voice on this important issue ...

i certainly can see how you would believe that the last thing we should have in the Democratic Party (i wonder why they chose that name) would be a chance for ALL Democrats to be heard ...

The whole country had turned against the Vietnam war. There was a general consensus that we should be out of there. Nixon was bailing out as fast as he thought he could. By election day in 1972, there were only 15,000 troops there 9down from 500,000 plus in 1969. The fringe anti-war types in the Democratic party took it over and pretty much froze everyone else out during the lpead up to the nomination and didn't want any advice from the "old Democrats" on how to run the campaign. We took two states.

Fortunately, the old Democrats in the house, senate, and governorships ran "away from" McGovern and saved their seats. Yes, we should have meetings, but we should also assure that a very vocal minority doesn't take over. Iraq a mistake?? Yes! What do we do now?? Well, Bush and events have sort of circumscribed our options. What about domestic affairs?? Well, the Bush deficit has again circumscribed our options.

thanks for the response ...

yes, i was there in 1972 ... of course, the logical extension of this canard is that Democrats should NEVER again take a public position against any war or we will be "McGoverned" again ... perhaps we could just rename ourselves the Super-Macho Pro-War Hawk Party so that we don't lose 49 of 50 states in the next election ... let's bomb those Iraqi "gooks" (wasn't that the term for the N. Vietnamese?) back into the stone age ... let's really fire up the old war machine ... let's stop spending money on all those McGovern sissy programs ...

the argument that McGovern lost because of his anti-war position is, of course, absurd ... McGovern had a parade of political problems not the least of which was a very sophicated campaign of dirty tricks he failed to adequately handle ... i'm sure you remember all that Watergate business ... it was far more than a little burglary ...

Democrats have become far too invested in running away from speaking out against war when war is not an appropriate remedy ... the war in Iraq has failed miserably ... we are hated around the world for how we abuse other sovereign countries with our military ... when we declare war to truly defend our country, Democrats should NOT hesitate to support it ... when war is a nothing more than a deranged neo-con vision of corporate hegemony, Democrats need to tell the American people the truth ... hiding behind the need to appear macho to protect a perceived political necessity is the saddest excuse for policy definition i've ever heard ...

The reaction against him was as much cultural as anything else. The media portrayed him as the "candidate of the young," and among Middle Americans, there was a lot of resentment against "those damn college kids" with their long hair, their rock music, their drugs, their sexual experimentation, and their questioning of authority.

Middle-aged people were in culture shock. In just 8 years, EVERYTHING had changed: race relations, clothing styles, music, relations between the sexes, movies, everything. If you lived through those years as a teenager and twentysomething, as I did, it was exciting. If you lived through it as a middle-aged person who had always lived by different values, it was terrifying.

(If you were not around for the 1960s, go to your local library and look at Life magazines from 1963-64, especially the coverage of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement. See the Berkeley men in coats and ties, and the Berkeley women in sheath dresses and heels, protesting. Then look at issues of Life from 1972. Note the difference. Now you'll have an idea of why Middle America reacted negatively to a candidate who was associated with youth.)

thanks Lydia ... your cultural understanding is dead on ...

i think the real lesson of the 1972 election is a lesson we still have not learned ... and this thread makes it painfully obvious how little we've learned since then ...

the real lesson of McGovern's defeat in 1972 didn't occur in that election at all ... the real lesson that explains McGovern's loss happened in 1968 ... when the Party split in two between the Humphrey wing and the McCarthy wing, it was doomed for generations ...

the real reason McGovern lost was because there was no unity in the Party over the war ... and guess where we're at today ... you don't build unity by cutting people out of the process ... and you certainly don't build unity by voting to fund the opposition's unjustifiable war ...

give the people a voice and follow their lead ... that's how unity is built ... top down democracy, especially in the Democratic Party with a war on, is a guaranteed recipe for more defeats ...

Also, American wages had yet to hit their peak value in 1973, so economic pain wasn't so much of a factor.

and the superpowers wanted to have control over how they ended up.

We can be a majority party! Yippeee!

Real enlightening.

One of the Democrats chief criticisms of how this war was bungled (besides why we invaded in the first place) is that President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld tried to do it on the cheap, and so didn't provide our troops with the equipment they needed.

Plus our troops are there. They shouldn't be, but they are. Should Kerry and other Democrats be agitating for President Bush to pull out? Yes. And many are, including some who will probably vote on this bill. But does it necessarily follow that we should be voting against funding the troops while they are there? I don't know. I can see both sides of the issue--not passing this funding bill would send a definite signal that we don't suppor this war. But it would also make life harder for American troops.

Anyway, I just think that if it were put to a vote, it might not go exactly the way you think it should. Although it probably would be worth while to try.

Of course that opens up another can of worms--is Kerry representing the Democratic movement, the Liberal Movement or the people of Mass.?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

"..and so didn't provide our troops with the equipment they needed."


What in creation is the matter with Kerry? He is legitimatizing the entire case--when the crux of the issue is the lack of a case for war. This sticks out like a glaring alarm, but Kerry is oblivious. I am sick and tired of people glossing over this fundamental fact. What is Kerry suggesting--that if we had more troops we could kill more Iraqis and have even more of our soldiers in harm's way?

He disgusts me on a profound level in his suggestion that had we had more boots on the ground we could have pulled off a more successful illegal and barbaric occupation. Yeah, we could've really put the fist down and showed the Iraqis who was boss. Yeah, we could've reduced to rubble the entire country and squandered even more dollars. He is party to twisting this war crime into a battle of liberation.

Yo, Kerry, you lost. Step aside.

with the Dem party right now is that nobody in the leadership is showing the balls to just stand up and call bullshit. It is time that people be reminded that "liberal" isn't a swear word.

You need to seperate these two questions in your mind.

Was this war the right war at teh right place at the right time?

Was this war approached in a competant way?

The answer to both those questions is no but they are two distinct questions. President Bush led us into a foolish and unnecessary war, having done that, he and his cabinet then failed to prepare sufficiently to prosecute that war in a successful fashion. Both are serious offenses in my mind.

The truth is if we had gotten control of the Hussein Armerments in a more timely fashion, if we had provided our troops with the armor and equipment they needed, if we had not treated the looting as "not our problem," we would have far less problems today.

Does that change the fact that we shouldn't have invaded in the first place? No.

effective war.

There are lives in the balance and that has meaning.

There are lives in the balance, and that has meaning. I couldn't have put it better myself. That's why it is criminal that the Bush Adminstration through a mixture of bad planning, wishful thinking, and sheer stupidity has sent our troops into battle without a real plan to win the peace and without an exit strategy.

But does that mean we punish the troops for President Bush's mistake?

