Governor Warner on Iraq...

As a longtime Warner supporter Ive often been asked, where does Governor Warner stand on Iraq? My answer has always been, I dont know. Mostly because the Governor never really commented on Iraq. Anyway, today he finally broke the ice.



Some of us will like his position and others will not. I happend to have a very similar opinion of the war. We need to set milestones and evaluate our progress as those milestones are/are not met. After that we re-evaluate our position in Iraq. To set an exact date would be a mistake, IMO, because it would only give the insurgency an exact holdout date.

Fire away.

And although I am a Hillary supporter, I live in Virginia and know what an exceptional Governor Warner has been!!!

can actual compete in the general election.

Just an FYI.

Clinton
Kerry
Edwards
Gore

All DLC.

:)

DLC it's just three letters. You have to look past it.

Clinton: Ran the DLC, the DLC did not run Clinton.
Kerry: Lost
Edward: Lost
Gore: Lost

Just for YOUR FYI.

...Two sorts of members: relatively progressive minded individuals motivated by a desire to move away from what they feel to be 'yesterday's ideas', and boobs like Joe Lieberman who want to go Republican-lite.

Maybe I'm wrong, but such is my impression...

Robert

What's the deal with all this "no thanks, they're DLC" crap?

My 4-star General campaigns his ass off for members of the DLC, just as he does for non-members. He campaigns for DEMOCRATS.


Two quick questions for you:

1. Did you not vote for Senator Kerry in '04 because he's a DLC member? :shrug:

2. Will you vote for a Republican in '08 if a DLC member is nominated? :shrug:

Like with Warners Stay the Course speech..

And TWO .. yes I will vote GREEN over DLC in 2006/2008..

...If you're of the opinion Al Gore really won in 2000 and John Kerry probably won in 2004, the last 4 presidential races have been won by DLC candidates.

Warner in '08!!

...although.. ... we need to get through 2006 first!

...in 2000, Gore was the VP and a DLC member.

not following their idea.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253357&kaid=114&subid=144 for one.

... so for those paying attention, here is what the linked article said about Al Gore:

As it is, married parents of young children are slipping away from the Democratic Party. That's 28 percent of the electorate -- 33.6 million voters in 2004. The last two presidential elections revealed a dramatic and growing "parent gap." Al Gore lost married parents by 15 percentage points. John Kerry widened the gap, losing them by a whopping 19 points -- 59-40. And it could get worse.

..now please tell us how that is attacking Gore?

...but beside the point (that you are veering from), Gore was a DLC member his entire elected career.

http://www.sentienttimes.com/01/feb_march/dlc.html

DLC Says Gore's Presidential Bid Ruined
by Populist Message: Others Disagree


http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=179&contentid=2938

Why Gore Lost, And How Democrats Can Come Back

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=5549

hile the DLC was never hostile to gay rights per se, it was basic to the DLC mission to pursue a politics that hewed closely to "mainstream" values and consciously avoided aligning itself with "counterculture" or identity politics. Clinton and Gore were perhaps not as cautious as the DLC would have wished.


Yes Gore was a little DLC BUT THEY attack him for not being DLC enough.

...at least you're now admitting Gore was DLC... but let's examine your links.

Link 1: An editorial not written by the DLC. Interesting how Ralph Nader took an almost opposite view of Gore (as quoted in the article), and that the original DLC piece this writer is referencing never said, "which concluded that the Democratic Party must move towards the political right—towards the Republicans—if it wants to regain control of Congress in 2002 and the White House in 2004"

Link 2: The original piece the writer above embellished from. Still, no "attacking" Gore. What is does is detail opinions set forth by various writers and strategist over what doomed Gore - specifically - his "early strategic decision to distance himself from his own Administration probably cost him a comfortable win by denying him association with a booming economy and a broad array of popular policies. Instead of a "progress and prosperity" message, Gore settled on a "populist" message that very effectively boosted his support among the Democratic base but crucially limited his ability to make inroads among the swing voters..." and "that Gore's campaign showed a dangerous backsliding from the credibility gained by the Democratic Party during the Clinton years on the role of government, mainstream cultural values, personal and national security, and the common aspirations of citizens across class, race and gender lines."

This is not attacking. It is analyzing.

Link 3: Again, a non-DLC writer's opinion. How can that be contrued as the DLC attacking Gore?

Gore was DLC during his time in office.

As a Virginian, I see the state in much better shape thanks to Warner.

I disagree with his namby-pamby centrist Iraq opinion. There is no point setting milestones ahead of you when you are running backwards over a cliff. We are not succeeding; therefore we will never reach the milestones. The longer we stay, the more we are in danger.

"This Democrat doesn't think we need to re-fight how we got into war."

I disagree with politicians who think we should move past that.

It's called oversight and the constitution has demanded that congress perform that duty.

The priority should be a plan that gets our troops out of there sooner than later. While I am not like many DUers who want our troops out immediately with no consideration to the damage we have done there and how Iraq will survive it, I would like our troops out as soon as possible, but feel we should give them some help to try and survive. Personally, I think something could done in a few weeks or months, but at some point we are going to have to cut our losses and just leave.

Judging Warner's previous comments on Iraq, I don't think we wants to nix all discussion of how we got there, I think he just wants to prioritize our exit.

It's NOT A FIGHT - it's a constitutional duty for oversight.

His terminology is deliberate - Bush did the same thing in 2000 when he claimed he wasn't part of the DC battles between GOP and Clinton on impeachment. He had no dog in that "fight" in DC, as if he was far removed from it.

What Warner is saying is don't investigate DSM or pre-war intel because it appears too partisan for HIS platform.

It is VERY important to examine the lead-up to the war. And, it's important not to criticize the Democrats who are doing that, pushing for the second phase of the investigation, stating that the intelligence was manipulated or hyped, stating that there was no intelligence estimate until Bob Graham pushed for one, etc...

I think it's something a politician would do if his intent was to appeal to the so-called "sensible center" in an expedient way. And it fits a pattern I'm starting to see in Warner of putting his political positioning ahead of a principled stand.

And I don't see anything in his broad comments on Iraq that others haven't already said.

I want a FIGHTER!!

go after Bush, why the heck is it OK for any other Dem to trash them further as if they have no right to question and examine Bush's WH?

Without control of congress we really cannot push the buttons needed to fastforward the investigation. Time spent focusing on the investigation into pre-war intelligence could be spent on developing an concrete exit strategy to bring our boys and girls home.

Both are highly important, but creating a plan to get our troops out of the hell hole is more important, IMO. And I believe Governor Warner feels the same way.

A plan he drew up with commanders on the ground and with members of Iraq's Parliament.

However he also believes the DSM needs to be investigated further along with the rest of the pre-war intel that was "fixed" by the WH.

I live in Virginia too, and admire what Warner has done for the state. However, I must say, this snippet of a "plan" sounds very much like a simplified version of what Wes Clark has long been saying. I didn't hear anything new or original here.

:hi:

Clark has been saying this for years now.

Clark has called over and over again for a full disclosure and investigation into how the intelligence was twisted and hyped to get us into this war. He believes that holding the administration accountable for its blunders is absolutely critical to our democracy, and he also wants a full, independent investigation of how they lied or misled or whatever it was that allowed them to get us into an unnecessary war and to bungle it so badly after we were there.

Clark has also spent a lot of time and effort trying to force the issue of how the administration has authorized and used torture, even tho they repeatedly lie and say they don't. He has even criticized the Clinton policy that allowed rendition, altho he also stressed that Clinton put safeguards against abuse in place and didn't use the policy to get around internaitonal law.

I'd like to hear what Warner has to say about the torture issue too. Will he just say, "Torture is bad and I'll never allow it" and ignore what's going on now, how we got to this point, and what can be done to force Bush to put an end to it?

We can't afford to wait 3 years for a Democratic president or hang all our hats on taking back Congress in the next. We need real leaders out there NOW standing up against Bush and those in Congress who rubberstamp whatever he wants. Warner is getting a lot of media coverage lately, and I don't begrudge it to him--wish Clark could get that kind of attention. But I sure would like to see Warner put that air-time and lines of print to good use for the entire country and not just his future political aspirations.

