Would you vote for a candidate who is a militaristic-interventionist hawk?

First of all I am not talking about Hillary Clinton any other specific candidate. I honestly don't have any specific candidate in mind since the positions on many of the candidates who might possibly fit that
description have for the most part not clarified their positions.

I mean a candidate who:

1. Supported increasing the military budget

2. Endorsed the concept of preemptive war even when a clear eminent threat was quite doubtful.

3. Believed we should stay in Iraq as long as it takes to "get the job done".

4. Sounded inclined toward a possible military strike against Iran.

5. Endorses the concept of the war against "Islamo-fascism" and extending that war beyond Al Qaeda to any Islamist group that meets the State Departments definition as a terrorist organization.

For those who don't know what that means, here's a discription and a link to a site with more info:



<http://www.yellowdogdemocrat.com/history.htm>

History of the Yellow Dog Democrat.

A Yellow Dog Democrat is a staunch loyalist to the Democratic Party. These days, the term is widely recognized as an expression of regard and, as such, it is only used in a manner of praise. Yellow Dog Democrats embody loyalty. This is a trait that should never ever be taken for granted by any Party nor by any individual for that matter. The Democrat Party recognizes this, thus correctly acknowledges the Yellow Dog Democrat as some of their "Best Friends".

The term, Yellow Dog Democrat, blossomed during all of the Hoopla which surrounded the 1928 elections, when Al Smith ran for President against Herbert Hoover. During that campaign, Senator Tom Heflin, of Alabama, declined to back his fellow Democrat, Al Smith the Governor of NY. In fact it was much worse than that, Senator Heflin decided to back Herbert Hoover, who would then go on to become President- a Republican President no less. Heflin's controversial actions were considered heresy, especially in the South. As you can imagine, quite a large number of Alabamans vehemently disagreed with Senator Heflin's decision to cross his "Party Lines". Hence, the popular saying, "I'd vote for a yellow dog if he ran on the Democratic ticket" was born! It was adopted as the proud slogan of the staunch party loyalist.
At the time, this phrase certainly did not reflect well on Senator Heflin.

Adapted from William Safire's Safire's New Political Dictionary.
© 1993 by the Cobbett Corporation.

<http://www.yellowdogdemocrat.com/history.htm>

but if I thought the candidate might-if elected-lead the nation into an unprovoked war in the Middle East,,,I honestly don't know what I would do.

...elected, we would be far better off with the Democrat in the White House, because of all the OTHER parts of Government that the President can and will control, than if another ReThug or a powerless 3rd party President were to get elected.

Then, with that "pro-war Democrat" in the White House, (which is a ridiculous premise put forward by the Republican spin machine, no Democrat is "Pro-War,"** I won't speak to if any Republicans are actually pro-war), We could begin to pressure that "pro-war" President to move away from that position.

If He/She didn't move away from that position, we let the Congress impeach and remove that "pro-war President" and what do we have? The Democratic Vice-President who hopefully holds a different view on war, and also knows that a "pro-war" view is not acceptable to his/her party.


Note:
** Saying an person is "pro-war" is the same as saying someone is "pro-abortion" or "pro-rape." Most people don't WANT a War to take place, but sometimes they do become necessary, like when another country invades your country, and then starts murdering your people. To oppose war in that situation is just silly, selfish, and cowardly.

I would cling to the hope that the Democrat you describe was still a traditional Democrat in domestic issues. I would hope that in foreign issues a Democrat would have somewhat less bloodlust than Republicans do. I am increasingly less certain about the difference between status quo, incumbent Democrats and Republicans, but until every last one of them does an in-no-uncertain-terms Zell Miller on us, I will remain a hopeful, if not idealist, Democrat.

an unprovoked war in the Middle East would that make you think twice?
I have to admit that I would feel quite morally conflicted. I sure hope it never comes to that.

think, or would really do, they're all a crapshoot for the voter. How can any of us know? You are trying to keep this question hypothetical, I realize, but the concrete example for me is both Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton. Lieberman is fast making himself obsolete, I think, so I don't expect him to have much influence in the future. But Clinton is a puzzlement. I think she just might be willing to plunge us headlong into more wars. I worry she's itching to show that she's the kick-ass broad who's going to singlehandedly rescue the Dem party's reputation as soft on national security. I want to trust her but I don't. I think she's power-hungry, and feels somehow annointed, and for the life of me I can't see why. I'm not completely convinced she's a Democrat at heart, either. She strikes me as somebody always with the eye out for the main chance.