He is just bragging that he has a bigger dick.

Well good luck with that.

for crying out loud, don't you care?

I voted for him, it will NEVER happen again. Do you want to lose again?

I just disagree with you. I don't think I would vote for him again either, but I doubt the opportunity would present itself.

the waste of funds in Iraq has been staggering ... it has been wildly unmanaged ... it has been corrupt ...

voting against the massive budget appropriation is NOT voting to "punish the troops" ... first of all, i would make the argument that passing this insane funding for continued war is exactly WHAT WILL PUNISH the troops ... NO MORE MONEY FOR WAR !!! and secondly, if you're hell bent on having the troops remain in Iraq pretending to make any progress, a much smaller budget allocation should be made to improve the quality of protective equipment they are using ... these funds should be very specifically earmarked for that purpose ...

i think it's important for Democrats not to allow bush to continue his insane efforts at hegemony ... that's what voting for his budget will do ...

before we can expect help from allies or the UN and only THEN can we begin to pull our troops.

I am quite sure many of you know this from the debates, but have merely forgotten his position in your haste to slam Kerry.

Dean should work to give the grassroots a chance to be heard ... he keeps saying it is not his Chairmanship; it is OUR Chairmanship ...

I have been disappointed with Dean's position on Iraq for a long time ... but i think his role as Chairman should more importantly be focussed on giving ALL Democrats a greater voice ... his own individual views on policy are always welcomed but less important than his views on infrastructure reform ...

it becomes all about what Dean says.

sorry but i don't understand your point here ... please spell it out for me ...

i supported Dean for Chair because of his emphasis on the decentralizing of power ... i did not support him either as a candidate for President or for Chair because of his views on other issues ...

I have confidence in his desire to create more opportunities for the grassroots to be heard ...

not sure what point you're making ...

they are always chanting that dean isn't supposed to set policy--until they refer to Dean's views.

So, who is going to be setting policy? Kerry? Like the Dem convention as a tribute to Kerry's soldier boy act and no mention of Iraq allowed?

Yeah, that's really going to reel in the Grassroots.

i think there are two different categories of "setting policy" ...

one is setting "party infrastructure" policy ... this area involves things like how will the Party's platform be formulated and who will have input to it ... it even involves tactics and strategies ... for example, Democratic spokepeople should stay on message and speak in a clear and consistent manner ... Party themes and core values should be repeated in the media over and over and over ... this is exactly the kind of direction setting that the Chair should help define ... it should not be up to Party insiders to say that infrastructure issues should be decided only by Party insiders ...

the second area is legislative policy ... every Democrat, Dean and Kerry included, should have a right to speak out on issues ... but Dean should NOT set these policies ... and Kerry should NOT set these policies ... and Reid or anyone else should NOT set these policies ... these are the policies that should truly represent the views of ALL Democrats ...

that's the only way i can see of "reeling in the grassroots" ... if Democrats don't feel they are being heard and their views aren't being represented, we will continue to lose ...

on Iraq." Film at 11.

Spit into the wind or position yourself to promote a smarter strategy that has a better chance of getting our troops out of there sooner?

I mention Dean's position because some of those most likely to take potshots at Kerry over this believe Dean has all the answers. They should be reminded that Dean and Kerry are on the same page on this issue. Neither of them would have invaded Iraq without the show of threat, but, both of them believe we have no choice now but to finish the process and end the occupation as smartly and as decently as possible.

We had to "win" in Viet Nam too. We couldn't "cut and run".

a term Kerry should be familiar with.

vote for the war in a cowardly attempt to make himself "electable".

From his statements at the time, he would have probably had a tough vote like most Democrats. I don't believe he made a statement in Oct 2002 on how he would have voted if he were in the Senate. (and no one at that time would have asked.)

why we should invade, so he would have voted "no".

It's not a "tough vote", you don't give the president power unless you think he should use it.

millions of activists emailing and calling Congress didn't think it was so tough.

since that was NOT exactly the BRAVE antiwar position, was it?

I think we should get off both Kerry and Dean's backs on this. Do any of you realize that Kerry and Dean are pretty damn close now, and are likely working alot of this stuff out TOGETHER?

authorized the use of force to stop WMD. No WMD, no war.

Bush hated the B-L resolution because it "tied his hands".

Bush loved IWR, it was his preferred resolution.

And, regrettably for him, Dean didn't seem to care about "electability."

TALKING POINTS
Tell your members of Congress that when they receive Bush’s $80 billion supplemental appropriation request they should:

1. Oppose new funds: Congress should halt new funds for U.S. military operations in Iraq. Any new funds should be allocated solely for troop withdrawal and interim troop protection. That means Kevlar vests and vehicle armor only.

2. Support amendments to the appropriations bill that call for an end to the occupation and support Iraqi sovereignty. We need to halt U.S. military actions immediately, shift U.S. troops immediately to the borders of Iraq, declare our intention to begin full withdrawal of troops, and leave no U.S. bases behind. We also need to give Iraqis full control over reconstruction funds, Iraqi ministries and government, and new police and security forces. The U.S. should terminate contracts with U.S. companies and turn projects over to Iraqis, and provide transparent accounting of all U.S. contracts.

3. Support the Woolsey (D-CA) resolution calling on the President to begin the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

4. Stabilize Iraq: Commit to long-term U.S. financial support for Iraqi-led reconstruction and allow the UN and other international agencies to support Iraq democracy free from U.S. intervention, and if the Iraqis want that assistance.

5. Provide real support for our troops: End the "stop-loss" policies that keep troops on active duty far beyond their contracts, and overextend the Reserves and National Guard. Provide thorough psychological counseling, health care, and benefits to returning Iraq war veterans and their families. Bring our troops home!

connect the dots?

It is, and has always been about his soldier boy act at the expense of all else.

Bombs going off to de-stablize Syria, Bombs hitting Iranian targets and Kerry wants to grow the military just in time? Yeah, I guess he can connect the dots.

Who needs Republicans?

do you agree or disagree with my call to ask Dr. Dean to call for a series of town meetings all over the country so that ALL Democrats are given the opportunity to weigh in on the issue?

this issue is far too important to let its determination be made only by elected Democrats and party insiders ...

I've heard a lot of talk about Dr. Dean's commitment to grassroots' participation ... it's time to deliver the goods ...

Kerry's vote here is an embarassment. Of course, he's swinging for the "electability" ball....one he'll never hit.

Dean's been chair now for 4 days. Give him some time to at least get his transition team up and running.

just lobbying for the process i believe in ...

i'd appreciate knowing whether you would like to see Dr. Dean move in that direction ... i did not mean to suggest any disappointment that he hadn't already done so ...