You can't have milestones without clear and unambiguous objectives. This is a mission that morphs into something else every few months.

Let's see, it started over WMDs, but they were actually eliminated back in the early 1990s, so now it's time to end the occupation. But wait, you say-- it was REALLY about deposing the Evil One. But, well, that milestone's been reached too, so it's time to end the occupation. But no-- invading Iraq was actually all about cutting their ties to international terrorism. There really weren't any-- sorry about all those dead folks-- so now we can stop the occupation and the killing. Well, actually the mission was all about introducing democratic institutions, especially parlimentary dabate, a western style constitution, and citizen voting. But, dammit, that's been done too, and the Iraqis had their own ideas about how to handle it. Really though-- it's really all about defeating the insurgency-- the insurgency that DIDN'T EVEN EXIST when we invaded Iraq in the first place. No, no-- it's really about rebuilding Iraq-- rebuilding it after WE destroyed it-- and we're not done destroying it yet, so it's too soon to even begin THINKING about the rebuilding milestones....

Smokescreen. Warner didn't actually articulate what these mythical milestones might be, because he has no more idea of what the actual mission is than anyone else. Or maybe he does, but just doesn't want to list milestones that are measured in units of millions of barrels.

Minimize and kill the insurgency.
Train the Iraqi soldiers.
Reestablish civil authority and elect a parliamentary government.

It's how we get there that people and politicians disagree on.

...who proposes them.

"Minimize and kill the insurgency."

We created the insurgency-- it is a response to our invasion and occupation. We should not be trying to "kill the insurgency"-- we should be leaving their country.


"Train the Iraqi soldiers."

Iraq had a trained army before we invaded-- one of Bremmer's first actions was to simply convert many of them into the current insurgency. Again, we have created the security situation in which a quisling army is being trained. We should leave.


"Reestablish civil authority and elect a parliamentary government."

Do I detect a pattern here? WE destroyed Iraq's civil authority. Iraq had a parliamentary government before we invaded (don't recall that? see this link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/not_in_website/syndication/monitoring/media_reports/2244614.stm). Saddam Hussein was the elected president of Iraq. Sure, he was a despot, but so are lots of other elected presidents of parliamentary governments, but the point is that it's disengenuous to list as milestones the precise institutions Iraq possessed before we invaded and tore them down-- the truth is that what the U.S. wants to achieve is a PUPPET GOVERNMENT dependent upon the U.S. If these are the milestones, the invasion and occupation were never necessary-- Iraq had no insurgency, it had a trained army, and it was a secular, parliamentary gov't BEFORE we destroyed its institutions. Iraq certainly does not need the U.S. to create those institutions. It has proven itself quite capable on its own.

In any event, we're not going to achieve ANY of these milestones, and the fun part is that we've simply moved the goal posts since March 2003 until we've extended the U.S. presence in Iraq indefinitely.

Since you have been for Warner even without knowing his stances on Iraq.......I am curious.....

What do you think about the fact that Mark Warner believes that we don't need to "re-fight" how we got into this Gazillion Billion dollars/2,000+ US Deaths/15,000+ US Casualties/100,000 Iraqi deaths?

What meaning does not "refighting" this mean to you? Was this issue ever really ever "Fought" in a manner that the truth has gotten out?

If Mark Warner is indeed stating that it's not about how we got in....but how we get out, how do you feel about this strategy? Would it affect how Democrats run in 2006 and possibly 2008?

Couldn't we look at both how we got in AND how we get out? Are we supposed to believe that there only two options on this?

Also....do you think that this is a principle stance......not to deal (refight) with how we got in? Would this stance help us learn "never again"?

I realize that many are saying this same thing.....but I fail to see how pardoning the manner in which the Bush Admin opened up a "pandora's box" helps Democrats or this country. It only seems to help the Bush Admin and the GOP if you asked me. For the U.S.'s biggest strategic blunder and Neocon dream to have come true, and for us to feel it's not worth discussing how we got there....is scary to me. Will Bush ever be made accountable? And if so, when and by whom?

You didn't ask me, but you can read my post above. Warner has made statements like this about Iraq before, and usually the words are something to the effect of "prioritizing" (or some synonym) our exit. I have never read anything where he says "lets never talk about how we got there in the first place. I do not claim to know everything that the guy has ever said, but this is my understanding of his stance.

"This Democrat doesn't think we need to re-fight how we got into (the Iraq war). I think we need to focus more on how to finish it," Warner said.

OK, Warner thinks figuring out how we get out of Iraq needs to be our priority now. And I have no doubt that if directly asked he would say that we should always learn whatever lessons need to be learned from mistakes made in the past etc. etc. Only a fool with say otherwise, and I know Warner is no fool. But having a priority does not banish all other matters from consideration, it is simply a ranking of importance.

A case can be made that saving lives, both American and Iraqi, in Iraq today is more important than unearthing a lie told yesterday.
OK, sure, but why is this being framed as an either/or? Does Congress only pay attention to one matter per session? Aren't they also voting on "Bridges to Nowhere" and National Mentor Appreciation Weeks? I would like to hear Warner explain more why he "doesn't think we need to re-fight how we got into (the Iraq war)." I sure as hell think we do need to re-fight how we got into the Iraq war, even if I may agree that figuring out how to get out of Iraq without causing even greater damage should be our highest priority. Bush,as matters now stand, will be Commander in Chief for almost 3 more years, with Cheney standing in the wings if Bush goes down before Cheney. Do you trust Bush not to do something God awful stupid regarding Iran or North Korea or Syria? Understanding how and why the United States goes to War, if not our very top priority, has to damn well be high up there on the list.

I'd say it is the same reason that anyone around here starts talking about 08, many DUers say "lets not talk about 08, lets talk about 06." These DUers know that people are going to talk about 08 anyway, but they just want people to *focus.* And that's what Warner says, "focus."

"Do you trust Bush not to do something God awful stupid regarding Iran or North Korea or Syria?"

If you are asking me personally, I think that it will be many, many years before the public is interested in a pre-emptive war like this one.

"Understanding how and why the United States goes to War, if not our very top priority, has to damn well be high up there on the list."

I agree that should be high up on the list. I also feel that healthcare should be high on the list too. But if I was a politician and felt that a majority of the politcal dialogue and poltical news was about healthcare and not about an Iraq exit, I'd say "can we focus on Iraq?" And just because I say "focus on Iraq" doesn't mean I don't care about healthcare.

Sorry for the goofy analogies. Am I making sense?

His terminology strongly implies that HE, in the "sensible center" (as opposed to others in the crazy center or the wildeyed left of it) rises above the "fighting" that other Democrats are supposedly engaged in.

There are many other ways he could have worded something about focusing or prioritizing. And the fact is, nobody's asking the White House or the Pentagon to suspend efforts to end the war in order to focus on investigating themselves. They are two separate things.

What Warner said will appeal to Bush supporters, and in fact seems designed to appeal to Bush supporters, frankly.

I never said or thought Warner didn't care about matters of War and Peace. I just think he is dead wrong sending out this message right now. It isn't needed. I do not think people are getting too distracted by what happened two or three years ago to pay attention to what is happening right now.

To me it's like saying, "I don't want to re-fight whether the 2004 elections were fair or not, I want to prioritize making the 2008 elections fair". It's a false choice. The only way you can be sure to make the 2008 elections fair is by figuring if and how the 2004 elections weren't. And the only time you can muster the public will to do something about it is when people are upset enough to ask the hard questions.

I am not just able to come on in, make myself at home like everyone else?

Does me being a Clark supporter preclude me from asking questions about other contenders and their policy positions? Do I have to say I support Warner first before I am just provided with answers by those who support the guy?

But in responding to the "substantial" portion of your post...I will say that this quote of Gov. Warner's..."This Democrat doesn't think we need to re-fight how we got into (the Iraq war). I think we need to focus more on how to finish it," Warner said...

