What Do You Folks Make Out Of The Fact That Two Thirds Of Democrats

Want A Candidate Who Supported the Iraq War?


I heard that on Hardball... I don't have the poll but for the sake of argument I accept it...

I was ambivalent about the war... I thought Saddam was a bad guy who may or may not c-u-r-r-e-n-t-l-y had nuclear weapons but I didn't see a causus belli....

In any case, the aftermath of the war is looking like the mother of all quagmires....

that the poll was open to all Dems, and not just DUers.

IOW, I wasn't surprised at all.

If a majority of the public now thinks the Iraq war was wrong, that Bush trumped up the evidence, and so on, why on earth would Democrats say, effectively, "we want a President who was suckered by Bush and supported his illegal war"?

It just doesn't follow. What am I missing?

the difference between wanting the US to deal with the real threat that Saddam posed, and supporting what Bush* did.

Many people think that, even if Saddam didn't have any WMD's or WMD programs, the US should have dealt with Saddam. These same people also realize that a vote for the resolution was NOT, contrary to the opinions of some DUers, a vote of support for whatever Bush* might do in the future. They realize that those Dems (who voted yes) were voting in support of the idea that the US should have gotten the UN's support (which they also wanted) and were not voting for unilateral war (which they didn't want)

and I think the folks are smart to realize this.

What was the "real threat" Saddam posed? No one in his neighborhood, except perhaps Israel and Iran, his old enemies, considered him a threat. Remember that the EU powers who opposed the war are within closer "range" of any weapons Saddam might have had. Yet, they opposed the invasion.

Not to mention the fact that Saddam only had effective control of one-third of Iraqi territory, and no air power. With US and British fighter jets pounding him weekly, if not daily. And then there were the sanctions.

In 1991, after Gulf War I, Dick Cheney said Saddam no longer represented a military threat, that his arsenal had been destroyed. Tell me how he managed to change that--despite US/UK and UN surveillance, including eavesdropping spy satellites?

Was it a neutron bomb buried under that rose bush? I don't think so.

1) Someday inspections and sanctions would end, and THEN Saddam would successfully pursue the acquisition of a WMD and use it.

2) Though Saddam had little interest in supporting Islamic terrorists, he did have interests in supporting Palestinian terrorists, as well as a general interest in harming Israel's interests.

3) Saddam's willingness to attack other nearby nations imperiled the stability of our nations energy supply.

4) Saddams' scientists in the WMD programs could sell their expertise to nations unfreindly to the US.

Would, should, could. Let's just take over the world and then we won't have to worry about a damn thing, eh?

What "line" did I buy? If you want to argue that one of more of the threats I listed is not justified by the facts, I suggest you do a bit more in the way of specifying which of my assertions are false, and why. I'm rarely persuaded by arguments like "That's a lie" and even less persuaded by "You want to 'take over the world'"

If I wanted to take over the world, I'd say so. I don't need you to explain what I mean.

1) "Someday" is not a "real threat." "Someday" is a hypothetical.

2) Saddam did no more to support Palestinian families of suicide bombers than did Saudi Arabia or Jordan. Check your facts.

3) "Willingness" is not a real threat, particularly since Saddam had no air force, and was under constant US/UK no-fly restrictions. Besides, he hadn't acted on that "willingness" since 1991.

4) Scientists in any weapons programs--conventional or prohibited--in any country can sell their expertise to anyone. Saddam's scientists were no more of a threat than are nuclear and other weapons scientists in the former Soviet Union.

You'll have to do a little better than that.

1) OK, maybe not "real", but "potentially real". Threats aren't actually "real"; They're just words or potentials.

2) Just because others did the same doesn't mean it wasn't a threat.

3) Willingness does indicate a threat, and the reason why he hadn't done it since 1991 was the sanctions, which is why I mentioned the end of sanctions.

4) Again, the fact that the very same threat exists in other countries does nothing to refute the fact that the threat was also present in Iraq. BTW, the weapons scientists from the fmr Soviet Union are a threat to our security.

You'll have to do a little better than that.

Actually, I don't.

For the dose of reality. 90% of this is a manufactured threat to justify economic ends.

Wait... that's not 2/3 of Democrats. That's 2/3 of Americans.

I wouldn't believe too much of what I see on Hardball. Tweety has shown himself to be quite the fine propagandist. He's on TV, after all....

but the results of the poll are suprising especially given the aftermath of the war....

what poll specifically asked that question of Democrats?

Maybe somebody can find it....

Democrats, like all Americans, have had to sift through the lies and disinformation of the Bush / Rusfeld propaganda machine. As the truth becomes more widely understood, ALL Americans will adopt a more reasoned view of the Iraq invasion.