I don't recall you dumping on Dean when he made his position clear last year. No cut and run. Increase forces to stabilize country sooner so ally and UN troops could come in sooner, and begin to bring our troops home with some remaining as UN peacekeepers.

as it stands now.

And, btw, I don't have to agree or support every position Dean takes in order to appreciate his potential to improve the present status quo.

never did ANYTHING for this nation or for democracy and Dean is the only one who we can rely on.

Yeah.....Kerry is just a dumbass who is a waste of a Senate seat. He never "gets it" the way YOU do.

No....Kerry certainly didn't help you one bit when YOU were investigating and exposing government corruption in IranContra and BCCI. And he didn't lift a finger to help you when YOU were working to end THREE wars. And shame on him for ignoring you when YOU were worked for 10 years on the Kyoto Protocol.

you make it sound like Kerry has earned his right to hold the opinions he has but voters who have not achieved as much are not entitled to theirs ...

funny sort of democracy there ...

of Kerry as a worthless American.

If you agree with the poster and think Kerry deserves constant attacks on everything he has said and done since he has been in the senate, fine. But, I disagree and point out how ABSURD it is for any honest citizen with ANY semblance of knowledge of the last three decades in American history to attack this one man, this one particular lawmaker, as the most deserving target.

Like folks who complain of Bush bashing without addressing the issues.

This is a debate site,yes? Why mask the issues beneath a bashing charge?

.

wouldn't see it as anything other than bashing, I suppose.

You always pull out the Conta crap like it made a damn difference. Why is it that Ollie Nort is a pundit? Why is Negroponte our UN envoy to Iraq? If Kerry did such a greatjob, why are the criminals minding the store with Kerry investing in their stock?

ass off. Were YOU in the streets then supporting his work?

Were YOU writing LTTE to support his work. Did you urge your congressional leaders to support his work?

Or did you just activate recently and decided he was a bum and a nice target for your constant barbs?

Kerry had DAMN FEW lawmakers and citizens working to help him throughout those 5 years of his efforts.

But, thanks to his work there IS a historic record of their crimes and coverups in the congressional record and at theNational Security Archives where they see John Kerry completely the opposite of the way you do.

I did not "activate" recently. I have actually done time in prison for civil disobedience.

But, why is this about me again?

But the facts of what he did are record. Did you make a fuss when Bush I pardonded everyone in iran/contra. Did Kerry have the power to revoke the Presidential perogative to pardon people?

Seems like he is agreeing with them now. excuse me, except for the details.

Kerry only took all he learned and maintained an office on his own to keep all the material together. he pursued parts of BCCI in NY state court just to keep it out there after the fed prosecutor wouldn't touch it.

He also used what he learned,compiling the telltale warnings of international funding of global terrorism, to write a book called The New War.

Too bad damn few read his warnings.

Too bad so many know so little about the FACTS of IranContra and BCCI and the illegal wars in Central America, that they attack the one man who pursued all these investigations, even with the entire powerstructure of the DC elite and their puppydog press set up to work against him.

of his past glory days that he now shuns in his embrace of his war hero status exclusively.

Seems to me this is the conclusion he reached: If you can't beat them, join them.

any conclusions you draw, since they are just your consciously uneducated opinions.

Why citizens avoid reading the congressional records and the National Security Archives that are available to them is always a mystery. Especially if you are going to bash one of the most important historical figures of the last 30 years as a chosen pasttime.

I always thought that "pro-war" and "Democrat" were contradictions in terms.

How else are we EVER going to get out if guys like Kerry aren't PUSHING Bush to use the money to COMPLETE the mission and get out?

the main point of my post is that ALL Democrats should have an opportunity to be heard on where the party stands on Iraq ... i'd appreciate hearing your thoughts on that ...

and the way you PUSH bush is to stop funding his efforts ... i don't believe bush has any intent whatsoever of COMPLETING anything ... there have been some serious allegations that bush is now funding the insurgency ... when i look at all the U.S. has burned to the ground in Iraq, it makes no sense to me to continue spending money to buy bush more gasoline for his inferno ...

a reasonable completion.

Why pretend they hold the pursestrings? They don't. If all they can do is get a few seconds of airtime and print to give their view that the money is for COMPLETION of the process, well, that's the ONLY way they are given voice.

I'm fine with your idea, but, no way will it make a dent in what Bush does.

And, once again for the record, Dean is on the same page as Kerry when it comes to cutting and running. He believes we put in MORE troops and get them everything they need NOW to stabilize the country SOONER, rather than Bush and Rumsfeld's way of running the war on the cheap with fewer troops and equipment, thereby drawing it out longer, keeping Iraq destabilized so the UN and our allies will never come in to replace our troops.

just to be clear on this, i do not now, and never have, supported Dean's position on Iraq ... wasn't sure if you inferred otherwise from my post ...

whether Democrats do or don't hold the pursestrings should NOT determine whether they vote to appropriate the requested funds or not ... that shouldn't be determinative of their vote ... and frankly, i don't think it is ...

i assume those voting for this budget either genuinely believe the war can be "Completed and won" or they believe the politics of voting against the money would be harmful ... i believe neither of those things is true ...

and want the troops out now.

My post was for others on this thread who have forgotten Dean's position now is the same as Kerry's yet Dean is always right and Kerry is always wrong. Dean always "gets it" and Kerry NEVER "gets it."

It's more hypocrisy from those who don't see it.

And realize that Iraq is NEVER going to stabilize with a continued American military presence. Americans are viewed as an illegal, immoral occupation force, and the people who are fighting for their country back are never going to cease until we leave.

The excuse that we can't leave until X country is stabilized is just so much BS, meant to keep the war machine going as long as possible. Look at Vietnam, we were told time and again that we must provide stability for the country, that we couldn't leave until SE Asia was stable. Well, after hundreds of thousands dead, and three countries ravaged by war, public sentiment turned, and forced Nixon to withdraw the troops. And guess what, after a short, relatively bloodless civil war, peace and stability were brought to Vietnam.

Do you really want to see this scenario repeated in Iraq and the Middle East? Do you want to see hundreds of thousands dead, just so that we can relearn the lessons of the past? The best way for peace and stability to return to Iraq is for the US to leave NOW. Yeah, that's right, simply pack up and leave. Yes, there will be a civil war after we go, but like Vietnam, I think that it will be short and relatively bloodless(especially since neither side has the "shock and awe capabilities that we have), but then there will be the peace and stability that you desire.

Continuing to fund the troops is to continue to support the ongoing slaughter of innocents. Kerry voted for the IWR, and hasn't yet met a war funding bill he didn't embrace. Sorry, but that puts him in the camp of the warhawks in my opinion, no matter what lame excuse he is trying to peddle.