This response from Mark Warner does sound very much like "lets not talk about how we got there in the first place".....to me. I am reading it wrong? If you are saying "not now"....then the question becomes, then when would we discuss this? :shrug:

To me, it even goes beyond "Let's not talk about how we got there."

He didn't say, "Democrats, let's all focus on an exit strategy" (perhaps because others have already formulated far more detailed proposals, as we know).

He basically said, "While the others needlessly re-fight that issue -- THIS Democrat is above it." That's how I read it.

But I felt I had to soften my tone....cause here I am in a Warner thread again....and it was noticed! LOL!

I've been thinking of starting a thread about Warner all day, but I've never EVER started a thread that was critical of any Democrat. This is probably the first time I've been critical withIN a thread (Lieberman and Zell excepted). But reading up on him lately, I think we've got a Politician with a capital "P" here....

Oh by the way, welcome!!

I could repeat it three times but I'll spare everyone that. This is the contentious phrase, not Warner's "focus".

Oops. Sorry. Computer bad.

And as for your interpretation that Warner was bad mouthing other dems, I don't read that at all. Then again, I am giving him the benefit of the doubt. I hope other Clarkies (like myself) can do the same.

I just knew you would be here, and was saying hi! :hi:

"If you are saying "not now"....then the question becomes, then when would we discuss this?"

When our collective energy has gotten everyone out of Iraq as safely as possible, which will hopefully be sooner than later.

happened?
I want to see the Bushies out in the worst way, but I can not and will not support the DLC, or any of their candidates. I am not a pacifist. I don't believe in turning the other cheek. But this war was bogus from day one. The idea that Iraq was a danger to the US was lunacy. I thought so before the war started and was proven right.
I don't give a god damn what happens. I will not support a DLCer. The idea that Dems should reward someone who supported this idiotic, insane venture is more lunacy.
If the Democratic Party wants to guarantee another repuke victory in 2008, run a DLC candidate.

Comming by a non-DLC candidate capable of winning the general election is about as rare as hitting the evening lottery.

Have fun though! :hi:

Clinton won because he's the best campaigner we, all Dems, have ever seen, not because he's DLC. It was superflous. A DLCer won Virginia, Wow, a psuedo neocon won in a Southern state. Stop the press, we have a story here!!!!Oh, wait, that's a little like dog bites man, isn't it.
I'll say it again. Why should someone who supported that atrocity be rewarded with the highest elective office this country offers. Most Repukes are too fuckin' dumb to go against Bush, but most Dems are not. Twenty some odd Dem Senators didn't vote for that resolution. Should we just fold our arms and say forget it. Or use that totally dumb statement Warner put out today. He doesn't care how it started! Sweet Jesus!

Next stop, Republicans break 400 EV's in 2008!

Better Kucinich than Joementum, or Biden, or Bayh. This country can't afford two Republican Parties at the same time.

Yeah, way, way back. Jimmy Carter in 1976 and even he was a moderate southern governor.

I think it is totally irrelevant that Clinton was a DLCer in '92 and '96. As I said before, he won because he is a brilliant campaigner.
My dislike for the DLC is beyond skin deep. I went to their website sometime back and read some of their essays. At first, I couldn't believe they were written by Democrats. The DLC could be the RLC without any major changes.
You point out Jimmy Carter. The Old Confederacy is a burden the entire nation bears. No doubt, before the world get too much older, Warner's supporters will inform all who will listen that the last three Democratic Presidents were from the South, Johnson, Carter, Clinton.
After the Democratic Convention of 2008, I will support the Democratic nominee, even if he or she is DLC. It is my cross to bear. A lite repuke is better than a full repuke. Not very often are voters given really good choices. Most ofter, we do what we do with most choices in life, take the lesser of two evils.

Warner was one of my early favorites and you've succeeded in making me want to work against him. Good work.

You obviously were never open to supporting him in the first place. It's really that simple. My opinion of Kucinich should have no impact on your opinion of Warner, period.

I know your opinion of me and Governor Warner will have no impact on my opinion of the guy in your avatar who happends to be one of my favorite politicans.

:hi:

:hi:

DLC has gone hard right over what it once was...

I believe that he is prioritizing. In his opinion developing a plan that eventually results in bringing our troops home trumps investigating how they got there. I tend to agree. Its actually pretty simple, the longer we are in Iraq, the higher the death toll.

I seriously doubt he's calling for an end to the investigation.

"This Democrat doesn't think we need to re-fight how we got into (the Iraq war)."

He didn't say, "I think we should focus on one thing at a time."
He didn't say, "I applaud the Democrats who are pushing for the second phase of the investigation, but meanwhile I'm focused on a way out."

I think he made a veiled accusation, implying that other Democrats are wrongly 're-fighting how we got into the war.' Perhaps it's because those Democrats aren't as "sensible" as Warner is.

"This Democrat doesn't think we need to re-fight how we got into (the Iraq war). I think we need to focus more on how to finish it,"

If your going to quote the man at least use his entire quote, please.

Obviously this quote shows a preference to focusing on getting out rather than how we got in.

He never said we should stop the investigation. He never said we should give up on the investigation. He never said the investigation was a waste of time. He never said fellow democrats are wrong to investigate.

I think he implied that a strategy on how to get out is more important than partisan political battles on how we got in.

Which is in the best interest of the troops? Argueing a way out? Or re-living how we got in? One will save lives, thats for sure.

He didn't say "I," he said "THIS Democrat." Why? He's separating himself from other Democrats, in a veiled criticism.

He didn't say "investigate," he said "RE-FIGHT." Why? He's separating himself from other Democrats, in a veiled criticism.

He can focus 'til the cows come home on (original) proposals for exiting Iraq. But meanwhile, he could easily make a statement in support of other Democrats who are pushing for the second phase of the investigation. Nor does that investigation hamper the government agencies who are tasked with military strategy.

I seriously think your reading to much into the first sentence. Its just a matter of interpretation. I see it as him saying, we need to focus less on how we got there and more on how we get out. He's said this numerous times in the past. He said it on CSPAN a month ago, he said it on face the nation 2 weeks ago, he said it in NH a week ago. His position is pretty concrete. Less on how we got there, more on how we got out.

We also have to remember that this is only one line from a speech that probably spanded in excess of 20 minutes. Further down the link you will see a summary.

"WE" can definitely do both, and Democrats have been doing both. Kerry and Clark, for example, outlined comprehensive and detailed plans for exiting Iraq, AND they've both criticized the administration's misuse of intel in the lead-up to the war and pushed for the second phase of the investigation.

The people who actually make these decisions are NOT the same people who would be conducting the investigation. There is absolutely no need to say "Let's focus on this, not that" -- unless one were a politician willing to let others grind the wheat so he can eat the bread, and offer it to Bush supporters.

"framing" is everything. Warner is an astute politician....according to you. Don't you think he knew exactly what he was saying and what it meant?

On this, I don't like Warner's position. Just when the idea of an investigation is FINALLY STARTING to catch fire....we don't need a leading Democrat dousing the flames......as though, "it ain't time for all of that". I think it is the perfect time, even if it's not politically expedient for some!

I wish he could have said...."It is not a partisan issue to want to investigate how we got into this war. I choose to concentrate on how we get out, but I think an investigation by congress is part of their oversight.....and it should certainly be done.".....

now that would have been way better....

And there's a pattern in his decisions and non-decisions that fits with it.

As a Clarkie who, as far as I can remember, has said nothing but good things about Warner so far, I hope I'm allowed to voice an honest opinion here....That "this Democrat" statement really rubs me the wrong way too...

I'll be waiting to hear more from Gov Warner...

You are offering us false choices.....

"Which is in the best interest of the troops? Argueing a way out? Or re-living how we got in? One will save lives, thats for sure."

Just like we CAN look at strategies for BOTH 2006 AND 2008....as when you start a thread like this about a potential 2008 candidate, doesn't mean you are not interested in 2006 (I'm sure).

I think that we can also look at both issues (how and why are we there as well as how do we get out)without having to choose one over the other. I find them both extremely important, but for different reasons. To say we shouldn't or can't is being intellectual disingenious and underestimating us here at DU....and political activists in general.

which is understandable, because, hey, he's not Clark, whom you adore.

