Am I misunderstanding? DLC saying we fought to spread Democracy?

And calling it spreading Democracy? And saying it is why we fought the Iraq war? This angers me.

I posted this in GD last night, but with another subject line. It is bothering me so much since Al From is quoted more on this in the WP today.

Don't be fooled by Bush polls, Democratic Council warns.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/17/AR2005121700817.html



No wonder Hillary and others are stonewalling on this issue. She has tied herself to them tightly. This article bothers me.

It's called Idea of the Week: Middle Eastern Democracy.
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=207&contentid=253654

This statement is pure baloney. We just created a theocracy there.



The article ends with this, and all the in between seems to say stay the course and let's spread it to more countries...just in a little different way.


(Edited to bold these last two statements. They go against the grain of my own Democratic values.)

No, that is not the reason given for the war. That is not what we were told. They are uplifting Bush's compromises, and they are not telling the truth. This is their progressive internationalism...a kinder gentler war.

Spreading BULLSHIT..and from and his ilk are main perpetrators.

We're suppose to believe from instead of our lying eyes?

pubbies years ago. That he's still allowed to haunt any of the corridors of Democratic power (low power that is) should be a warning that the DLC hasn't finished destroying the party.

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

Now don't get me wrong. I am no friend of the DLC. Mr. Benchley and Mr. Wyldwolf will vouch for me on that. I think Al From and Will Marshall are terrible characters and a dangerous influence. Nor am I a fan of Joe Lieberman. I particularly resent some of Sen. Lieberman's resent absurd comments about the War in Iraq and Democrats who oppose Bush's war policy. And I am definitely NOT a Hillary in 2008 supporter. But don't take my word for it. Compare their records on a broad range of primarily domestic issues. Let's just compare the records of Lieberman, Clinton and Mr. Moderate Republican himself, John McCain

This is courtesy of project vote smart - link:

http://www.vote-smart.org/index.htm
_____________________

"2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 0 percent in 2004.
__________________

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 78 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 83 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 22 percent in 2003-2004.
_____________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 95 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 75 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 35 percent in 2004.
__________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 83 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 33 percent in 2004.
_________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 110 percent in 2004

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 92 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 9 percent in 2004.
__________________________

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Education Association 85 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the National Education Association 88 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the National Education Association 35 percent in 2003-2004.
______________________

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 88 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 88 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 25 percent in 2003-2004.
_____________________________________

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 100 percent in 2003-2004

2001-2002 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 94 percent in 2001-2002.(for some reason 2003-2004 was not available for Sen Lieberman)

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 15 percent in 2003-2004.
___________________

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 100 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 95 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 14 percent in 2003-2004.
_____________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 25 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 50 percent in 2004

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 0 percent in 2004.
__________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Family Research Council 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Family Research Council 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Family Research Council 67 percent in 2004.
____________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 83 percent in 2004.
_____________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 0 percent in 2004

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 72 percent in 2004.
____________________________


for McCain link:

http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=S0061103

for Clinton link:

http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=WNY99268

for Lieberman link:

http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=S0141103

Have a very long history in this country, orchestrated by the domestic intelligence community (past few decades clearly under the behest of the DLC) it has practically become a cottage industry - PR firms and "Think Tanks" Institutions, Journal Publications spawning operatives and functionaries, to infiltrate, disrupt, propagandize to and about etc etc. etc the goal is to marginalize to the extent that the progressive movements can not get their voices heard, cannot get representation, cannot get access to the public fora.

To me, there is nothing more fascistic, more anti-democratic than these activies within a system, that purports to be about the "greatest democracy" in the world.

Not.

Are you suggesting the D.L.C. is a creation of the intelligence apparat?

doesn't seem to be too much of a stretch to me, considering the history.

But i don't have hard evidence other than circumstantial, so I'm just looking at the question.

Would it shock you if evidence were to surface indicating this to be the case? You think it's unheard of, maybe?

"the progressive movements can not get their voices heard"
Ironically, what you seem to be squalling is that nobody else ought to have THEIR voices heard. Hence the enemies lists and smears on this public forum.

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

some people need to come out of the political closet and realize what they really are.

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

That's Al whatever-K-street-wants From. Note: all of those currently in the top prospects for Dem. nominee are Al's elves.

John Edwards.

Wesley Clark.

Russ Feingold.