We should cease funding, cease fire, and bring the troops home NOW.

ideas to use that force in a way that WILL help stabilize Iraq.

You say it can't be done, but, there are allies who will help us for their own interests in a stable Iraq. You forget that when Kerry took that trip through Europe and the Mideast he spoke of this very situation with those leaders. They are not completely advers to helping, they are completely advers to doing it Bush's way. So, our guys who can offer some direction through media appearances, like Kerry and Biden, can convince others like Lugar and Hagel to agree with their positions.

Cut and run is NEVER going to happen, no matter what ANYONE says. Insisting on it is spitting into the wind and will never bring ONE troop home sooner.

Granted, the Pukes have got the votes to pass this with or without the Dems. However, there are a few arrows left in their quiver, and they should be using them. Filibustering comes to mind, and the use of the bully pulpit. Going out and spreading the truth about this war, where it is going, and how bad it is. Rather than make it solely a Dem vs 'Pug deal, get the American people involved. Even if they ultimately lose the budget vote, they will have still woken up a great many people, shown that once again the Dems have a spine, and seperated themselves from this illegal immoral war, which is one thing that absolutely killed Kerry in '04.

This whole go along to get along thing is getting old fast, and is selling this country right down the river. And while Kerry is making pious mouthings in Europe, where he has little effect, at home, he is just hunky dorey about voting for the continuance of this disaster.

Sorry friend, but this is THE issue of the day, and standing on the sidelines, hoping not to be noticed is not a good policy for any politician. Kerry and virtually all of the other Dems have already lost my support, but if they don't want to completly disappear, it is time they stood up, grew a spine, and opposed this war. Otherwise they're going to go the way of the Whigs, which right now doesn't seem like such a bad thing to me.

this is DEAD ON THE MONEY !!!

we are being told that by voting more money for war, we will be able to "COMPLETE" the mission ... can people not see that each day we are moving further and further from completion ???

it is not "spitting into the wind" to call for an end to this madness NOW ... those who fund bush, enable bush ... to argue that by doing more it will lead to doing less is absurd ...

Democrats may not have the power to stop bush in Iraq at this time ... but enabling bush will not lead to more power ... Democrats need to start educating Americans on why THIS WAR is wrong ... we cannot be afraid of be labeled "soft on defense" while our troops and tens of thousands of Iraqis continue to die ...

if Democrats want to become the majority Party again, they have to look for answers beyond mere political viability ... the road back travels through making the right call ... and the right call in a failed neo-con war is: NO MORE MONEY FOR WAR !!

in a way to influence the outcome WHERE we can.

If it is in pressuring those who know better like Lugar and Hagel and any broadcast talking head to agree with a smarter, more common sense approach, then that is what you do.

It doesn't matter how articulate or passionately you explain why you are right....you are right, there should be no war, period....it is still spitting into the wind on that very bottom line.

i understand your position, BLM ... and i completely disagree with it ...

strictly as an analogy, and i realize they are often lame to the point of being useless, i see the position you're advocating as trying to get an alcoholic to drink more responsibly ... the analogy may be a poor one by i'm using it here just to try to convey how i see what you're advocating ...

so you say to this alcoholic "look, i'll give you money for a drink but i want you to drink responsibly" ... the problem is that you are acknowledging that drinking is OK ...

anyway, if we vote to fund the war in Iraq which endorses the belief that the U.S., especially through its military, can impose a democracy and can impose peace in a culture hostile to western values, then we become de facto endorsers of that belief ... the message we send to the American people may be many of the things Kerry has said (war as a last resort, bring in a real coalition, etc) BUT IT STILL ENDORSES THE FUNDAMENTAL BELIEF THAT THE US CAN IMPOSE ITS WILL ON A SOVEREIGN NATION ...

as i said in the BP, I am truly sickened that any Democrat would ever support such a position ... job one of any political party or movement is to develop an education campaign to teach Americans what we believe in ... voting more money for THIS WAR is not the lesson I had in mind ...

and what he CAN influence is the money being SEEN by more people in this country as THE funding of the completion of the mission. If he and others are successful in pushing that impression, than that will add to pressure on Bush to reach that goal or be seen as staying there for other reasons. Especially when he has to request more money.

I hope, for the sake of the Iraqi people and our military, stabilization IS a goal SOONER rather than later.

well, on your last sentence, we are in full agreement ... but i believe the US presence in Iraq will prevent, totally prevent, stabilization ...

when you cite stabilization as a goal, we agree ... when you support more funds so that the US military can bring about stabilization in Iraq, we do not ... i don't believe that road goes where you want to go ...

Complete a disaster?

What we should do is give the Iraqis the money to rebuild their own country. They need the jobs and they have the capability--these are not ignorant, backwards people. They are the cradle of civilization--the oldest culture on Earth. Hammurabi's law is the foundation of our own. We do not need to drain their natural resources to fuel our SUVs, to contract out the "reconstruction" of their infrastructure for our corrupt corps to loot, to turn Iraqi against Iraqi.

Where the hell is Kerry on the disappearance of the airplanes full of freshly minted cash we already can't account for? Where the hell is he on the torture and abuse of ordinary Iraqis, of the human suffering and list of scandals so long it is almost impossible to itemize? Was all the protest and investigation into Viet Nam war crimes, which he apparently now feels the necessity to hide, just to make a name for himself, since he seems incapable of drawing a line between then and now?

And the soldier today should ask:

How do you ask the last man to die for a lie, Senator Kerry?

We are sitting in a paradox.

What do I want? To immediately dump and run. I want all of my friends home and safe. I want Wes and Kenny not to have to leave this weekend. The problem is that this not possible. I am not saying that because of our need to stabilize Iraq our anything like that I am saying that because we as democrats do not have the power right now to influence the vote that way. I hope we will in 2006...

So assuming that the repubs are going to keep them there because right now they have the votes to basically do as they please, Do I think that we should vote for or against that funding? Unfortunately I vote for the funding.

I hate to say it but the most I'mportant (see the spelling on that) thing in my opinion is my friends. I know that most of the 81 billion will be miss used. I know that I cannot trust the government to "do the right thing" with our tax dollars, but if Jake gets a Kevlar vest he doesn't now have or Rod gets the armor for his hummer unit or someone I don't know gets anything that they need that they won't have with out that 80 billion then I vote yes.

It sucks and it kills me to say that. But we can not leave right now not because we shouldn't, but because we don't have the votes to make it happen.. I should care more about the Iraqi people and the Iranians and the Syrians, but I don't. It is the responsibility of the the people to rise up if they wish to be free. Millions of them would have to be willing to died for their freedom like our fore-fathers did, but they aren't and I say until they are screw them.