However, since Warner did not VOTE on Iraq in the first place, we have no way of knowing whether he supported the initial invasion or not.

Being an outsider, a Governor, he is in the perfect *political* (I reiterate POLITICAL) position to project himself as the candidate who will move us forward out of this mess. If he employs language that projects us beyond Iraq, that moves us forward as a country, he is subliminally (and not so subliminally) projecting optimism about the future.

What the guy is saying is that he cares about what happens from here on in. He does not want to be embroiled in disputes of the past.

Now, you and I might feel far more vindictively about Bush. We want the guy to be drawn and quartered. The war is illegal, it was illegal to start with and it is illegal and immoral now. It was based on lies.

But, politically speaking, Warner is not talking to us. He HAS our vote, if he wins the primaries. He is talking to the vast middle who don't feel as angry at Bush as we do. He is talking to the people who were behind Bush at the beginning of this thing, but now feel very remorseful and simply want to move forward and get out.
They don't despise Bush like you and I do. They don't want to see endless investigations into what happened. They don't want to see Bush brought up on charges of bringing us into war through duplicity.

They just want to move forward. They want Bush's presidency to end and a new President to get us out.

Is Warner's position on this calculated? I would bet that it is. He does want to get elected after all. He wants to be able to actually change things. He's not the type who goes down in flames, he's the type who actually knows how to appeal to the middle and get elected and THEN pushes change.

Is this the mainstream position on Iraq that most people in the country will think is responsible and sensible and OPTIMISTIC?

Yep.

You really hit the nail on the head with that one.

There are many, many, many Democrats I "like" and admire very much. Warner is not one of them. It's not because he's "DLC," it's not because he's "centrist," it's not because he's trying to appeal to a "vast middle."

It's because of the WAY he's doing that, and what that says to me about him as a person.

And you have no basis to judge my "predispositions" or thought processes, thankyouverymuch. :eyes:

So, putting aside my "judgements" about your predispositions, you said nothing about the body of my post to you regarding why Warner is doing what he's doing.

I understand he's trying to appeal to the center. I don't have a problem with that.

I have a problem with him standing on the backs of other Democrats to set himself apart -- letting them fight for the truth about BushCo while he presents himself as an alternative for Republicans, and casts himself as a special Democrat who doesn't want to fight or "re-fight."

I have a problem with him refusing to take a stand on the case of Roger Keith Coleman, for how many years now, when he has nothing to lose except the support of pro-death penalty Republicans, as far as I can tell. This is the case of a man who was already put to death in 1992 -- for which Warner isn't to blame -- and a decision about testing his DNA with current technology to affirm his guilt, show the wrong man was executed, or at worst end up with the same inconclusive results that are there already. (At least he's giving "prayerful consideration" to clemency for Robin Lovitt after three years, and will make some decision on Coleman's DNA testing before he leaves office -- how very brave.)

I have a problem with him sucking up to the NRA, I have a problem with his criticism of the Democratic party as being too elitist, I have a problem with his apparent M.O. of putting his political positioning above principle, let alone party and the country. He seems to want others to grind the wheat while he gets the bread, only to butter it on the Republican side.

I don't think that's necessary in order to gain support from moderate Republicans and independents. I think they are with us on most issues, anyway. And I think character and integrity really DO matter in a candidate, along with courage, principles, and convictions.

He's done well as a governor of a red state. Fine. As a national politician, however, I don't respect the routes he's taken. I see him as a well-coiffed Politician. If he proves me wrong, I'll be happy.

Clark supporters, in general, think that having Forgien Policy and National Security experience is very important, when talking about a Presidential candidate. I think the fact that the only area were Kerry lagged behind Bush in the polls was National Security lends weight to that pov.

This is why it wasn't that difficult for Clarkies to get on board with Kerry but Edwards was another story completely.

Now, on this issue, I don't expect Warner to be an expert on FP or NS. For this reason alone, I wouldn't support him in the primaries, because I think this will still be a huge issue next election and the rethugs aren't so dumb that they won't nominate someone who can latch on to the "war on terra" garbage.

However, what is bothersome is what has already been pointed out, his attempt to dismiss the importance of pre-war intelligence and the all the lies that led this country into war. His statement speaks for itself to me, I won't argue semantics. That is a political decision, to position himself this way, as you noted. It is one that will not be popular here on DU regardless of who people support.

But I disagree that this plays in our favor with the rest of the country. People are finally waking up to how terrible this administration is. They are finally seeing it as the corrupt bunch of liars that we knew it was all along. The last thing we need is to have Democrats out there telling them to forget all that and "focus on the future". The future is 2006, not 2008. I want the voters riled up, angry and ready to throw the repukes out of office. And we are now in a position were they are ready to hear the argument, let's not encourage silencing it.

Campaigning on positives alone is fine if you are in the position of power. We are not. We need to get the voters angry at the majority and to pull the lever for the Dems. People vote as much against one guy as for the other. Rove and company never forget this but Dems are slow to learn it.

in the rest of the country.

The problems with the Bush administration and the Republican congress are what is going to help us in '06. As you noted, there is "Bush fatigue" and that dynamic often plays out in midterm elections.

Warner is running for PRESIDENT. A different kettle of fish. Oftentimes, voters pay less attention to where a presidential candidate stands and more attention to HOW he presents it, what his general disposition is and how he handles the campaign.

People in the middle (that middle 20-30%) have very different criteria for their congressional candidate than they do for their prospective president.

They like to agree with their congressional candidates on the issues.

They want to LIKE their presidential candidate, feel safe with him, and trust him implicitly.

Not Warner's presidential aspirations. Which is why, if he wants to position himself this way, I don't want to hear it now, when we have them on the run. If he can't help the Dems fight the good fight now, when we have a big election coming up, he isn't the type of Democrat that I would support, anyways. There is plenty of time for talk about "moving forward" in 2008, if that's the campaign he wants to run. I would prefer he shut-up right now if he won't help.

at this stage of the game is some in the Washington media and political junkies like us. There is no possible way he could step on the party's "message" for 2006, and the average voter won't start paying attention to presidential candidates until very late 2007/early 2008.

Btw, when you find out what our "message" is for 2006, let me know what it is.

:)

But my complaint stands, regardless. :)

We haven't had a message since Clinton first ran, sadly. But at least people are starting to hate the other side more than they distrust us.

Well then by all means, he should stay out of 2006. He should keep his own hands clean at all costs, and pitching in could get them dirty.

As long as everybody likes him... :sarcasm:

but he will do it in the way he feels comfortable.

I gotta tell you, your objections to Warner seem mostly stylistic in nature. And you have an awful lot of hostility for someone who's positions you (and almost all of the country) are not fully familiar with yet.

That WaPo story was last night. That's the first you heard of it, you wrote. But now, one day later, it's one of the major reasons you don't like the guy?

You haven't even heard his side of the story yet!

It looks to me like a pattern of selfish opportunism, in the mold of a classic Politician. I don't feel hostile; I just don't respect his tactics, and disagree that this is the way the party needs to go.

Isn't that the whole point of running for office? So that you can then be in a position of power to effect change?

I understand, and share, your desire and thirst for a real leader.

But leaders often come about AFTER they are elected. While you and I may never know for sure about any politician's motives, I'd rather support one with whom I generally agree, who is also a superb, tactical politician.

Because otherwise, it's an exercise in perpetual futility and frustration.

I don't think criticizing Democrats who are fighting BushCo is necessary. I don't think getting cozy with the NRA is necessary. I don't think backing down from decisions is necessary.

This was already discussed, above.

This is tone and inference. He is a cautious politician, he's not going to throw a grenade into the debate.

"This Democrat doesn't..." blah, blah, blah. What does that mean? Why not just say: "I don't believe we should re-fight how we got here". But he didn't. He made a clear inference to the democrats that are fighting and drew a line between himself and them. It's a subtle form of criticism, you are intelligent enough to see it.