Having said all that--if it comes down to Hillary Clinton and John McCain, as execrable a Hobson's choice as that will be, I will unhesitatingly vote for her (well, I'll hesitate just long enough to say a quick prayer, in my usual fashion, which starts with "God, if you're really up there, please make her remember that she is a Democrat").

I have voted for Republicans in my past, in local races, but in this present climate I will never, never, never. Never.

I hesitate because there are relatively sane hawks and relatively insane hawks. If the world were in a precarious state, which seems more likely than not nowadays, the stakes can be very high. If the Republicans were running an equally hawkish fundie oriented type, one whose temperament and judgment and decision making process was seriously flawed relative to the Democrat you described, I would probably vote for the Democrat to keep what I would describe as an unstable Republican out of power, someone like "W" in other words.

This is who I will support, should he run, in the Primaries AND the General election, should he get the nomination:

Wes Clark

If Wes does not run, I would support in the Primaries AND the General election, should he get the nomination:

Al Gore

If neither Wes nor Al run, my feeling is that we will not win anyway, so I could support the following:

Of the field, so far... Enthusiastically:

Russ Feingold
Robert Kennedy, Jr. (doubt he'd ever run)

The Jury is still out, as of now. I could possibly leave home to vote for, but each has a BIG caveat:

John Kerry (BIG maybe -- absolutely the long-shot. He was SO disappointing last time out, and I'm not sure he's got the killer instinct to go the distance. AND he would need to disavow his affiliation with the DLC to get my vote. If he doesn't... he moves immediately to the category below.)

See the following article for my reasons as to why I still find it hard to say I will vote for Kerry. I still have so many questions about his ability and willingness to go for the jugular as well as questioning his present postitions. Is he just listening to a lot of polling and parroting what's being said, or is he finally seeing the light? I just don't know yet... I just don't know:

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0615-32.htm

John Edwards (Ditto what I said about Kerry)
Barack Obama (he needs to stay away from the DLC and get far more gutsy in his voting. He talks a good talk, but his voting sucks most of the time. Then, there is also the matter of his lack of experience.)
Christopher Dodd (See Kerry, except for the business about last time)

Never, ever, ever -- I stay home:

Hillary Clinton
Mark Warner
John Vilsak
Evan Bayh
Joe Biden
Joe Lieberman

TC

of a venereal election, and this country IS gonna grow some itchy blotches if it boils down to one warmonger versus another.

Ironically, edited for typo

One 6 Democratic Senators voted against the "Iraq War Forever" resolution that the Senate passed this week: Kerry, Boxer, Byrd, Feingold, Kennedy, and I believe Harkin (correct me if I am wrong).

any number of candidates might be considered a "hawk". I was kind of imagining an unabashed hawk who really seemed likely to initiate further conflicts; one who kind of thought like Peter Beinart and company.

and they did so by voting for those stupid "accountability acts" which are nothing but a precursor to war because they authorized Bush to do "whatever is necessary."

in the mean time I will hope that this was intended for domestic consumption. I certainly hope that they are not serious.

BTW here is a great resource website on Iran:

Iranian showdown:

http://reseaudesign.com/research/iran/iran_summery.html


"I think of war with Iran as the ending of America's present role in the world. Iraq may have been a preview of that, but it's still redeemable if we get out fast. In a war with Iran, we'll get dragged down for 20 or 30 years. The world will condemn us. We will lose our position in the world."

Zbigniew Brzezinski, Vanity Fair, 2006.

more unnecessary wars.