But my friends are there and my friends are not being allowed to come home. I vote yes for the funding and no for the war. It is a paradox that falls back on itself over and over...

when does the funding for war stop in this scenario?

if bush promotes perpetual war and we always vote for more funding, perhaps the next time they will come for another friend ... or perhaps they will come for you ...

i make no argument against wishing for the safety of your friends ... but ALL friends will be at risk if we don't stand up and say no to this madness ...

When we are the ones who attacked, invaded with our superior strength and now are cruel occupiers based on LIES, proven LIES, that many of us at the time knew were LIES. And since we can't do anything about it, since those "from the left" would rather support the LIES rather than expose them, let the rich men send more of the mostly poor to really clamp down the thumb on those Iraqis whose lives mean nothing.

Gotcha.

i would sadly acknowledge that we can barely get people to vote every four years let alone attend meetings on policy considerations ...

what i really think is that the Party needs to start a process that begins to educate voters on the importance of participation ... i think the Party needs to act like "cheerleaders for democracy" ...

it really is a very sad state of affairs ... but i believe the moment is ripe for big changes ... many, many people got involved with the political process last year either for the first time or for the first time in a long time ... the ranks of groups like MoveOn, DFA, PDA and others have grown significantly ... remember, for the first time in many years the Democrats raised more money than the republicans ... that is truly a startling statistic ... and many of those contributions came in small amounts from individual donors ...

those participating in the process are far too small in number ... Americans have fallen asleep and take their democracy for granted ... i agree with Dean that those of us who are awake need to go door-to-door and make phone calls and send emails ... at first, i expect the response rates will be poor ... but we have to start someplace ...

by bringing democracy closer to home and decentralizing it from Washington, we will taking the first small step of a very long journey ... if we fail to engage the common man in the process, our democracy will disappear forever and will be replaced by an oligarchy that sells our government to corporate interests ... yes, we are in very bad shape but that's no excuse for not taking the first step to turn the tide ...

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our first quarter 2005 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.

As can be seen by their apologists here. They are perfectly willing to pack off more troops to kill and die so that the Dems can appear to be "tough on defense".

And to take that a little further I am for defensive wars. And to take that a little further I am for wars that depose leaders of foreign countries if the leader can be shown to be a sociopath.

So in my little world, the UN should have gone after Saddam Hussein perhaps right after he gassed the curds. They went after Milosovitch - a little late. The WWII was a rightful war (though the West didn't start it - so really it was a defensive war). I have no trouble with the US invading Afghanistan - though part of me wishes they had just taken the deal that would have handed bin Laden over to them without a shot fired. Iraq? The UN should have invaded Iraq right after he gassed the Kurds.
Rwanda too.

My internationalist way of looking at the world tells me that psychopaths cause half the wars and all the genocide in the world and that they should be disallowed. If a strong man takes over and shows signs of playing on faults and creating hate ... time for your MRI Mr.!! You pass the test and you can stay. You refuse the week of testing by doctors .... the UN drops in to say hello.

That way you do not get a man like the nut-bomb in NK with decades to build a bomb.

This also leaves me with the feeling that though the elections in Iraq were a happy thing - Rumsfield's and Bush’s greed and the neocon/corporate desperation created this war and fought it and they have to take the blame for 1) the insurgency 2) not enough troops to win the peace. And the UN can take the blame for not nixing Saddam Hussein 20 years ago.

That way - if the UN does this... anyone paying money to the strong man for favors ... like Bush Sr. with Saddam Hussein in the early 1980s; well those records all become public once the UN gets in there. I am sure the US & the British showed up in Baghdad with the biggest and fastest armour plated shredder there has ever been in the existence of the world. In my "utopian world" - if you do business with a strong man who has co-opted an election ... the 'business & dirty deal' records have a good chance of becoming public some day. And that loss of goodwill will cost the corporation more than it is worth to make deals with un-democrats.

Of course the current administration is pretending that this is what they did. Because they got into trouble with WMD and Chalabi spoon-feeding them that they had to steal a 'new reality'. Democracy is cool for sure. I just hope the corporation make it difficult for strong men the world over to survive. But the neocons really did steal the 'facade' of the rightfull war from us Liberals & that pisses me off.

So I am currently going to take it back from their propaganda machines who desperately try and steal Roosevelt & Kennedy every day. And point out their lies. As well as the obvious that they do not take out strong men who sit on poor countries or who build bombs and are too strong for those neocons to invade (Iraq was easy ... Korea would not be).

in your world. The US government is the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today, and Bush is most certainly a sociopath.

These things are all pretty subjective based on your point of view.

his staff should fall under the auspicies of an MRI machine. I do think it should be a crime to have a sociopath in power (or near national power). Bush - why they'd have to set a woodpecker on him ... to test for the puppet thing.

But my utopian laws have not made it into the books yet - I do hope that some neocon gets wind of my Utopian brilliance and adopts it - them being Utopians and all. Then, as I have said before, we can watch the snake eat its tail!!

But Kerry needs to find a position on it and stick with it. This on again, off again stuff doesn't help us.

Kerry has always believed the US could "succeed" in Iraq ... his only vote against funding this war had to do with the method of funding (i.e. roll back part of the tax cut) ...

he has consistently supported the belief that the war could be "won" ...

Regardless if one supported occupying Iraq or not, it is a fact that many problems around the world may require military solutions. While I do not think Iraq required a military solution, we will probably need one for Iran and Syria.

A nuclear bomb going off in Los Angeles or Tel Aviv is *not* a strategic option. While Iraq was not linked with international terrorists, you bet Iran is, and they will not hesitate to give nukes to organizations bent on destroying the "Great Satan."

and perhaps i wasn't, i am NOT a pacifist ...

if you read the details of the base post, you'll see that i was specifically focused on Kerry's support for the war in Iraq ...

but now you want to endorse the PNAC madness and send our withering armies into Iran and Syria ... have these countries threatened us? have they attacked us?

what exactly is the standard you want to use for invading these countries?

Or a nuclear Islamic Jihad? Does a nuclear Hamas sound nice?

That is our standard.

And has violated more UN resolutions and, hey, just for good measure, are carrying out an illegal occupation too...sounds like it meets our criteria to wage war on.

Israel.

what American Foreign Policy should be. We invaded Iraq Illegally...we have made a mess of the country. And, yet I and millions of folks all over the US and the World demonstrated against the Iraq Invasion and Millions protested against Vietnam. NOT because they were Pacifists, but because they disagreed with our Foreign Policy of invasion, destabilization and killing of those we disagree with.