Methinks you might be reading a bit too much into it.

But I had a feeling you would disagree...

I've explained in two other posts how I think this choice of words is carefully crafted and why. Using both in the same phrase strains my suspension of disbelief. It's no coincidence. I consider it a message sent, and I think I am receiving it correctly. It's more than sentence structure and oratorical style. And if I am wrong then Warner has a serious Tin Ear which will be a real problem for him in the future, but I honestly don't think that is it.

Look, I make a lot of real compromises most of the time when I vote, and it is not impossible that someday I will make one voting for Warner, but right now, that is exactly what it seems to me it would feel like. I still think we can do worse than Warner, but I also think we can do better. This position he has taken hasn't changed much for me in that regard I guess.

Edited because it's late and I am tired and I totally blew the original subject header, lol.

Here is the title to this post:

"Call it a difference over focus if you prefer those words."

If "This Democrat doesn't think we need to re-fight how we got into (the war)" then one can assume he is differentiating himself from "Those Democrats" who think we need to re-fight it. I'll clue you in to a bit of semantics here though: "Re-fight" is a derogatory term. "Fight" is more neutral, people can easily disagree on when a fight is called for. But "Re-fight" is to vigorously investigate what "Flip-flop" is to reconsider. It has a negative connotation, it implies wasted effort.

You know it is possible to have concerns about the wisdom of the position that Warner seems to be taking without being "Predisposed to dislike Warner". And it should be possible to be be supportive of Wesley Clark without therefor having your opinions about everything else simply written off because of it.

I understand that there may be a thoughtful judgment behind the strategy or kind of appeal that you ascribe to Warner. That doesn't make it right however, and my thinking it isn't right is independent of my support for Wes Clark. What I have said about Warner to date has generally been relatively positive. I am keeping an open mind about him. I am inclined to believe that Warner has been an honest and effective Governor for Virginia, and that is a good starting point. But that is not a sufficient ending point for assessing him as a possible candidate for President. So now Warner is at a point where he wants to enter the national debate. It's called a debate for a reason, people are allowed to ask questions and raise objections if they have them.

Concerning your main point; I'm sorry, but for one thing my assessment of Bush has a lot deeper grounding than feeling "vindictive". I think Bush and the crew gathered around him, the neo cons and the religious right and the corporate plunderers, represent a serious threat to our Democracy, but you are right about one thing. A large part of the public does not fully understand just how much of a threat to our Democracy this Administration and their allies represent, and that frightens me. That frightens me because the Right came close to getting away with it. With their control of the media, and their manipulation of imagery and fear; with their entrenched financial power base and with their near mindless "moral majority" foot soldiers, with their control of the election machinery in key ways and in key states, they almost cemented their victory for decades.

Here's how close they came. If Bush and his neo-con brain trust had not been so arrogant, if they had listened to the Joint Chiefs about the number of troops that would be needed to secure Iraq after an invasion, if they had listened to the State Department about the need to plan for a credible political process that allowed the Iraqi people under international supervision to take charge of their own reconstruction, most of what the public is only beginning now to learn probably would never have come to light. Al Quada still would have increased their recruitment. Americas relations with our allies still would be seriously strained. Preemptive war would not now be questioned. The world would still be a more dangerous place, but it wouldn't be so obvious. Men like John Edwards would not now be apologizing for having voted for the IWR in my opinion, if men like Rumsfeld hadn't been so dead set on controlling Iraq with a lean mean machine instead of immediately sending in the forces needed for them to prevent an insurgency from mushrooming out of control.

So at a truly terrible price, in a sense America "lucked out". Bush and company blew it in Iraq with their arrogance, to the point where their fundamental mistake, the uncalled for use of force for reasons that did not justify it, could no longer be covered up. That mistake still would have cost us all dearly. But much of the long term damage may have simmered and burned below the surface, perhaps for years, before it could be easily seen, and the Right wing consolidation of Americas political and cultural institutions could have continued unchecked throughout it.

The only silver lining to the whole Iraq debacle is the larger threat that has been exposed because of it. And that is the threat that Marc Warner seems to believe we should not be prioritizing looking at right now. You are right that much of the public does not see the larger situation the way I am describing it. Yet. But they are just beginning to look behind the curtain, and it isn't just liberal Democrats, the ones who want to see Bush "drawn and quartered" as you describe us, who are starting to speak out about what has been happening to our country. Unraveling how we got into this mess in the first place is exactly how the larger curtain of lies is being unraveled, a little bit more each day. But that is only because people are starting to question how we got ourselves into this mess in the first place, how Bush took us into a war in Iraq.

The slow process of enlightenment can still be killed in it's infancy if enough Democrats agree to not "re-fight" how the war in Iraq was started. And a lot of American voters who are just starting to feel a growing sense of unease might very well welcome a Novocaine call to focus on the future. That might win some votes even, but it isn't what is best for our nation.

more from a detached historical perspective, Tom. Don't get me wrong, I share nearly every sentiment you expressed. And I do not want any "awakening" or "enlightenment" to be aborted in its pre-infancy.

But, the Republicans have been in control for thirty to fourty years. Their "cycle" is getting long in the tooth. No party has ever exerted dominance for much longer than this timeframe, so it is inevitable that the mood of the country will change and that a new cycle, a more progressive one, will emerge from the ashes of the old.

I guess my point is that we will get to the other side of the mountain, imho, regardless of whether the evils of the Bush cabal are played out in impeachment hearings or not or war hearings or not. While I would far prefer the former, I don't think the vast middle agrees with me. They have decided Bush is a failure and thus he is now a lame duck. They already want to move BEYOND this failed administration. It's a peculiarly American trait, this yearning and optimism and turning to the future during times of trouble. They don't want to DWELL on what has gotten us into this mess, they want to get OUT of it. Rapidly, responsibly and preserving our dignity and our strength as a nation.

I hope a truly great leader emerges on our side over the next few years. I don't think we've seen one since FDR. Kennedy was a cautious centrist. LBJ had tragic flaws. OUr chances of one emerging, sadly, are slim.

But I don't begrudge a clever politician playing all the right notes to get elected. YOu never know when or how a great leader is going to emerge. But it's almost impossible to tell whether someone is going to be a great president by how they run a campaign. IMHO, the be all and all of a campaign should be TO GET ELECTED. If that means being a populist during certain times, so be it. If that means triangulating during some other eras, more power to you. We are currently in an era where I have real doubts that a fiery leftist populist could recieve enough votes to get elected President. Hence I am not begrudging Warner (or anyone else) the tactics to run a strategic campaign with the eye perpetually on the goal line.

Lincoln did it, and look how he turned out. FDR was a notoriously strategic politician. And look how he turned out as President.

We get far too caught up in demanding that our candidates be pure on the issues that we care about, and we lose sight of the fact that NOTHING we care about will be implemented if they don't get elected. I am not in favor of perennially shooting ourselves in the collective foot in the name of idealistic purity during the campaign.

I welcome a savvy politician who understands strategy and can count votes. We haven't had one in a long while. And if we're really lucky, they may turn out, in the end, to be the leader we've all been hoping for.

As I've gotten older I've become a little more pragmatic about needing to actually secure positions where changes can be made rather than digging in where they can just be talked about, so it's not like I don't have any appreciation for where you are coming from here. I just don't think this is the time or place for making this kind of comment right now. I think it is counter productive in the larger picture in many profound ways at a time (late 2005) when Warner flat out didn't need to say this. You may think I am parsing words, but words have powerful meanings. Re-fight is not a word that just rolls off the tongue, it was crafted for effect. Warner could have even said "don't think it's best now to fight over" and my reaction would not have been quite as strong. Like I said above, "re-fight" implies "wasting time", and that is exactly the wrong message to send when our leaders like Harry Reid are forcing the Senate into secret session in order to prevent Republican stalling over investigating the misuse of Intelligence leading up to the war in Iraq.