'The matrix' puts out endless disinformation and propaganda. Small wonder if the majority are taken in by it -- for awhile.

People still have not awakened to the truth of the leadup to the conquest of Iraq.

but even Dems in Amerika love war. This country has always loved war (look at how our Hollywood movies glamorize it) and continues to adore the soldier and the bomb. People in US are sorely in need of some proper education about what "civilized" means and should mean.

The Washington Post reports that many senators are defending the patriot act, including Democratic senators who I'd least expect:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61591-2003Oct21.html

There's some information in this article i'd like to research, including the ACLU response.

It's not a simple case of "defending the PATRIOT Act". What these Dems (and Repukes) are doing is saying that SOME of the criticisms are unwarrented. I think that some of the criticisms directed at the Isreali govt (ex. "The Israeli govt has a policy of genocide") is wrong, but I'm not about to "defend the Israeli govt" as a whole.

the polls reflect it less and less with each passing day and how easily and quickly we forget --

Bush and his warmongers spouted every lie they could conjure up to get a hesitant public on board. The polls reflected lack of support without a mulilateral plan or the UN. It wasn't until they pushed the "support the troops" line that folks jumped on board.

Just another attempt to nullify Kerry's blunder.

... most Dems saw Saddam as the low-life, brutal thug he was, and are finding it hard to shed any tears regarding his overthrow; that is not to say that those same people are not having serious doubts about the screw-up of post-war Iraq.

I think we DU-ers tend to be more black-and-white on the issue of the war than are the American people, which is why I don't think the pre-war stance of whoever our nominee is will be nearly as important to the electorate as it seems to be to us.

argument is compelling but it's a slippery slope argument...

Hitler, Pol Pot, Milosevic are clear cut cases where military intervention on humanitarian grounds were justified but Saddam was a borderline case though he did gas his own people....

It's a difficult one....

I'm glad I didn't have to make the decsion...

If I was God I would remove all the evil leaders from the world but there wouldn't be too many left...

is highly suspect now. The liklihood was that it was Iran who was responsible for that particular gassing, based on the signature of the gas used.

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0218/trilling.php

Not widely disseminated info. Guess why?

I guess gassing is no longer PC.

Supposedly, there were other incidents as well. Maybe some of them were actual incidents of Saddam gassing his own people. I am very skeptical of these reports, but I am trying to keep an open mind.

When the supposed incidents were first reported during the build up to GWI, I bought into them. It is clear now that at least some of them were trumped up charges. Today, I need proof before I will buy into the idea that Saddam gassed his own people.

but this was the instance Bush and cheney pointed to to make political hay.

Now, where did they get that gas from?

Earlier you posted that it wasn't Iraq that gassed people, it was Iran. Now you're saying Iraq used the gas (which they didn't use) that the US gave him.

I wouldn't advocate military invasion of any sovereign nation on that basis, in general. I just think the American public sees the whole "did X support the IWR/invasion of Iraq" as pretty much a positive, while vieweing the screw-up of post-war Iraq much less charitably with each passing day.

I think it will be a mistake, overall, to beat the electorate over the head with the "We shouldn't have invaded Iraq" meme; we should, instead, place emphasis on how arrogantly, thoughtlessly and stupidly the whole thing was done. I see us getting a lot more mileage out of that.

.

I will only support candidates that will get us out of Iraq, not keep us there under a variety of pretexts such as "peace with honor" or the equally stupid "we broke it, we fix it!"

As in Vietnam, some issues transcend party labels and nationalities.

I would much rather frame our foreign relations in terms of peace and people instead of war and capitalism, thinly veiled as "freedom" and "democracy".

My reasons, not in any order:
1) A vote for the war was a vote to enable Bush's doctrine of unilateral, preemptive miltary intervention based on a perceived threat. If we're using Bush's perception, that's a very very scary thought.

2) War should be a last resort and only where there is an imminent threat, which was not proven. We had not exhausted all other avenues.

3) innocents are the biggest victims in war--children, especially.

4) beating the hornets nest with a bat may break up the nest, but you're gonna get stung. Weve got a lot of very pissed hornets in Iraq/Middle East now that we didn't prior to the invasion.

The corportate media only cares about making a buck, not about journalistic objectivity, or the truth for that matter.

To correct the record of the past 3 years of the Bush Administration, lies upon lies, and corporate media's complete blindness to the facts which dispute the administration would take another decade of correcting the faulty reporting and billions of dollars in losses to the corporate media that went along with the administration.

It wont happen. The corporate media will just keep plowing along untill this country goes over a cliff.

For the same reason a dog licks himself.