Suppose Iran had nukes and was willing to use them on Americans via international terrorists. Suppose also that Cheney and Bush would like to give the oil industry in Iran to Anglo-American companies. Some want me to believe that we should ignore the strategic risk of nuclear attack for millions living in Israel and the United States, because of the corruption of Bush-Cheney. "Bush is cuddly with oil companies, so we will let the population of Los Angeles become incinerated." I don't buy it.

and has been the only one to ever use them?

Do you think the world should stop them?

I do care if Islamic Jihad or al-queda obtains nukes, which is a risk if Iran goes nuclear. Some say such organizations would never attack us, which is not very empirical at this point.

I think we should kill every Muslim in the world, because they pose such a threat to us decent and righteous human beings.

I do not advocate airstrikes against Indonesia. My position is strategic and well=reasoned. You think Iran will never use WMD against a powerful adversary? Review the history of the Iran/Iraq war my friend. Does Iran have links to international terror groups? Yes, with a capital Y. Will Iran have nuclear weapons soon? Yes. If we don't do something about it, we are putting millions of people at risk.

If you would never let Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell have these weapons, you definitely shouldn't let the idiots in Iran get their hands on them. The people here always talk about how Christian fundamentalists want to bring the "rapture," but act like the Islamic ones are cool and collected. Bullshit.

Even though we have only been around a couple hundred years and threaten, attack, bomb, and wage war, whereas the Middle East is one of the earliest civilizations in the world, they can't be trusted to seek self preservation like us. How did they ever manage to survive til today I wonder?

nukes and no one got blown up. But invading countries who don't have them but are merely suspected of having them is just wrong.... It's against the UN Charter and a crime against those who can't defend themselves.

According to your criteria why didn't we invade North Korea? They are bragging about what they have. Yet Iraq had nothing...Saddam said it was all gone, and when we invaded there was nothing except empty PNAC dreams of vast arsenals waiting to attack us...

North Korea? The U.K.?

All of them have nukes. All of them have been hostile to America. Hell, why not just conquer the world and install the Pax Americana and take our place among the other empires that tried to defend the "vital interests" by brute force?

No. Neither do Israel, India, or China. Pakistan, ruled by military government, only supports paramilitaries in the Kashmir.

Iran is a different story. They openly denounce Israel and the United States as the "Great Satan" and actively support groups like Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and Hamas. If Iran obtains nuclear warheads, they can give a nuclear bomb to one of these organizations, and

:nuke:

millions are dead in Tel Aviv, Philadelphia, or New York, et cetera. If removing the Mullahs by military force precludes this possibility, I'm for it.

Mutually Assured Destruction? In the case of Iran supplying nukes to terrorists and blowing up Tel-Aviv or Hoboken, do you not think that the American military might respond in kind? Do you think the evil mullahs are not aware of this?

Echos of the "Domino Theory" are ringing in my ears. We destroyed Vietnam to make us "safe" from the commies.

BTW, the United States has a long history of supporting terrorist groups. Ever wonder why we didn't entrust them with nukes?

Of course there is the little matter of the cost of invading Iran and/or Syria. How many dead do you reckon it will take to "protect" the good citizens of Tel Aviv or Philadelphia?

Would our invasion of either or both endear us to the rest of the world?

I rest in my case.

what a fucking pathetic little ploy there...

why the fuck would Iran give one of its hypothetical nukes to a terrorist group? spend billions of dollars, incur the wrath of the USA, be 1st on the suspect list - for WHAT? Why would they cede control of the most powerful weapon in the history of mankind?

The neocons used to say that the Soviet Union also had links to every terrorist group on the planet. Gee, I wonder why THEY never gave nukes to a proxy.

The religious fundies in Afghanistan nurtured terrorists to kill THOUSANDS of American civilians, even though their destruction was "mutually assured." If we were dealing with rational agents, Iran wouldn't be developing the nuclear program and supporting international terrorism (which unlike Iraq they *do*) in the first place.

... when countries are being invaded all around you by a warmongering country threatening you every day?

take off your USA-centric specs for a second and try to see it from the perspective of an Iranian.

I know, its asking too much not to dehumanize our enemies.

And as far as the Afghans go - do you actually think Khalid Sheik Moron let the fuckin' Taliban in on his little scheme? Why would he tell the Taliban about the 9/11 plot?

Your "case" is full of holes. Or, do you advocate the invasion of Saudi Arabia? Pakistan was selling nuclear material to "terrorist" states, not Iran. Russia has "lost" nuclear materials. Israel backs terrorist groups in Lebanon.

Has Iran threatened the US in any substantial way? How about Syria? Other than to say that they will fight back if invaded?

We invaded Iraq to "protect" us from WMD and Bin Laden. Seems to me that we're a lot more vulnerable now than before the "liberation" of that 3rd world country.

But, we're the "world's greatest super-power" so we can do anything. Of course our glorious military is having a little difficulty subduing a ragtag bunch of "insurgents" armed with home made bombs and Kalashnikovs.

Your faith in American military power is touching.

Those with the biggest guns?

Doesn't matter if 10s of thousands are dead in Iraq based on some trumped up lies about threats to our security.

If it is, then military force against Iran is definitely an option. Who cares if we call them "terrorists?" Call them freedom fighters or smurfs for all I care.

(actually Iranians are not Arabs, but Persians, but what the hell all those Muslims are vermin, right?)is gonna be the solution?

Yeah, they all gots nu-q-lar weppinz an' such. They'zz armin terra-ists rite now!!!!!

I can't believe so-called Democrats are buying the whole "worldwide terrorist network" line of reasoning from BushCo.

Yes, there is a terror threat, but it is NOT nearly as "globalized" as so many people believe. At best, it's a couple dozen cells who know about each other and have one thing in common-- they hate America.

The whole "War on Terra" is a big fscking joke, and a giant sinkhole that will cost as much as the Cold War. There was a recent BBC documentary which debunked the "global terra network", which met to good reviews. Of course, it isn't being shown in the US, because the media is way to 'afraid' to question the burgening Terror-Industrial Complex.

Throwing more $$$ at the Iraq war will do NOTHING to extricate us from there sooner. Anybody voting in favor of it should know better by now.

Iran has a thriving film industry. It might do you some good to view some of their film, By gawd, you might recognize them for their humanity and their sensitivity towards the natural world.

Oh yeah, I forgot, they are all tewwowists and are less than dirt in our so sophisticated, honorable world view.

War is always the best answer.

Who advocate senseless wars but are too cowardly to enlist themselves.

You have to search long and hard to find a Democrat with a truly anti-war position. It is part of a much larger fear the Democrats have of standing up for anything liberal.