I understand the need for Democrats to appear bi-partisan around matters of national security, but I also felt Dick Gephardt went too far in October 2002 providing cover for Bush in the rose garden at the IWR signing then. There are times when it is essential to take a strong stand and I think this is one of those times and the fact that Warner seems to be positioning himself for 2008, before the 2006 mid term elections, by calling for a lowering of partisan strife is not something I appreciate at the moment. Look, I love Jimmy Carter today, and I know that he won office on more than one occasion by running to the Right. I understand that dynamic, but we are in a crisis and I want truth telling leadership NOW, not someone nuancing themselves toward a future victory. It probably makes it a little easier for me to take a clear line on this that I think Clark can win in 2008 though he IS speaking out now, but I honestly think I would feel the same if he wasn't on the scene.

Anyway, again, thanks for articulating this. It is not the type of reasoning that usually is popular at DU so it takes some guts to express it. In not calling yet for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, I feel like I walk in those shoes sometimes also. Thank you for your honesty

That the Repubs have been "in control for thirty to fourty years"? We had a Democratic Senate just 3 years ago, a Democrat in the White House 5 years ago, and a Democratic House 11 years ago. Yeah, we only held the Presidential office for 8 years, as opposed to their 12, but we had both houses of Congress the entire duration of their reign, and they never won more than the House during Clinton's tenure.

So while I hope you're right that a new cycle is "inevitable," and might agree that it is eventually, I do think the reports of the old cycle's demise may be premature.

There were an awful lot of people here at DU, not saying you were one of 'em--I wasn't, who sincerely believed Bush was such a fuck-up that Kerry should have no trouble at all wining the election. It's often hard for us to see how anyone could support Bush or vote for Repubs, but there are and they do.

So I do believe we have to keep hitting, hard, every opportunity we get. Even if we are starting to look real good for the next election cycle, we are still way behind the right-wing when it comes to media control and the media can turn fickle public opinion every which way to Sunday at the drop of a hat.

That's not to say I am opposed to Warner's being smart about how he positions himself politically. But only to a point. I am sickened by the GOP politicians who are destroying our country with their deceit and secrecy, and who make every policy decision based on how it affects their political power. And I'm almost as sickened by the Dem politicians who let them get away with it because they are scared to death that every word, every vote, every position they take might cost them the next re-election.

Yes electability is important. Yes, so are strategic thinking, smart politics, and a view to long-term objectives. But so too... no, far more important... are integrity and courage and the willingness to stand up when others are no where to be found.

I'm not impressed by caution and triangulating. Give me a man (or woman) who will speak the truth and stand for what's right and know that there's a time to say, "this nation and everything we stand for are in mortal danger, so politics be damned."

I also happen believe that it's possible to take those stands and still remain politically viable. It's not the easy road, of course, or the safe one, but it's a road worth taking. The last thing we need are more politicians who opt for easy and safe.

from 1896 to 1932 we had Republican presidents, uninterrupted except for two terms of Wilson.

From 1932 to 1968 we had solid Democratic presidents, uninterrupted except for two terms of Eisenhower.

From 1968 until the present day we have had solid Republican presidents, uninterrupted except for one term of Carter and two of Clinton.

We have been in a Republican presidential cycle for nearly 40 years, a cycle which will be longer than most previous ones.

We are overdue for the pendulum to swing back, and judging by events, it will.

And no, I did not think that Kerry could easily beat Bush because I think Kerry is a terrifically bright and honest man and a terrifically bad tactical politician.

but unfortunately, you would be wrong.

Something was posted, finally, about Warner's Iraq stance. I don't agree with what he said, and so I said so. But because I did, you have decided that this means that it's because Warner poses a threat to Wes Clark? Wow! That's pretty snarky AND uninsightful on your part, if you ask me.

Doh....Obviously many Clark supporters really do feel strongly that Foreign policy affects domestic policies more than some others realize. Clark supporters, many of them anyway, didn't simply support Wes Clark because he is "electable", although he is.....but because he's an ass kicker that knows how to pose a challenge to those who want to take away our democracy. He's got courage and guts. That's what I like about Wes Clark. This country needs saving.....and for that we need a leader, not an appeaser!

Wes Clark has been after this administration for a long time now, and has been very tough on them. So now, in struts million dollar Warner who feels that we should just concentrate on getting out of Iraq.....although he did support that war to some degree at one point, and so I should just jump for joy?

What bothers me is that you act as though a Clark supporter should be automatic Warner supporters....and I don't even know how you arrive at that conclusion. They are not similar, and don't have the same skill set. They look, talk and think differently. Their life experiences have not been the same. Wes Clark actually saved the lives of folks, and put his career on the line doing it.

I don't "adore" Wes Clark, I admire him. Why? Because I believe that he speaks truth to power. Because I believe him to be his own man. Because he does what is right as opposed to doing what is popular. Because he cares about this country, not so much his reputation. Are these traits that I see in Mark Warner? Not yet, I don't.

Wes is and HAS BEEN for the investigation on Pre-War intelligence, the CIA Plame outing, Prisoner Abuse, and anything else required to make us whole again.....

What has Mark Warner done exactly for this country that should make him put at par with Wes Clark?

Here's what Wes Clark has felt and has publicly said about this corrupt government:

Gene Lyons on Wes Clark: "I do think his concerns are honest. I think his criticisms of Bush are exactly what he believes. One reason that I think that is I have had an opportunity to talk to him in a sort of a semi-private way.

Going all the way back to the summer of 2002, I got a sense of how strong his feelings about Iraq were. Long before it was clear that the administration was really going to sell a war on Iraq, when it was just a kind of a Republican talking point, early in the summer of 2002, Wesley Clark was very strongly opposed to it. He thought it was definitely the wrong move. He conveyed that we'd be opening a Pandora's box that we might never get closed again. And he expressed that feeling to me, in a sort of quasi-public way.
snip
It was a Fourth of July party and a lot of journalists were there, and there were people listening to a small group of us talk. There wasn't an audience, there were just several people around. There was no criticism I could make that he didn't sort of see me and raise me in poker terms. Probably because he knew a lot more about it than I did. And his experience is vast, and his concerns were deep.

He was right, too. How long ago was it that you were hearing all this sweeping rhetoric from the Project for a New American Century"
http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/10/int03221.html




AND JULY OF '03
"There was a hunger in some quarters to go after this fight. It was as though using force was a reward in itself, that, by putting our forces in there and showing our power, we would somehow solve our problems in the international environment. And I think the opposite is the truth. I think you should use force only as a last resort." Wes Clark
http://www.studioglyphic.com/mt/archives/2003/07/general_wesley_1.html

AND
IN AUGUST OF '03



IN SEPTEMBER OF '03
http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/000070.html
And now, the moment all you Valerie Plame fans have been waiting for: the CIA has made a formal referral to the Justice Department.

And I think we can count on Howard Dean, who has already broached the issue, and Wesley Clark and Bob Graham to keep this issue boiling.
--------
Inquiry call over US agent leak
BBC Washington correspondent Justin Webb says the president's opponents believe this affair could do real damage to the reputation of the Bush White House.

Democratic presidential hopefuls Howard Dean and Wesley Clark said a special investigator should be appointed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3151066.stm

AND IN OCT 2003....


Saturday, October 04, 2003
Wesley Clark Calls for Criminal Investigation of Bush Iraq policy


AND IN JANUARY OF '04



Clark Says Congress Should Determine Whether Bush's War Decisions Criminal
17-Jan-04
Wesley Clark
AP: "Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark said Thursday it was up to Congress to determine whether President Bush's march to war in Iraq amounted to a criminal offense. Asked if misleading the nation in going to war would be criminal, Clark told reporters, 'I think that's a question Congress needs to ask. I think this Congress needs to investigate precisely' how the United States wound up in a war 'that wasn't connected to the threat of al-Qaida.'"
http://archive.democrats.com/preview.cfm?term=Wesley%20Clark



----
And to this day.....

CLASH OF TITANS DEBATE 2005-
Clark said that joint staff officers told him 10 days after 9/11 that the Bush administration was planning to invade Iraq.