They will be competing to become the anti-Hillary. A team of a pair of them (an early ticket announcement during the primary) could overturn Hillary's shot.

Also, Al Gore and Howard Dean, while probably won't be running, are non-DLC Democratic leaders.

When I look at this list I feel great hope about the future Democratic leaders.

Yes, H Clinton, Richardson, Vilsack, Warner and Bayh are DLC. But I don't think any of these elves show much promise in terms of capturing the nomination for top of the ticket, except Hillary - and I'm beginning to doubt that she has the nomination as in the bag as it once seemed. Richardson, Warner, Vilsack and Bayh's political virtues are demographic, not personal.

The DLC list is really charisma deficient. They are going to find low charisma to be their biggest problem, IMO.

For the DLC to win the presidency, first they have to win the nomination (Hillary). Also, while there may be some merit in their fuzz-over-the-controversial-stuff strategy toward winning general elections (though I personally think this leaves candidates looking waffley and wishy-washy), this approach is clearly not the way to win primaries.

If Hillary wins the nomination then the DLC will rise in status, but if she loses, I think that will sow the seeds of the eventual demise of DLC power.

By the way, it goes against the grain of your values to have tyrannies turn to democracies? Weird.

Frankly I don't think we have the right. I think the DLC and its advocates are spreading a lot of BS around our party right now.

That is not what we should be doing. They are advocating keeping on a path of destruction for the middle east, and financial death for our country.

If you approve, fine. That is your right. But there will be a real fight in this party soon if Arrogant Al doesn't STFU.

"Frankly I don't think we have the right"
Considering how much you seem to hate democracy here at home.....

"I think the DLC and its advocates are spreading a lot of BS around our party right now."
Yeah, and you also thought that Harry Reid was a war-mongerer and that Pete DuPont's favorite right wing author was a nifty source of advice for Democrats...

"But there will be a real fight in this party soon"
Bring your lunch.

It will catch up to you someday. I no longer even bother to try to stop you....just go ahead.

Hey have your spreading Democracy.

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

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

to keep itself in power. Way to go, Mister Democracy!

The only democracy you believe in is the one that serves US business interests.

.

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

Feel free to put up any post I've ever made opposing Chavez. You won't find any.

The Bush Administration and the DLC support Democracy...so long as the people agree with everything they say...or the people won't vote in a government that impedes the Administration's collection of their oil.

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

since that seems to be the standard of debate among so many....

"The DLC, imo, is an infiltration organization to ensure that rightwing warmongers are represented in the Democratic Party"
Funny...I think most of the anti-DLC crap we see here is Green party members ratfucking the forum.

"Maybe we should worry about bringing back democracy to THIS country"
As long as someone doesn't want to vote for a DLC member.....like the many Democratic candidates running in 2006 who are beating their Republican opponents like drums.

Do you support the war, as I asked before but never was answered?

I oppose the war...but once we're in, sitting around chanting "I toldf you so" is useless. We need a strategy to disengage that doesn't make things worse.

I like a lot of what Wes Clark has had to say about Iraq....

http://securingamerica.com/taxonomy/term/11

NT!

EDIT: But I am glad to hear you don't support the war.

What a patently disingenuous insinuation.

a more pertinent quote from the ndol article -



"Finally, and perhaps most importantly, these elections help vindicate the basic idea that democracy remains the strongest weapon in what is ultimately a war of ideas against Islamist extremism. By this we don't mean democracy as a magic elixir, as Bush administration officials sometimes seem to describe it, but democracy as a process whereby people wounded and fearful after decades of tyranny learn to negotiate, compromise, build up institutions of civil society, and forge a national identity based on mutual respect and free consent rather than brutal coercion."


We don't know if we've created a theocracy. That could be one of the worst case outcomes - but don't put the cart before the horse. There's still a window on opportunity - a chance that the factions in Iraq can reach a power sharing agreement that avoids civil war. I don't feel that's a bad thing to hope for...

Since we are in Iraq, whatever the lies that got us there, what is wrong with hoping for the best possible outcome?

What we did in Iraq was destroy their infrastructure and kill many thousands of them.

I have no patience anymore with anyone who excuses that. This article is NOT hoping for the best outcome....it is using Bush's talking points about the reasons.

I have no patience with twisting words when people are dying.

I have to disagree with your assesment of what the article says or does not say.

and I would suggest to other readers here that they read it for themselves rather than rely on your impressions.