1. Democrats don't want it

2. The American people don't want it

3. The world does not want it

What is it that ordinary Americans say they miss about the Clinton years?

PEACE and prosperity.

No matter what the war mongers and corporate media say about being "reasonable" and moderate.

This "poll" is a little too full of itself. You obviously have someone in mind. Question #2 is your subjective concept of a clear and eminent threat being doubtful.

I have not yet heard a clarification of Gov. Warner's positions on foreign affairs; although he has made some comments that concern me.

nose and vote for him/her(the hawk DEM) with no enthusiasm whatsover.

painful. But as someone said above there are relative differences between hawks.

Take out the last clause, which contradicts the idea of pre-emptive strikes, and I would say yes.

are justified on the basis of preemption even though there is essentially an acknowledgment that there was not and is not an imminent threat,

I certainly haven't seen it. I would never go into negotiations saying "no matter what happens here we promise we will never attack you" though nor ever want anyone in power who would say that.

This website has a vast amount of resources dealing with Iran

Iranian showdown:

http://reseaudesign.com/research/iran/iran_summery.html

____________________________

Fishing for A Pretext in Iran
by Juan Cole; March 18, 2006

link: http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=9929

snip:"Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei has given a fatwa or formal religious ruling against nuclear weapons, and President Ahmadinejad at his inauguration denounced such arms and committed Iran to remaining a nonnuclear weapons state.

(Note: Grand Ayatollah Khamenei is the Chief of State and He ALONE has the final say in matters of the Iranian state and the final religious authority over the vast overwhelming majority of Iranian Shiites. Here is an official website that explains the Iranian government:link: http://www.parstimes.com/gov_iran.html
This is the statement regarding Ayatollah Khamanei's fatwa which comes from the website of the Islamic Republic of Iran – link:
http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-236/0508104135124631.htm )


snip:"Tehran denies having military labs aiming for a bomb, and in November of 2003 the IAEA formally announced that it could find no proof of such a weapons program."

snip:"it is often alleged that since Iran harbors the desire to “destroy” Israel, it must not be allowed to have the bomb. Ahmadinejad has gone blue in the face denouncing the immorality of any mass extermination of innocent civilians, but has been unable to get a hearing in the English-language press. Moreover, the presidency is a very weak post in Iran, and the president is not commander of the armed forces and has no control over nuclear policy"

snip: "in November of 2003 the IAEA formally announced that it could find no proof of such a weapons program. The U.S. reaction was a blustery incredulity, which is not actually an argument or proof in its own right, however good U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton is at bunching his eyebrows and glaring."
snip:"Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei has given a fatwa or formal religious ruling against nuclear weapons, and President Ahmadinejad at his inauguration denounced such arms."
_____________________

Former Sen. Sam Nunn suspects that the Bush Administration's real goal is regime change.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/18/ywt.01.html

snip : "NUNN: But the administration is torn between conversation about regime change in Iran and diplomacy. And that means that the allies and the people you need to help you don't get a clear message about where we are on Iran. If we're really for regime change and if that's being actively pursued, then it's very hard to sit down with someone and talk with them if you're actually trying to kick them out of office."

Scott Ritter goes a bit farther:

Scott Ritter's interview at at San Diego CityBeat:

http://www.sdcitybeat.com/article.php?id=4281

snip:"The Bush administration does not have policy of disarmament vis-à-vis Iran. They do have a policy of regime change. If we had a policy of disarmament, we would have engaged in unilateral or bilateral discussions with the Iranians a long time ago. But we put that off the table because we have no desire to resolve the situation we use to facilitate the military intervention necessary to achieve regime change. It’s the exact replay of the game plan used for Iraq, where we didn’t care what Saddam did, what he said, what the weapons inspectors found. We created the perception of a noncompliant Iraq, and we stuck with that perception, selling that perception until we achieved our ultimate objective, which was invasion that got rid of Saddam. With Iran, we are creating the perception of a noncompliant Iran, a threatening Iran. It doesn’t matter what the facts are. Now that we have successfully created that perception, the Bush administration will move forward aggressively until it achieves its ultimate objective, which is regime change."
____________________________