“I said, ‘But why?’ They said, ‘Well, um, we don’t know, but if the only tool you’ve got is a hammer, then every problem has to look like a nail,’” said Clark. “And they proceeded to explain that the administration really didn’t know what to do about the War on Terror, but did want to take apart a regime to show that we were powerful …”

When several audience members cried out, Clark also generated some applause after yelling “Stand up and say it! Let’s hear it! And lets hear you explain it and justify it to the families of those who have suffered the loss!”

On Prisoner Abuse.....Clark jumped in, and the issue escalated. Clark took issue with what he said were memos that came from the White House that basically said that the Geneva Convention didn’t apply.

Clark told his fellow officer that the military that he served in for 34 years “didn’t torture people. It didn’t abuse them. It didn’t punch out prisoners when it captured them.” Clark blamed the guidance from the top for undercutting the armed forces’ training.

“We never had the investigation, but I’ll tell you what, if you believe everything that has happened at Abu Ghraib, and at Guantanamo, and the rest of it, is the responsibility of a colonel or a corporal or a couple of sergeant’s somewhere,” said Clark, “then I’ve got a bridge or two I’d like you to buy!”
http://www.regent.edu/news/clash_titans_debate05.html

Also see....his call on investigation of prisoner abuse!
http://www.securingamerica.com/?q=node/184

So you have to understand.....for me, Mark Warner ain't no Wes Clark; not even close.

We are STILL FIGHTING, NOT RE-FIGHTING to save our democracy--The fight's not over, and this ain't the 1993 era! Either Mark Warner is gonna have to fight with us, or he can just sit his ass down. That's what I'm saying!

the way we got in Iraq - he is siding with BFEE/PNAC NOW, when all are deserting them - how hard is it to imagine where he was in 2002?

But isn't debating how and why we go to war more important than debating farm subsidies and making the capital gains tax permanent, not to mention base closings and road projects and everything else our government spends time discussing? I know Warner has not/ will not call for an end to the investigations, but why did he make a specific point out of saying that he doesn't want to re-fight how we got into Iraq in the first place? What signal was he trying to send with that comment?

No one forced Warner to say that, he chose to all by himself. My guess it that it's a political signal, that it was an olive branch offered to Republican voters and Blue Dog Democrats, that no one wants to blame you for what went wrong, we just have to work together with you to fix it. I can understand that position. I would disagree with it strongly, but I can understand it. Is that what you think Warner is signaling here?

but no point looking into that now ... let's just leave the old Commander-in-Crime in office regardless of what he may have done ... and let's leave Cheney and the rest of the gang there too ... it's only three more years ... how much more harm could they possibly do? after all, we can't expect Congressional oversight and little things like checks and balances while there's a war on ...

and we certainly wouldn't want Democrats to appear too partisan ... that would be unseemly ... let's just brush this all under the rug for now ... when things are a bit quieter, after Warner is safely in the WH, perhaps then we could delve lightly into this historical episode ... but not now ... we're too busy to focus on justice and corruption in our government just now ...

and Warner didn't fare any better with his benchmarks for Iraq either ... Iraq is OVER ... yet another wishy-washy Democrat trying to dump his responsibility for leadership in bush's lap ... you want to make bush define the benchmarks? fine ... you give him 6 months to wrap things up and let him define the benchmarks within that budget ... Warner's plan, like too many others, is an open invitation for a ten year war ... and friends, that's exactly what we're in right now in Iraq ... wake up and call for withdrawal ... all you're doing with your little "plans for moderates" is enabling more of the madness ... you'll come to understand this eventually just as you've come to where you are now ... unfortunately, those of us who don't support you and those who have suffered or died because of your decisions are forced to await you're tedious awakening ...

has his experience in domestic issues only...as governor of VA he's straighted out the budget mess brought about by Allen and Gilmore, brought about the "best managed stated in the nation" award this year, and made gazillions in the cell phone business. Could it be that he needs to fast-forward past all these messy and troublesome international, foreign policy, war issues in order to gain some credibility as a leader? It will be tough for him to run as a candidate for president in the climate we find ourselves in (thankyouverymuchgeorge)with absolutely NO experience beyond the borders of Virginia. As far as I know, he never served in a branch of the military and the closest he's come to national security was dealing with the Pentagon after 9-11.

If the world has not righted itself by the time the 2006 elections are over, and I'm not banking that all will be well, American voters need to see someone with experience and strength and the ability to credibly address these problems. :eyes:

article.

I am happy he wants to be part of the national debate, but this would start by proposing something.

However, the reporter failed to report the actual plan. I guess we'll know more tomorrow when more sources report on this speech.

interesting.

I can guess already: international involvement, expedited training of Iraqi troops, supporting the new government, etc. etc...

I'll be surprised if there's something so new that the brass at the Pentagon exclaim, "By God, we never thought of that!" Other Democrats have been making proposals for a long time now.

I have been curious about Warner, but I'm not impressed after reading that.

Smart guy, has a good grasp of what's going on, plays the politicians' role very well. If elected I think that he will go down in history as an average President, which is pretty much the category that most of them seem to fall into. Personally I'm looking for someone who will end the neocon era that we've been under since Reagan.

Wilson and Cleveland were both Democratic Presidents. But they did not fundamentally change the electorate enough to end the era of Republican domination. That era lasted until 1932. Eisenhower was a Republican President who served between the Democratic era of 1932 to 1968, it doesn't mean that he ended the Democratic era.

Warner, if elected, will be another one of those Presidents that will be better than the Republicans but won't fundamentally change jack shit. He's good enough for me to vote for in the general election because he'll be miles better than a Republican, but I'm going to be looking for someone with real vision in the primary.

"I will say however that Warner’s use of the term “milestones” does have a vague ring to it, could it be that Warner is echoing John Kerry’s call for benchmarks? If that would be the case, credit where credit is due would be appropriate."

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=1260

Certainly all the credit must go to Kerry for coming up with that concept.:eyes:

said that throughout the last year.

Whoever said it first is not that important. The point is that Warner is not offering anything everybody else has not talked about (even the Pentagon). I guess even Bush can subscribe to most of what he said. (McClellan endorsed Biden's plan as Bush's one).

So happy to see him take part in the debate. For more than that, he will have to do better or let the place to those who know better (Clark, Kerry, Levin, Murtha, among them - by alphabetical order).

Among the gems in this article:

a couple of others' ideas that he felt comfortable with and came out with a position. Personally, I don't like much of what he is quoted as saying. I was trying to keep an open mind about this guy, but it's becoming very difficult for me to do. I keep on hearing he is electable, but I am finding him more and more unappealing- especially when Kerry comparisons are done. What sells in VA doesn't necessarily sell across the country. He doesn't win me over. I still like Kerry and don't think Warner even comes close to being on par with him.

Good response to the Iraq war. Maybe not he really believes, but a moderate response for a future presidential candidate.

Seems like most folks are becoming "unmoderate" in reference to this war.

Please elaborate why this is a "good" moderate response. I'm curious.

Poll: Bush approval mark at all-time low
Monday, November 14, 2005; Posted: 11:13 p.m. EST (04:13 GMT)
CNN) -- Beset with an unpopular war and an American public increasingly less trusting, President Bush faces the lowest approval rating of his presidency, according to a national poll released Monday.

Bush also received his all-time worst marks in three other categories in the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll. The categories were terrorism, Bush's trustworthiness and whether the Iraq war was worthwhile.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/14/bush.poll/
-----------

from the November 21, 2005 edition
Why Iraq war support fell so fast

US public support has dropped faster than during the Vietnam and Korean wars, polls show.

For Mr. Bush, low support for his handling of the war - now at 35 percent, according to the latest Gallup poll - has depleted any reserves of "political capital" he had from his reelection and threatens his entire agenda. Last week's bombshell political developments, both the bipartisan Senate resolution calling for more progress reports on Iraq and the stunning call for withdrawal by a Democratic hawk, Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, have not helped.