It says it clearly. It also lies about the reason we are fighting in Iraq. And I will not look past my "justifiable anger" and I will NOT "embrace the cause."

Do not dare to say that is not what it says.

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

The passage she quotes is excusing the exposed lies that got us into the war (which, to your credit, you noted upthread) and urges that we join with the very people who have lied to us since they seized power. Not only that, but it suggests that, hey, if it worked in Iraq (it hasn't) it can work elsewhere (anyone ignorant enough to believe that should check out Juan Cole's excellent analysis of why this is a ludicrous notion).

I don't know about you, but I don't trust proven liars (like, say, most Republicans), and the DLC is lying about the American people (most hold liberal views) and the "success" of the illegal war most Americans want to end.

I have been called a liar here so much lately it is getting to where I don't even notice.

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

with BushCo and their objectives in this war. What the DLC is saying, IMO, is that bringing democracy to the middle east is the best way to fight Islamo-fascism, and should be embraced by the Democratic Party. They pretty specifically say the the Bush method of bringing Democracy (at the point of a gun) is a failure.

as for the "willful misinterpretation" -

One can argue whether or not democracy can (or should) be bought to this part of the world, or how one could actually go about doing it - or even if the results of a democratic process would be beneficial to the interests of the United States (or the other nations involved). But, the main thing that bothers me about the DLC wars on this board is the constant flood of anti-DLC rhetoric that is based on nothing more than a desire by the poster to cast the DLC in a negative light. I see very little in the way of real argument. So - I will continue to defend the DLC against what I consider to be posts whose only intent is to "willfully misinterpret", IMO, a position or statement by the DLC.

You're not inside her mind.

Two, I disagree. The DLC is very much saying "look, bush fucked up how we did it, but the basic idea of democratizing the Middle East is a good one" - regardless of how the average citizen in the ME feels about such a task.

And "islamofascism" is so inane, so silly, a concept that I won't even bother with THAT loaded rightwing pejorative.

an opinion can be formed.

And -

I'm sorry - I meant "Islamic extremism"... a typo on my part

Groups like al queda and others operating in the Middle East, also in Malaysia, Indonesia, and Thailand, among other places. Not necessarily
related to each other, but using violence in a desire to impose their fundamentalist religious views on those nations...

do you think "islamic extremism" is a right wing pejorative? Or that the threat of transnational terrorism is real?

just asking....


on your second point - we don't disagree - I think that is exactly what the DLC is saying - up to the "regardless of what the
average citizen of the ME thinks." As near as I can tell, in Iraq at least, most people are pretty enthusiastic about Democracy. A 70% turnout is nothing to sneer at - and it's 20 points higher than our turnout. The people of Iraq seem to value Democracy a good deal more than we do here...

So yeah, it's not a surprise that they "got out the vote", so to speak.

do you think "islamic extremism" is a right wing pejorative?

Nope, just the stupid 'islamofascism' term, which really is far too limited in its descriptive value. It has a very 'armchair warrior who's not really that informed about the issues' feel to it.

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

use the 'Bush didn't do it right' but we need to now support the whole miserable, murderous, lying, anti-democratic, aggressive war, 'just because they succeeded in fooling us all as to why we needed to go there'.

Well, I for one, am NOT fooled. That's like asking me to support a bank robber AFTER he robs the bank, kills the teller, but donates some money to charity, because the end justifies the means and there was SOME benefit from his crimes!!

I am way more concerned about OUR democracy than Iraq's, to be honest. I'm surprised that so many here place democracy in the ME way above democracy HERE, simply because we're THERE now!! Amazing really.

We were LIED to. Documents were forged, an entire propaganda machine was put in place, together with PR firms, to 'sell' a war that has killed tens of thousands of people and cost billions of dollars that this administration has stolen from the American people, in order to get us there, and the DLC wants us to worry more about Iraq than about THIS country and a government that has cheated and lied its way into Iraq?? Don't they care at all about the implications of what has happened here?

Iraq is not OUR concern. If we justify this crime in any way, we may, no we WILL lose our democracy!! I'm waiting for the DLC to stop saying things like 'they messed it up'. They did NOT mess it up. They commit CRIMES! And they did it exactly the way they wanted to. But the DLC asks for NO accountability for the lies and the cheating of this administration. Why is that? Their little 'Well, the Bush administration didn't do it right' may fool some people, but not those of us who want our government to be accountable, and who will NOT reward criminal behavior by the government by saying 'oh well, so they didn't do it perfectly, but let's move on now'. No way!!

as it has in Venezuela and other parts of Latin America, then it must be stamped out by US troops!