Every time someone says that a liberal can't get elected they continue to feed the coward monster that stops this party from winning.

it's quite possible. Mostly just a lot of knee jerk condemnation here against Bush interests benefitting from the Federal trough. NOT a lot of consideration for the troops and what they might need.
We all know that they get little directly from these obscene amounts of money, but they do get some, and the sense that our troops were being denied whatthey need is exactly what Kerry paid for in daring to confront the last bill.
What needs to be done is account for the money and let the people know EXACTLY what it is for.

for a few more billion dollar supplementals too.

more money will mean a quicker exit. I would have to ignore everything he has done since taking office in order to believe that. The goal is to have a long term US presence and influence to ensure our access to the Iraqi oil supply. That's where the money will go.

In the mean time, my friends are having their student financial aid cut and I'm not sure how much longer I'll be using Amtrak.

"knee jerk" is nothing but name calling ... it implies an automatic response without adequate analysis ... whether you agree with those who oppose continued funding for the madness in Iraq or not, you have no basis to use the "knee jerk" label ...

Sorta like giving more heroin to addicts, trusting that they will use it wisely.

How about support the war but not me or my kids..
war is a racket.always has been..warriors and their families suffer all their lives while chikenhawks cut Vets benefits and start more wars..
A vote for a repuke is a vote for endless war and more VA cuts..
kerry should be ashamed of his vote..
this debate is raging here at DU good topic..I posted same..

if the pols kids went to war...5 of 535 pols have kids in military..
if the number was 205..there would be NO MORE WARS.

Leads me to wonder how long it would take to get the troops home after all the hawks (chicken and otherwise) had to reach for their wallets.

of us. I would sure like to know how many Democrats support putting more money into this horrendous aggression which is only going to continue to hurt us.

Related to this: Why are we even considering putting more billions into feeding the war when they can't account for the lost billions and the massive cheating done by Halliburton, and orchestrated by Cheney and company?

Why isn't anyone looking for the missing and misappropriated dough?

HELL YEAH!

in short of the entire Vichy faction!

Dean will do what he can to give the people a voice. If there's one thing Dean does, and does well, it's listen to his supporters and represent their views.

This is no time for the anti-war faction to sit on its laurels because Dean can't do it all alone. He needs a LOT of support from us so he can tell them to shove it because they don't represent the people.

Getting Dean in there is only the beginning.

They caved in and tried to pacify us by giving Dean the chair (kicking and screaming the entire time) because we were making so much noise and they thought that would shut us up.

Shut us up? Hah!

PUMP UP THE VOLUME!!
Onward antiwar faction! Onward!!!

YEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

This is truly scarey. I don't get it. I am beginning to think Michael Badnarik (spell?) WAS the best choice for pres.
This is rediculous, we need to get OUT! If these pro war people really love America, why do they wan't our American youth to keep dying for this unwinnable war! I really am beginning to like Ted Kennedy more and more VERY intelligent man. -B

welcome to DU, bluedipper !!!

Kennedy showed real leadership calling for the beginning of troop withdrawal ... how sad it is that the rest of the Party left him blowing in the wind ...

you got it exactly right ... this is an "unwinnable" war ...

thanks welshterrier, I am not trying to bash Kerry, I think he is a good guy, but I am tired of soft politics, we need a strong democrat, one that will stand for what we truly want, and not pussy foot around the issues. I know Badnarik wasn't a Dem. but I loved his one saying, mostly because I had said it so many times before he did.
"If we leave Iraq now, people will die, If we leave Iraq 4 years from now, more people and American soldiers will die" that is so true. He said he would have had troops out in a few months.
Thanks again. B
www.cafepress.com/bluedipper

Why focus your energy on Chamberlain when the real problem is Hitler?

i have plenty of energy to go around ...

the "real" problem is elected Democrats who choose the wrong path thereby enabling republicans to garner greater support ... would you have those of us who believe so deeply that this war is immoral remain silent when one of our own stumbles so badly ???

i sold my soul to vote for Kerry ... i was ABB ... no more ... that's all ... just no more ...

The real reason, is becase George W. Bush is president. The DLC did not start this war. There was no occupation of Iraq while Bill Clinton was President. There were a lot of objectionable things that he did but an illegal occupation was not one of them.

Like I said, why stop Chamberlain when Hitler is the real problem? The DLC may be the appeasers but we won't have to worry about the appeasers if there are no warmongers (the Republicans) in the White House.

would've allowed Hitler to run roughshod over all.

“It's the right thing to do for Congress to stand by military families as part of the supplemental funding that will soon face a vote in the United States Senate. Starting with the coming debate on the supplemental, I will fight to pass as much of my Military Family Bill of Rights as possible. There's no time to wait. Congress must act now.

We're told that supplemental funding is needed to deal with emergencies around the globe, and I agree. But the urgent needs of our military families must also be addressed. Military families have higher expenses during deployments, and they should be able to make penalty-free withdrawals from their Individual Retirement Accounts for increased child care and other deployment-related expenses.

We need to extend TRICARE military medical benefits to all members of the National Guard and Reserve, whether they are mobilized or not. It impacts readiness when a Reservist is called up and doesn't pass his physical because he hasn't been to a doctor in two years. We also need to expand Post Traumatic Stress Disorder programs within the VA system and require outreach efforts to find the vets who need the care.

We also need to be more flexible with families who have lost a loved one. Widows currently have 180 days to move out of military housing if a spouse is killed in action. For those with young children, that may mean starting the school year in one state and finishing it in another. We should let them stay for a year. It’s the least we can do.

It's time for a debate about what it really means to support the troops, in actions not just words. Truly supporting our troops requires that we act not just as individuals, but as a nation. We owe our troops the best-planned, best-equipped, and best-led military force in the world, and we owe them the peace of mind that comes from knowing that they and their families will be taken care of.”

http://kerry.senate.gov/high/record.cfm?id=232132

:spank:

"they should be able to make penalty-free withdrawals from their Individual Retirement Accounts for increased child care"

What a guy.

are you suggesting my quote was either not accurate or was misleading ??

this thread makes no objection to Kerry's support for military personnel and their families ... the thread is about using American troops where they do not belong ...

all you're doing is changing the subject ...

here's a link to the source of the quote I provided in the base post:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=9&u=/nm/20050215/pl_nm/iraq_kerry_dc

why don't you go start your own thread if you want to change the subject ... this thread is about Kerry's support for trying to "win" the war in Iraq ...

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

voted against the war to begin with? I will never vote again for a candidate who supports this insane killing and death. 16,000 + dead Iraqis. Bush has created a fucking mess - all for oil and control. You can not leave and you can not stay. So I say leave tomorrow. Just like Kucinich said in the debates -- why wait through years of failure. Kerry is just voting for it because he was trashed by his no vote so much before. Like it or not - Kerry doesn't have the deep inner passion against war.

Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)

A couple of noteworthy things...

Obama although not in the Senate at the time opposed the Iraq War from the get-go I believe, very similar to Dean. Also, Senator Frank Lautenberg sort of went on hiaitus from 2000-2002. Had he been serving in the Senate at the time, I have a hard time imagining that he would've voted for the IWR.

runs in 08. Now your talking passion! People who know in the deepest part of their soul what is right and what is wrong. People who are savy enough to know that the whole thing was bullshit ripe with ulterior motives. People smart enough to figure out.."Hmmm these inspectors AREN'T finding anything. Duh, why go to war?"

This should be pretty clear considering the picture that I proudly display in my avatar. Russ Feingold is my first choice for President, Wes Clark another opponent of the Iraq War (when it started) is probably my second.

That being said I'm not in the business of condemning Democrats who did vote YEA on this. It's true that perhaps they sold out ideals for political gain but focusing our attention on them, ignores the real problem, the Republicans. The Republicans are the ones who are the warmongers. You could say that the DLC and co are the sympathizers and the appeasers and you would probably be right. But there was no invasion and occupation of Iraq when Bill Clinton was in office, there is under Bush. Bush is the ENEMY, the DLC and the sympathizers are just people who aren't actively fighting the enemy. We need to focus our attention on the ENEMY because without Bush and the GOP, there would be no Iraq War, that is the bottom line.

And THAT being said, I do want to re-iterate that I hope our nominee in '08 is somebody that is willing to stand up and stick it to the warmongering Republicans.

than the war. If they (dems)appease on that, than I think of them as lacking the courage of their convicitions on other things too. Just like from the very beginning I knew B** was lying about the war - had ulterior motives. So once you lie, I don't believe anything you say after that.

I think Clark is someone who has that strong inner convictions. I don't know very much at all about Feingold. I want to read up on him.

come on, Kerry is our side, I support Dean too, but i'm not turning my back on kerry, and he's not a pro-war democrat as you say. I'm Tired of Democrats who refuse to support our troops who are in combat.

can't think of a better way to support our troops, than to get them the fuck home! I am tired of being misunderstood, this isn't NAM, nobody is spitting on our soldiers when they come back. We all support the troops, the only ones who don't are those who SUPPORT THE WAR! -B

I agree that's the best immediate way to help them, but it's not realistic and it's irrational. These troops have made a choice to fight for this country regardless of the reason for going to war, they deserve to be as well-prepared and funded as possible, your rhetoric isn't going arm them, finish the job in iraq or bring them home. I don't support the war in iraq, but i support our troops ther and abroad, and I support fighting the war on terrorism.

finish there job?? How the hell long is that going to take. Come on lets open our eyes here! This war is UNWINNABLE, hell the pres.'s dad said it himself years ago. I support the troops 100%, but there is no job to finish. -B

finish there job?? How the hell long is that going to take. Come on lets open our eyes here! This war is UNWINNABLE, hell the pres.'s dad said it himself years ago. I support the troops 100%, but there is no job to finish. -B

I'm not trying to win a war here, just trying to see our troops be as prepared as possible when in a war zone. In my opinion, finishing the job consists of continuing to train iraqis and at a much faster pace, so that we can get our troops out as soon as possible, it takes money and funding to do that.

agree to disagree I guess

to protect the soldiers, which I believe is about $30b and tack on $50b for who knows what. It is obscene. This is our money!

Like I said before...Bush created the conundrum - can't leave, can't stay. no win, either way. But, why not chose the one that (1) saves American lives and hopefully the lives of those who are killed because they support us. (2) creates a place where whatever animosity we are causing by being there goes away. If we stay, it will always be there.

they hid the costs of war, as many war presiden'ts do, i'm not happy about paying for the war either, but by all means, fund our troops.

I agree problems are caused by us being there, but so are problems to be caused by us leaving prematurely. I'm not advocating remainning an occupier any longer then it takes to get the iraqs in power, and i realize the problems created as a result of our troops being there, but i'm also not about to pull out. You do realize if the democrats supported somethign like an immediate pull out, we could kiss coming back to power anytime soon, good bye. The American public does not support such a thing.

thinks -- or has been led to think. How many troops do we have there? 130k? So we have that many and WE can not stop what is happening, right? Still car bombs. So if we train them -- 130k of them, and leave. They will be in EXACTLY the same position we are in today - still the bombing.

Therefore, the only wild card is the negative effect of us being there.

130k iraqis are, iraqis. That's the difference. The 'terrorists' bombing iraqis and americans in iraq, will lose support as they have been for killing iraqis. Nationalism is the wild card there.

The insurgents were against us coming in there. They are against what we did - barging our way in, setting up what WE wanted to set up. That is the real wild card. IMHO, the insurgency will continue until what we have done is undone.

Hey, I just realized I contradicted myself. :>) (In case you didn't notice) Okay, my new bottom line is, get out because there will never be peace until the insurgents undo what we have done there.

not giving bush billions of more dollars to prolong the insanity ...

and just to be an equal opportunity critic since you mentioned Dean, there's nothing about his position on the war I like either ... as best I can determine, Dean still believe the war is winnable ...

finally, in my neighborhood, you are pro-war when you vote to fund war ...

your argument that you are supporting the troops by subjecting them to never-ending neo-con war is absurd ...

is not willing to pull out. I want to support those who do. That simple. I may be in the minority, even here. I don't care.

to the MINORITY!

or any other leading democrat. This Kerry bashing is ridiculous.

..if he had taken on a Kucinich based policy.

:eyes:

so fellow Bonesman Bush could win as planned.

Welcome to the internet!

:crazy:

yes, how slowly i catch on. you know, there was a secret deal the whole time- kerry threw it so that bush would win.

have you been duped by this nonsense ??? don't be ...

the Pentagon budget is like, what, a bizillion dollars ... do you really think they can't squeeze out a little more, or change their priorities from their big corporate weapons systems, if they really wanted to buy flack jackets for 150,000 troops in Iraq?

wake up, will ya !!!!

they have plenty of money ... they just don't give a damn ... Kerry is voting for MORE WAR ... he believes the war is winnable ... he's wrong ...

the "support the troops" argument is nonsense ... they have plenty of money to provide proper gear ... and bush is just not going to do it no matter how much money Kerry votes for ...

and a Yankee fan yet ...

:spank:

i am a Yankee fan in the front lines up here in Massachusetts where the real fighting is taking place ...

The Pentagon can get all the bucks it wants through blind supplemental requests, but unless items like armor and medical care are specifically allocated, they won't happen.

Shout "Support Our Troops" and they get all weepy eyed and start rationalizing what "our troops" are doing in Iraq.

This thread has run its course.