But the seeds of Bush's woes were planted early on. Just seven months into the Iraq war, Gallup found that the percentage of Americans who viewed the sending of troops as a mistake had jumped substantially - from 25 percent in March 2003 to 40 percent in October 2003.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1121/p01s02-usfp.html
-----------
November 5, 2005
Iraq Conflict Not Worth Fighting, Say Americans
(Angus Reid Global Scan) – Many adults in the United States believe their federal administration should not have launched the coalition effort, according to a poll by CBS News. 64 per cent of respondents believe the result of the war with Iraq was not worth the loss of American life and other costs.
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/9718
----------

AP Poll: Most Americans Say Bush Is "Not Honest"
November 11, 2005
"Two crucial pillars of President Bush's public support — perceptions of his honesty and faith in his ability to fight terrorism — have slipped to their lowest point in the AP-Ipsos poll." reports Associated Press.
"While the CIA leak investigation, the mishandling of Hurricane Katrina and high energy costs have all taken their toll, the polling found the Iraq War at the core of Americans' displeasure with the president....

Almost six in 10 now say Bush is not honest, and a similar number say his administration does not have high ethical standards."

Other poll results included the following findings:

-- 56 percent disapprove of the way Bush is handling foreign policy and the war on terrorism
http://usliberals.about.com/b/a/2005_11_11.htm
----------
It's the Bush incompetency and those brave enough to point it out that are affecting public opinion. It's the FIGHTERS that are making a difference.....the cautious ones, not so much!
----------
“My views on Iraq were very clear. You've heard them expressed on this show many times, Judy. And you yourself know very well how I felt about Iraq.

That's the reason I was attacked all through the war by guys like Dick Cheney for being an armchair general, because they knew I was against what they were doing. And they were right. And now we see why everybody should have been against it.--Wes Clark
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0402/12/ip.00.html

What is good about it is it will tend not to piss off anyone (Except perhaps a few far lefties and righties). Something a future person running for president is cautious of. Moderation is what will win an election, not a big blowhard.

and all other Americans - the majority of all political stripes, mind you who are scratching their heads and wondering: "how did we get into this mess?"
He is only humoring the very small cover-up beltway community (BFEE, PNAC and their client media). Everyone else wants the truth already.

with egotistical, elitist, patronizing sons-of-bitches.

I gag when I hear the same sanctimonious bullshit spewed by americans from any party pretending they know what the Iraqi people need. GOD!

All the Iraqis need is for U.S. military occupation to END and that they are paid reparations for the damage the U.S. has caused their country over the last 14 years or so -- administered by ANYONE but the f*ckin' U.S. government and their corporate masters.

This would not only make the world safer for Iraqi civilians but would cost a hell of a lot less than bush's quagmire.

On Edit: I heard part of Warner's rap on (shudder) Charlie Rose tonight and would put him in the class mentioned in my first sentence.

Uh, Mark dear, you want to recall Fitz, the Senate investigation into use of intelligence to lie us into war?
That democrat is a useful idiot for BFEE.
I'll go with one who DID FIGHT GETTING INTO WAR *AND* has a good idea whow to stop it.

This is a bit off-topic, but when I read Warner's statement:



--I fast-forward in my mind to Nov. 2008, and here's what I hear, as presidential candidate Mark Warner makes his concession speech:

negative campaigning. In VA Warner's successor won on a positive campaign while Kilgore and the Repubs ran negative. Our next candidate needs to stay positive. (There will be time to investigate the criminals in this current administration, but the campaign is not the right time).

Why not give out Prozac samples at campaign stops also?

Kaine was running in a State Election on a demonstrated record of good local government (and I already gave Warner credit for that part). What was there for Kaine to be negative about?

Maybe it's morning in Virgina, aside from most of their National Guard being on Guard duty in Iraq, but it is midnight in America.

the masses want to feel good. They want all dessert, all the time. Americans want increased spending and lower taxes and they want the bills to be put off until a later date. A candidate can acknowledge problems, but he better offer some solutions and a promise of things improving drastically. Otherwise its Mondale vs. Reagan all over again.

and good treatment precedes a good recovery. I want my Doctor to offer me hope when I am sick. But I want him to tell me what went wrong and why also. I'm not calling for 24/7 gloom and doom, I'm calling for an honest appraisal and a prescription. When a patient has lung cancer it isn't helpful to say, let's not talk about how you got it, let's just discuss the treatment options, when that patient is a chain smoker.

edited to add: And you know, when things are crashing down, that's when most people come out of denial, that's when intervention with an alcoholic is most likely to work. People really aren't that stupid. They know when there are serious problems, when it isn't just ugly political rhetoric being thrown around. That is why now is the time to look at the truths that people more often are inclined not to pay attention to. Warner isn't scheduled to face anyone at the polls now for at least two plus years. He is rinding on good press. Now is a time for leadership if ever there was one.

Not talking about campaigns and whether they're "positive" or "negative" at all.

The use of the word "re-fight" really sends a frustrating message. It neatly dismisses all the corruption involved in setting up the Iraq invasion, almost saying "that's okay, boys will be boys," while cutting the legs out from his Democratic colleagues who are lobbying hard to find honest answers as to how we can exit as quickly as possible from this dishonest war.

He says it's incumbent upon Bush to set milestones. Well, if we already know the only withdrawal milestone Bush is interested in setting is how close we are to the 2006 election cycle, then why doesn't Mark Warner?

This kind of mindset worries me as to what would become of Warner should he become the Democratic candidate in 2008. Would he pooh-pooh voter suppression, "swiftboating" and election fraud all the way too, because it's distasteful to "re-fight" the issues?

and they used that against him. Warner comes off looking like he doesn't support Dems with his statements. Personally, I don't see how you can spin this war into a positive to run on. What went on with the intelligence needs to be explored and dealt with. This administration shouldn't get away with misleading us, if it is proven they did. We need to find out so that it never happens again. For me, his statement shows a lack of true leadership.

This democrat (US citizen, truth-seeker, no-one-is-above-the-law kinda guy) thinks we MUST.

Being lied into a war - not an issue with the potential POTUS you?
That means you'd do the same?

Snip>It is no coincidence that for every month that the White House has refused accountability, for every month that the Republican Congress has abdicated its oversight responsibilities, Iraq has sunken deeper into turmoil. With Members of Congress home in their districts this week, they will find that America is demanding answers, and that they can no longer simply sit on their hands.

Republicans refused accountability for the lack of equipment for our troops, and to this day soldiers are still buying their own body armor. Republicans refused accountability for the White House's role in Abu Ghraib, and our reputation in the world has been tarnished even further. Republicans have still not taken a serious look at the Bush Administration's use and manipulation of pre-war intelligence, and our national credibility is heading for an all-time low.

Snip>The Republican Congress must not abdicate its responsibility and leave President Bush to his own devices any longer. We must demand a strategy from the Administration that sets benchmarks for success and a commitment from Congress to hold the White House accountable for meeting them.
http://www.dccc.org/get_involved/petitions/clarkiraq/index.pl

"Tell Republicans in Congress that the mistakes of the past must be examined and rectified, and that a course for the future must be concrete and accountable"--Wes Clark 11/29/05
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2281272

Go and sign the petition y'all!

IT reads....


The time to fight is now....not after election 2006!

Sorry, PR people for Warner, but this time I'd like someone who is aware he works for me (American People) and is accountable to me. For past, present and future actions.
proclaiming cover-up from the get-go - buh-bye!:hi:

This is one step we can take to get our positions on the record with Congress and our reps there. Once again, Wes Clark has said what needs to be said loud and clear - Investigate how and why this happened, and fix the problem with a different strategy. We cannot stay the course and we cannot bury our heads after being misled. Warner is ill-advised on this issue.

Sign the petition and send them your message!

http://www.dccc.org/get_involved/ftafs/wesclark_ftaf /

Wants to "finish" it? And this:

""... It is incumbent on the president to set milestones for what he believes will be the conclusion.""

He wants to trust the man who lied us into an illegal war (not that Warner cares about that fact, apparently) to get us out of it?

Uh, yeah - Warner's NEVER getting MY fucking vote. Not with a stance like that. Sorry, Nick.

But thanks for sharing the info. I was neutral on Warner before, and you've helped me decide that I simply cannot support him at this time.