Yep, I get the DLC's message alright!

A majority of polled Americans hold LIBERAL views. This is a well-established fact. The polls have been linked here repeatedly.

even if they don't always define those views as liberal. But, people don't always vote their views. Too often they vote on "values"
issues, the sort of issues the Right is so good at exploiting. Why do you think the Right is working so hard to cast the idea of
an immediate pullout as unpatriotic? Patriotism is one of those hot button issues the Republicans use constantly to bash the Democrats with. And it works. Many people will put their "patriotism" ahead of their "liberalism" when they step into the voting booth.


I would tend to agree with Mr. From that the Democratic leadership is risking a lot by coming out for immediate withdrawal. It's ok for individual candidates to take that position, in fact it's a good thing. It puts it on the table. But, when it comes to electoral politics, or the overall position of the Democratic Party - it could very well backfire. Yes, it will play well in blue states - but it's not the blue states that the Democratic Party needs to make gains in.

I can't.

Even those who, like Kucinich, have been right about this illegal war all along and have called for withdrawal DON'T call for immediate - as in right away, get on the boat and go this instant - withdrawal.

The DLC is parroting a rightwing talking point by arguing against that red herring.

But I thank you for admitting that most Americans are liberal, despite their self-descriptions. Some of your fellows don't even have the honesty to admit that.

A BRILLIANT article written by WilliamPitt

" Imagine, for a moment, that the Iraqi elections on Friday come off without a hitch. No one is killed, maimed or intimidated into voting for a particular candidate by having a gun barrel put to his head. There are no hanging chads, no mayhem or madness. What will the Iraqi and American people get out of the incredible blood and treasure we have poured into this conflict?

We will get an Iraqi government dominated by known and notorious terrorists. We will get an Iraqi government dominated by Iran.

The Shia will walk away from Friday with the lion's share of control over the Iraqi government. The two most powerful Shia political parties, the ones that will come out of this with the big wins, are the Dawa Party and the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, which is known by the initials SCIRI. Both were founded and funded by Iran in the 1980s. Both have a history of spectacular violence against the United States and other nations. "These guys are murderers," says former CIA agent Bob Baer, who dealt with Dawa during the 1980s. "They were the core element that blew up our embassy in Beirut in 1983." "

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/121405A.shtml

"Democracy" is about to get us West Iran.

This first poll was commissioned by the British Ministry of Defense and the article was published in the notoriously conservative Daily Telegraph of London

http://telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/23/wirq23.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/10/23/ixportaltop.html

• "Forty-five per cent of Iraqis believe attacks against British and American troops are justified - rising to 65 per cent in the British-controlled Maysan province;
• 82 per cent are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops;
• less than one per cent of the population believes coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security;
• 67 per cent of Iraqis feel less secure because of the occupation;
• 43 per cent of Iraqis believe conditions for peace and stability have worsened;
• 72 per cent do not have confidence in the multi-national forces."


http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/12/12/103756/20

Matt Yglesias Front PageIraqi Public Opinion
By Matthew Yglesias |

"The BBC has a recently published poll which sheds some light on something that's gone curiously neglected in mainstream thinking about Iraq -- the unpopularity of the American military presence. Asked "Do you strongly support,somewhat support, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose the presence of Coalition Forces in Iraq?", 47.6 percent marked themselves strongly opposed and 20.8 percent are somewhat opposed. Just 12.8 percent are strong supporters of the presence. 40 percent think coalition forces have done "A very bad job" of discharging their responsibilities in Iraq, and 19 percent say they've done "quite a bad job" (note that while "quite" is an intensifier in America, it's the reverse in Britain and the poll was written up by English people). Asked "how much confidence" they have in various institutions, 54.6 percent of Iraqis say they have "none at all" in coalition forces and 23.2 have "not very much." "

they really do seem to be into this "democracy" thing.

and it depends on whose "vision" we're talking about. Clearly the Bush vision isn't that popular.

but I think one could argue that the DLC vision and Bush's differ.

"that the DLC vision and Bush's differ" in that the DLC position papers call for a renunciation of any plans for permanent U.S. bases in Iraq.