I believe this is accurate. Now if the corporate media would accurately report what this war was really about...The story would change quickly.

Is it voting for the IWR?

If the IWR is to the Iraq invasion what the Tonkin Gulf resolution was to the Vietnam War and voting for the resolution makes one pro-war, then I actively supported and voted for a pro-war candidate in 1972. His name was George McGovern.

Let's get beyond the IWR. Frankly, I believe voting for it was an error. However, it was complicated enough that one could vote for it and still have reservations about the invasion. However, it did attach strings to Bush's desires; it required him to seek international support and a UN mandate. What passed for international support was pathetic and his efforts at getting a UN mandate were insincere and did him more harm than good.

The real question is: What now? It is clear we need an exit strategy that can be executed soon. It is also clear that Bush has no exit strategy, nor sees an exit strategy as desirable. The most important thing to him is that the occupation be profitiable to his corporate cronies, no matter how many American and Iraqi lives it costs.

We should not judge a candidate on his vote for the IWR. Rather, he should be judged on coming up with the best plan for ending the occupation in a way that will leave a stable, popular Iraqi regime in power that can prevent further civil strife.

The U.S. occupation of Iraq needs to end, and a strategy is necessary. "It was wrong" is not a strategy.

:eyes:

:eyes:

Too bad the iargument being made is not "we shouldn't judge a candidate by what he/she did in the past"

It's "What they did in the past is NOT the only factor to consider"

Some of us believe it's possible for people, politicians even, to change.

...or Tweety did...

Majorities of likely Democratic voters in three states with early primaries or caucuses say they prefer a presidential nominee who supported military action against Iraq but criticized President Bush for failing to assemble international support over a candidate who opposed military action from the beginning, according to new polls conducted by the liberal Democracy Corps.

The findings in the new polls suggest that the divisions over Iraq within the party are less clear-cut than some strategists and candidates believe, or that support for U.S. action to remove former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein from power is a serious handicap in the battle for the Democratic nomination.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38335-2003Oct16.html

An ABC/WaPo poll reports that 64% of Democrats say that the Iraq war was "not worth fighting."

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Politics/iraq_economics031014_poll.html

The way you worded the question, it sounds like he's saying that two thirds of Democrats are backing a candidate who supported the invasion. If he meant that two thirds of Democrats say they would support a candidate who supported the war, that's not too surprising. I was against the invasion wholeheartedly, but I'll support any Democrat over Bush in the general election.

If he's saying that two-thirds of Democrats want a candidate who supported the war, or that two-thirds supported the war, I'd question what type of sampling he used to represent Democrats.

Most people who vote Democrat are like most people who vote anything-- they get most of what they know in the few seconds of soundbite the media offers them. Saddam bad, Iraqis welcomed war, only a few weirdos opposed it, war turned out good, with a few quirks. Yeah, I guess that would eventually convince a lot of people.

I don't believe that two-thirds of Democrats who are actively Democrats supported the invasion, though. I'm president of a Democratic club with over a hundred members here in Austin, in the most conservative part of Austin, and not one of them approved of the invasion in any circumstances.

pre-emptive. It assumes that the American public is totally informed about the war, just as when 70% think Saddam was behind 9/11, and that it is a legitimate poll under those circumstances?

Thought mainly of two things:
1) Getting Saddam out: good thing;
2) Having a "No" vote used against us--especially ME--by Dub & Co.: bad thing.

An example: had John Edwards voted as I wished he had on the Resolution--i.e. "Nay"--and run for re-election to the Senate instead of pursuing the White House next year, that vote would've been used--to no small effect, at that--by Repubs in this state to BLUDGEON him. (North Carolina does have five major military installations within its borders). Voting "Yea", and saying that removing Saddam was "the right thing to do", insulated him from that line of attack, at home and, given his subsequent run for the presidency, nationally in the general election should he be nominated.

Would the way things have turned out, and given the revelation of Dub's lies to push for a war like a spoiled brat in a sandbox, have changed the way that "Yea" vote last year would be perceived? Maybe. But Edwards, like Dick Gephardt (though Gephardt didn't have to stand there with Dub!:mad: ), John Kerry, and others voting "Yea", did so for cover and out of the basic notion that getting rid of Saddam was a good thing, NOT to approve the Neo-Con/PNAC/Rumsfeld Doctrine of unlimited pre-emptive war. Their votes made me, like most fellow DUers, hopping mad at the time, and still irk me to an extent. But I really do feel that they were supporting the concept of a regime change and neither Dub's falsehoods nor PNAC by their vote. And it WON'T hamper me in supporting one of them--Edwards, Kerry or Gephardt--should they win the nomination or be on the ticket next year.