US refuses to discuss Iran's nuclear plans in face-to-face talks on Iraq

Jonathan Steele in Baghdad and Julian Borger in Washington
Tuesday April 18, 2006
The Guardian

link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1755750,00.html

Although the US is resisting pressure to deal with Iran's nuclear ambitions through direct talks with Tehran, rather than sanctions or military strikes, it still intends to meet senior Iranian officials for discussions on Iraq at which it will demand an end to Iranian meddling, according to Zalmay Khalilzad, the US ambassador in Baghdad.
He is to head the US team at face-to-face talks, which will be the first formal diplomatic meeting between the two countries since the Islamic revolution in 1979 and are expected to open in Baghdad shortly.

_____________-

Here is an article by Zbnigniew Brezinski:

Zbigniew Brzezinski was national security advisor to President Carter from 1977 to 1981.


http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-brzezinski23apr23,0,3700317.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions


snip:"But there are four compelling reasons against a preventive air attack on Iranian nuclear facilities:

First, in the absence of an imminent threat (and the Iranians are at least several years away from having a nuclear arsenal), the attack would be a unilateral act of war. If undertaken without a formal congressional declaration of war, an attack would be unconstitutional and merit the impeachment of the president. Similarly, if undertaken without the sanction of the United Nations Security Council, either alone by the United States or in complicity with Israel, it would stamp the perpetrator(s) as an international outlaw(s).

Second, likely Iranian reactions would significantly compound ongoing U.S. difficulties in Iraq and Afghanistan, perhaps precipitate new violence by Hezbollah in Lebanon and possibly elsewhere, and in all probability bog down the United States in regional violence for a decade or more. Iran is a country of about 70 million people, and a conflict with it would make the misadventure in Iraq look trivial.

Third, oil prices would climb steeply, especially if the Iranians were to cut their production or seek to disrupt the flow of oil from the nearby Saudi oil fields. The world economy would be severely affected, and the United States would be blamed for it. Note that oil prices have already shot above $70 per barrel, in part because of fears of a U.S.-Iran clash.

Finally, the United States, in the wake of the attack, would become an even more likely target of terrorism while reinforcing global suspicions that U.S. support for Israel is in itself a major cause of the rise of Islamic terrorism. The United States would become more isolated and thus more vulnerable while prospects for an eventual regional accommodation between Israel and its neighbors would be ever more remote."

read full article:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-brzezinski23apr23,0,3700317.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

____________________

"I think of war with Iran as the ending of America's present role in the world. Iraq may have been a preview of that, but it's still redeemable if we get out fast. In a war with Iran, we'll get dragged down for 20 or 30 years. The world will condemn us. We will lose our position in the world."

Zbigniew Brzezinski, Vanity Fair, 2006.

But in a general sense, yes.

agreement with every caveat

Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton - their actions are comparable to the list you layed out - and I'd vote for each of them (in Clinton's case, again!)

supported # 1. (Supported increasing the military budget)

# 2. (Endorsed the concept of preemptive war even when a clear eminent threat was quite doubtful.)
One could argue that with Presidents Truman, Kennedy and Johnson and in theory with President Clinton although I cannot think at the minute of where he actually initiated it although position statements seemed to agree theoretically with the idea. President Carter had personally spoken against the idea of preemptive war when accepting the Nobel Peace Prize.

#3, #4 and # 5 I don't think one could say since the situation was radically different.

But in general I would agree that Presidents Truman, Kennedy and Johnson were hawks. One could even argue that with President Carter; but a restrained hawk. I don't know if I personally would describe President Clinton as a hawk. I suppose one could make that case and I wouldn't argue.

then I would support them against a republican. But if they were on the side of big corporations on environmental issues, that would be too much.


Look, the only reason I tolerate the idea of Lieberman continuing as a senator is his environmental record - otherwise he seems more like a moderate republican than even a conservative democrat.

I don't vote for wannabe-war criminals.