However, in a kinder and gentler way, I still see a fundamental similarity that has to do with the very definition of democracy. I suspect the Iraqi people think democracy means that a society gets to elect a government that carries out the will of the majority. While the definition of democracy put forward by neo-liberal ideologues (which I suspect the DLC has a milder version of that the Bush Administration)tends to define democracy as requiring an unabashed capitalist economy and what they define as "open markets". I think it would be a bit innocent to imagine that there would be no intrinsic influence over the Iraqi economy by the U.S. and its interest (meaning its corporations) even if under a kinder and gentler Democratic administration. I don't think that would settle well with a people who are probably less than enthusiastic about embracing the chaos of the global market place. And I doubt the Iraqi people would include the concept of unfettered foreign access to markets in their definition of democracy.

Juan Cole wrote an excellent article about how the Iraqi people view the role of government in the economy. " Iraq has been a socialist country since at least 1968 (and had elements of socialism in the period of military rule 1958-1968). Most major industries were publicly owned. Moreover, the Iraqi population liked it that way. Opinion polls show that 80% of Iraqis think the purpose of a government is to take care of people."

link: http://www.juancole.com/2005/03/wolfowitzs-plot-to-destroy-opec-and_18.html

The purpose of the DLC, its obvious, is to align with neoconservatives. And, as soon as you mention the name Clinton, heads explode.

They are allied with Bush and Lieberman!

I agree with that.

TC

DLC has always = GOP and it always will. Nothing new. :puke:

I really don't see where anything I posted in the OP is anything but the words of the DLC.

I used mostly their own words. It appears to be tactic to make it sound like I am misinterpreting.

It is their own words...not mine. They say this about Iraq:



First off, Iraq has not become anything but a big mess right now. Purple fingers, saying we won we won, does not a victory make. Iraq is NOT the first genuine Arab Democracy.

And it does sound like they think it can be done throughout the midde east.



No, that is not a just and worthy cause. The DLC is not being honest about its being just cause and about the reason for the fighting.

Let people read their own words. They are saying many things that are just spin, and not true.

Iran. 1950s.

They much preferred the Shah to Mossadegh.

Are you going to say Iran? Because you would be wrong....

--------------


Are you opposed to Democracy? It sure seems that way. You certainly haven't proposed an alternative. What would you prefer in Iraq?

An all out civil war? A dictatorship? Do you feel the Democratic Party should oppose the establishment of a democracy in Iraq? This is a pertinent question, since it addresses this dlc statement. A statement you seem to dislike.

-----------------
"No, that is not a just and worthy cause."

You don't think it's a worthy cause to spread democracy? Do you have a system of government that you prefer? What system of government do you think the Democratic Party should push? Or should the Democratic Party embrace isolationism as a foreign policy?

Unfuckingbelievable.

America remains a moderate to conservative country -- particularly on economic and security measures.

Complete bullshit. A majority of polled Americans has shown, time and time again, that they support LIBERAL ideas like:

- universal healthcare (very much a liberal view on a major economic issue)

- worker protections in "free" trade bills (a liberal view on another major economic issue)

- not being in Iraq any longer (as supported by the DLC's own quoted statistic, and being in Iraq is clearly a security issue - one of our ever-decreasing security, thanks to that illegal war).


Iraq has just become the world's first genuine Arab democracy -- perhaps not a full-fledged American-style democracy, but a democracy nonetheless in the basic sense of a nation governed by a popularly elected government representing every element of its society.

Tell that to the women of Iraq - you know, the ones who are no longer equal under the law, thanks to the bonding of Iraqi secular law to Islam.


And if that can happen in Iraq, it can happen throughout the Middle East -- in Palestine, in Egypt, and even in Saudi Arabia.

In the end, that's the just and worthy cause we are fighting for in Iraq -- the cause our troops have suffered and died for -- and we urge Democrats in particular to look beyond our justifiable anger at the administration's many blunders and its stubborn refusal to admit them, and embrace that cause as our own.

Echoing the "reverse domino theory" of the neoconservative movement, and urging capitulation to hidden rightwing agendas propelled by hideous, now-revealed lies. Yes, there's a way to build credibility! :eyes:

BTW, DLC and its ilk: they weren't blunders, they were LIES. Like what you're trying to sell us here.

FUCK the DLC. Any member who supports the kind of baldfaced lies as posited here (and in many other DLC papers) will never get any support from me, and should be exposed as the rightwing liars they are.