Not one bit! :kick:

B-)

It takes away one of Bush's sure fire vote getters. "Vote for me because the evil Democrat doesn't care about Your Safety and proved it by not supporting the war. If we didn't stop the Evil Saddam, your children would all be speaking Arabic and praying five times a day."

(The fact that Bush can't speak English and prays five times a day is beside the point.)

A candidate who at least voted for the unPatriotic Act is good too--he takes away another of Bush's sure fire vote getters: "That guy wants to leave you Vulnerable to Terra! Vote for me and we'll be Safe from Terra!"

If we can get all of Bush's ancillary bullshit--the war, terra, God Bless The USA--out of the way, voters get to look at Bush's real record...and at that point, we could run someone whose only elected office is dogcatcher against this guy and still win.

(on edit: added "can't speak English.")

That is what I make of it.
A decision to expend energy on finding technical rehabilitation of Ashcroft's imposed nightmare is totally, totally unworthy.

I bet this means most Democrats are just as brainwashed by the corporate media into thinking Sadam was an 'iminent' threat, actually HAD WMD's hidden and ready to be used against the world, and could deliver them by remote controlled flying drones, and there would eventually be a "MUSHROOM" clouds over an American city.

Yep, the Neocon-Corporate media did a great propaganda campaign, and now its all fact.

If it was on FOX, it must be true.

it goes to prove that this country is finished as an experiment in freedom. If both of the major parties and a majority of the citizens have a blood-lust and juvenile mentality that only looks for vengence and the "quick kill", then who the hell are we? If the Dems are going to be just a little less brutal version of the Repugs, then we need to stop fooling ourselves and form a third party. It might not amount to much for quite some time, but it is better to stand up to blood-thirsty empire builders, than to become one of them. You can spin this thing any way you want, but hoping to elect a Musollini in order to defeat a Hitler is a devil's bargain I opt out of.

Isn't this Democracy Corps Carville's baby?

http://www.democracycorps.com/meet/greenberg.html
"Greenberg has advised a broad range of political campaigns, including those of President Bill Clinton and Vice-President Al Gore, Senators Chris Dodd, Joe Lieberman and Jeff Bingaman; Governor Jim Florio and gubernatorial candidate, Andy Young; former Vice-President Walter Mondale; and a number of candidates for the U.S. Congress. For many years, he served as principal polling advisor to the Democratic National Committee.

Greenberg works jointly on private sector projects with prominent Republican pollsters in the United States – including Fred Steeper (pollster to former President Bush), Bill McInturff and Linda DiVall – to bring a bi-partisan focus to public issues."

I do not trust polls anymore. I saw the huge pull-ahead by Jeb in 2002, just suddenly 15%. Kept a lot home. This poll was not like others.

More recent, the poll in CA with Arnie pulling ahead so suddenly just before the election.

The polls are being used to define our issues for us. They are being used to define who we think we want to vote for.

I do not believe that many Democrats want a candidate who supported the Iraq war. I just do not.

who marched against the war in Portland do not want a pro-war candidate.

(I wasn't in Minneapolis then, but I assume that there were sizable marches here, too, as in other cities around the country and especially in D.C.)

But for most Americans, a phenomenon does not exist until it is mentioned on mainstream TV, and the media ignored the protests as long as they could. The coverage they gave the protests was often superficial and distorted, focusing on the weirdest looking people in the crowd, quite different from the nuanced and fair-minded coverage of the WTO protests that I saw on News World International a couple of years ago. (They actually asked the protestors detailed questions about why they were there and had experts on civil liberties discussing "free speech zones.")

Back in the late 1980s, I heard Alexander Cockburn speak in Portland, and one striking thing that he said was that based on his experience with the news media, editors spent as much time deciding what NOT to cover as what to cover. (Deciding what NOT to cover is different from simply placing a low priority on it.) The truth about the Iraq War and domestic opposition to it were obviously something that the media actively chose NOT to cover.

One point that the mass media never brought out was where you stop if you declare a mission of taking out "evil dictators." Why Iraq and not Burma or Uzbekistan? The implied answer: oil.

Most Americans -- Republican or Democrat -- either don't understand or don't accept the concept of "casus belli" -- that we need to be attacked first before a war is justified.

The idea that previous wars were fought "to end all wars" lasted a very short time, and then gradually Americans began to stop thinking of war as bad in and of itself. By this point in history, I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of Americans no longer agree with the Nuremberg principles, most especially with the principle that simply starting a war you could have avoided (i.e. before you were attacked) is an unforgiveable crime.

Any talk of the "threat" Saddam posed is for the benefit of those who might start considering us a threat if it were to become clear the big dog of the international community was rabid.