Well, ball's in your court, DLCers. Explain why these lies should be ignored in favor of not "bashing" the DLC.

I suggest this be recommended. It pretty much shows why so many of us don't trust the DLC (we distrust people who lie to us, we're funny that way).

is forgotten by the majority of Americans and the MSM, take a look and see what Iraq IS, -
A 'Democratic' Iraq that is subservient to our country.

If Bush leaves our military bases and Halliburtons in Iraq then talk about democracy is a joke. Purple fingers are nice, but real democracy means independence from American influence; coercion.

than the Egyptian ones?

Why are these so-called Democrats whoring SO HARD for W?

Just shining the light of day.

About agreeing that we needed to start bringing troops home in a planned way. Notice they make it sound as though someone actually said to just withdraw.

They call this memo Iraq and the Vital Center. Moral center I have also heard it called. Whatever their center is, I am not there with them. I am pretty moderate, but the war was wrong in every way. Staying there doesn't make it right.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=192&contentid=253638

DLC | New Dem Dispatch | December 1, 2005
Iraq and the Vital Center



Self-fulfilling prophecy...GOP groupspeak I think.

Hard to see how anyone could criticize a fiasco like that </sarcasm>

to make it sound like cut and run when that was not the proposal at all.

Oh, right, that is just what the DLC is doing here. And it is just what you are doing. You are also making it sound like that.

The DLC is doing the GOP's work for them, I fear.

Anybody with common sense could have known that the GOP wouldn't let Murtha's original proposal come to the floor as is...and the result was an utter fuckup that ended with Murtha having to vote against his "own" proposal. If Mean Jean Schmidt hadn't opened her diseased yap, it would have been as big a mess as Dean's idiotic "we can't win" babble.

"The DLC is doing the GOP's work for them, I fear. "
Yeah, but look at the other crap you peddle....

Confusing me.

was NOT Murtha's proposal!! Wow, you really weren't paying attention at all, were you? You're right about one thing, it was a 'fiasco'. But you seem to be blaming Democrats for that, when in fact the proposal was a Hannity dirty trick, brought to the floor by Republicans to create the impression that it was a Murtha proposal.

Thank god some of us paid attention to that vote, and to the exposure of the 'trick' by the, for once, united Democrats! Too bad you didn't. It was an historic moment and for those who were paying attention, it backfired on the rightwingers since the Dems insisted (over the fascistic objections of Repubs) on making it clear that this WAS NOT Murtha's proposal at all!! Imagine that! Republicans playing dirty tricks in Congress, and Democrats forcing them to let the American people hear the truth for once!! Take a few minutes and check out the transcript of that day. It would help you to not fall for the rightwing spin.

It was both naive and politically inept to expect that it would come up for a vote as is.

"But you seem to be blaming Democrats for that"
No, but it's perfectly within the bounds of good sense to criticize someone for making a futile gesture that could be turned around against him so easily.

"it backfired on the rightwingers"
Only because Jean Schmidt opened her diseased yap and took the focus off the floor action....

is incorrect regarding what happened that day and only confirms my assumption that you did not pay attention to what really happened. There was NO expectation of anything but trickery on the part of the Democrats leading up to that vote. Certainly no 'naivete' either on their part or on ours who were following the Republican attempt to deceive the American public once again. And the handling of the shenanagans by Democrats was anything BUT naive, it was masterful, in fact (assuming you were paying attention and not listening to rightwing propagandist interpretations of the event).

Jean Schmidt's 'deseased yap' was a totally separate event, and simply added to the Republican failed attempt to characterize, as usual, anyone who disagreed with them as 'unpatriotic' or 'cowardly'. It ended up being a nice gift to the Democrats, as it turns out that the American people are a little tired of chickenhawk Republicans sliming their war veterans.

Your statement that it's okay to criticize someone who made a 'futile gesture'? If that is referring to Murtha, please explain it. Murtha knew full well what was going on. You really did not hear the speeches that day, did you? Your characterization of him as naive would be fine, if it were true. I can only assume that you have fallen for the rightwing framing of that historic day, and again I would suggest that you study what REALLY happened before making the kind of statements you just made.

Yes, it was a cunning plan....(snicker)

You have not made clear which 'plan' you are referring to. If you are speaking about the Republican attempt to play another dirty trick, then it was not as cunning as they had expected, was it, since their entire attempt to deceive the public was beautifully exposed that day.

If you are referring to the Democrats, their plan was entirely successful, since they totally exposed the underhanded and deceptive attempt by the Republicans to once again deceive the American people.

You appear to take these matters very lightly. Most of us do not. I consider dirty tricks and deception, such as the lies told about the war in Iraq to be extremely serious. Lives have been lost as a result of the deception perpetrated on the American people, once again attempted on the day in question. This time foiled by a united Democratic Party and the citizens who were paying attention and offering their support to get the truth out to the American people, as they deserve, wouldn't you agree? Perhaps not, but if sarcasm, rather than facts, is all you can offer, that is your choice. Enjoy yourself. Those who are dying and their families, both Iraqis and US troops, I'm sure, are not in the mood for sarcasm.

I don't think the DLC is saying, "the President really invaded Iraq to spread democracy."

I think they are saying, "while the President may have caused us to invade Iraq for all the wrong reasons, the men and women in uniform are going to hopefully succeed in bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq."

I want to swear and throw things.

Oh yeah. It all makes sense now.

Despite Bush's decline, Democrats should not attempt to stand up to him.

Hey, don't even bother with that forest over there, look at these nice pastels I've done of some trees.

One of the top four DLC leaders, Artur Davis, actually had the nerve to say that when Dean spoke out against the war December 5....that he made folks in Alabama support the war more. But he skewed. Talk about talking points? Criticizing the war is wrong because it builds up support....on come on, Artur.

Talk about misrepresenting?

Yet the polls show that forty-four percent surveyed said the war was not worth it - an increase from 26 percent in a July 2003 poll.

And look at this skewing effort:

"Overall, the survey results indicated that 58 percent of Alabamians believe U.S. efforts in Iraq are going either somewhat well or very well - the highest number since March 2004, when 61 percent responded positively in a similar survey."

Support of the war is actually down, yet they make it sound the opposite.

Now I posted from the DLC webiste that they disapproved of Pelosi and Murtha's plan, and they think we need to spread Democracy more in the Middle East.

Now comes the really great statement from a Democrat speaking against a fellow Democrat who said the war was unfortunately not winnable...:

http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/special_packages/iraq/13442910.htm



Thanks Artur Davis, perhaps it is a good thing that we are finally seeing clearly that your wing of the party does NOT want questioning of the war.

And this is really dirty pool, I think. A man tells the truth, and you attack him for it by making it sound like he empowered the enemy. Way to use those talking points.

DLC Leader Profiles:

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=86&subid=85&contentid=253434#Davis

"U.S. Representative Artur Davis (Alabama), co-chair of the House New Democrat Coalition, has made quite an impact in his 2 1/2 years in Congress. Davis has been recognized by Roll Call and The National Journal as one of the future leaders to watch in Washington, and he has earned a reputation as a legislator with an appreciation for bipartisanship. Davis has also made an impact with New Democats. He was a keynote speaker at the DLC's "God, Guns, and Guts" conference in 2003. Davis has also written for Blueprint magazine on the vital center and reclaiming values issues for Democrats."

The other 3 leaders listed are Hillary Clinton, Tom Carper, and Tom Vilsack.

"Davis said Alabamians are worried about military casualties and a lack of an exit strategy, but added that "it's clear people in Alabama are rooting for this country and its soldiers to succeed.""

Because our party became the party of speaking properly and correctly, and became the party that was fearful of angering the right wing by speaking the truth.

No, he did nothing but tell the truth. It made so many in our party mad because they want to retain the illusion that Iraq can be won.

It was a sorry move by Davis, to used twisted polls and blame Dean for them.

"It made so many in our party mad"
It annoyed many people because it took the momentum out of recent events.

Now the DLC articles are going after Pelosi, Murtha, and one of the leaders is going after Dean with a ridiculous charge.

The momentum has been strictly on Bush's side of the fence.

Our Democrats had only gotten to the point of beginning to admit the war was not handled correctly. Murtha was being ignored even by them.

I blame the 5 years of silence and submission to the GOP agenda for the lack of momentum on our side.

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

Not everyone in the party, but the ones who hold the reins of power right now.

And even Dean knows he fucked up

War Veteran John Murtha for calling for an end to America's involvement in Iraq. Just remember that. The DLC needs to go the way of the eight track. They are dragging the party down.

for all your work in exposing the DLC. I, for one, appreciate and learn from it.

:hi: