Should We support Democratic candidates who still support the Iraqi War?

Should We support Democratic candidates who still support the Iraqi War?

I would really like to hear some feedback.

We need to send them a clear message that this will not be tolerated.

I won't even support the ones who swallowed the lies in 2002. They proved themselves to be either spectacularly gullible, motivated by political considerations before ethics, or just plain too dumb to be trusted with that much authority. Same goes for the USA PATRIOT Act.

I am not going to blame the senators for that vote. They were under a lot of pressure since it was after 9/11. Only one senator did it and it was Sen. Feingold and I congratulate him for it. But it was a tough and very emotional time in the nation.

...by voting in favor of the IWR. She would have had full support for a NO vote. Calls from her constituents were overwhelmingly opposed to the IWR.

On edit: oops, I realized you were talking about the PATRIOT Act, not the IWR. Still, many of its "supporters" hadn't even read it or didn't understand it when they voted for it. Emotional time or not, that's tremendously irresponsible behavior from people elected to represent the best interests of their constituencies.

We must start insisting that elected Democrats
act like Democrats.

to the word "we" in this kind of context. It reminds me of the Borg from Star Trek, as if there is a collective and no individuals, heh.

But to answer as an individual, I think there is room in the party for those that supported the action and those that didn't. Big tent is a good concept.

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

as if there is a collective and no individuals, heh.

Coming from a member in good standing of the Massive Disciplinary Project, the sudden demand for the recognition of freedom of individual action seems a little off.

Support who you will, but a Dem who *still* supports the invasion doesn't need my support.

I would support any of the Dem candidates. However, I would have a hard time voting for Liberman and Gephardt. I'd have to close my eyes.

Liberman simply because he is just too much like Bush. He co-authored the Iraqui War Resolution.

Gephardt because I don't really thinks he cares about Foreign Policy. I went to his website and there is barely nothing on Foreign Policy. Also, although more than 2/3 of the Democrats in the House voted against the War Resolution, he stood on the Rose Garden in the White House in defiance of his party and supported Bush's posistion.

It was opportunistic. It was the mantra of the time that no candidate could win the White House if he/she didn't support the Iraq war. Frankly, he didn't get anywhere with me.

than to turn on their own party.

Get rid of all the Democrats I think are weepy and liberal and all those I deem cockroaches.

Sheesh. Iraq needs to be taken care of PROPERLY, and it's not a matter of who says what now, it matters who knows and understands what will need to be done when they take over.

I for one, am not wishing for things to get so bad in Iraq that the whole place blows up in chaos. For the sake of the Iraqi people I hope some stability does occur soon.

Does some stability mean having our very own tamer version of Saddam in charge of Iraq? Maybe someone like Ahmad Chalabi who will have to be kept alive by US forces forever? If thats what you are holding out for we will have to kill more Iraqis than Saddam ever dreamed of killing. An election puts an Iranian type of Shiite theocracy in charge of running the country. So honestly, what does some stability in Iraq mean to you?

Don

I don't think there is any other choice.

However, if it doesn't, I'll hold my nose and vote for ANYBODY BUT BUSH!

Pulling out now is really not an option, unless we want a civil war followed by the sort of enemy country Bush told us we had to invade in the first place. However, I can't see even the most hawkish of the Democrats trying to go it alone. I think the UN's reasonable demands about their control of their role in postwar Iraq would be met without the Pentagon cabal in the picture.

So NO, not in the primaries. But a very reluctant yes if that's the only alternative we have to 4 more of Bush.

Liberman doesn't care whether it is the UN or not. If he wanted the UN in, he would've put it in when he co-authored the resolution.

...

...let's vote for a candidate who voted for the war then decided not to fund it. That makes perfect sense (in the eyes of political expediency). That's not waffling. :eyes: I prefer someone who saw through the BS of the administration, but realizes that now we are in Iraq we can't just cut and run.

While I will vote for ABB, the IRW vote is hard to forgive, but I will if I must.

Iraq operations are fully funded until May of next year, if I remember correctly. This is Bush trying to ramrod appropriations through without inspections, debate, or oversight.

Do you know that there's an NGO called Christian Aid that's stirred up a brouhaha in England by releasing a report that says that $4 billion of Coalition-administrated funding has disappeared into unknown bank accounts? $4 billion!! That's the sort of shit Dubya doesn't want anyone sniffing out, so he gins up a perpetual funding crisis, $87 billion needed yesterday or the wheels will come off.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/fromthefield/106690354068.htm

http://www.christianaid.org.uk/indepth/310iraqoil/

they'll do it anyway. Sigh.

unless they are head to head against Bush then Yes but definately not in the primaries.

Absolutely not, there are no reasons to still support it except out of moral reasons to the Iraquis.

But as they say anyone but Bush

I was not in the 9/11 hangover to pass judgment on the war and I am sure Senators and Congressman weren't in the 9/11 hangover either.

But all the 911 patriotic crap got stirred up again, Bush was practicly screaming that Iraq was behind 911.


Edit: heh i see now I didnt read the initial post lol.. i thought it was if we should support the ones that supported it THEN.

I think this is a good question too. I want to start hearing about some kind of exit strategy real damn soon from these guys. I think a majority of the American people do too. I don't really want to hear about who was right and who was wrong before the war began. Its meaningless now. I want to know who has a plan to extricate us from this mess. And I would like to start hearing this from all of the candidates sooner than later.

Don

Sorry :)

"Should We support Democratic candidates who still support the Iraqi War?"

No.

I would like to know why they think this was more important than healthcare.

is futile"

Sigh...

Hey, make invading another country a deal-breaker, and suddenly you're one of the Borg.

Sigh right back atcha.

ANYBODY BUT BUSH

somemone who still says that the original invasion was the 'right thing to do" Of course not! Since, IMO, only a seriously sick individual could possibly believe that.

Electing a Democrat to the White House will not stop the carnage in Iraq, UNLESS that Democrat has the balls to withdraw all US troops and personnel immediately and unconditionally. Failure to do so, will turn this Republican neocon war into a Democratic war. Is that what we want?

...and no one seems to want to face this issue. If a dem wins in 04 he/she will inherit Bush's mess and will either have to run with it or drop it like a hot potato. I think we must insist that any credible dem candidate explain their PNAC exit strategy.

for the simple reason that if the Democrats capture the White House in 2004, they will catch hell from the Left for every day that American troops remain in Iraq after Inauguration Day.

"Peace with honor" and "Vietnamization" of Iraq will NOT do. We have been down that road before, and it lead only to more names being carved on the Vietnam Memorial. We must not repeat the same mistake in Iraq!

Except I don't think it would just be the left giving the Democratic president hell. The RW will lead the chorus and will find a way to pin the failure of the war on the Dem president.

The new Democratic president has his work cut out for him and will have to orchestrate a brilliant and effective transition period or he (we) will be in deep trouble.

and I hate to say it but the chances are, we are screwed and I don't mean just Democrats, but the planet. Having balls seems to have become the same thing as being "unelectable" to many. :-(

I'm one of those people who recognised that we were in major trouble before 2000 and we will no doubt be in deepening trouble forever unless the American voters and in particular Democrats show some courage.

UN in, US out
Kucinich's Plan to Bring Our Troops Home

The war in Iraq is over and the occupation of Iraq has turned into a quagmire. The US troops have become the targets of criminals and terrorists who are flowing into Iraq for the chance to shoot Americans. The cost of the occupation keeps rising: The President has already asked for more than $150 billion to pay for it. And there is no end in sight. The UN is now in an impossible situation, where most of the members view the war and occupation of Iraq to be a US folly. Under these circumstances, the UN can’t help. The US is stuck, mostly alone, with a costly, unpopular and unending occupation of Iraq. If we stay the course, it will do damage to American security. Iraq was not and is not a threat to the US, yet the demands of an occupation will overstretch our armed forces. And the extended deployment of reserve forces make us vulnerable at home because the reserve call ups include large numbers of firemen, policemen and other first responders who are needed for the homeland defense mission.

People are asking, is there a way out? I believe there is. I am writing to share with you a plan that will get the UN in Iraq and the US out. This plan could bring the troops home by New Year’s day, it will cost much less than the President’s, and it will increase American security.

The President must go to the UN and announce the US intention to hand over all administrative and security responsibilities to the UN. The UN would help Iraqis move quickly toward self-determination.
The UN, not the US, will administer Iraq’s oil revenues. It will be necessary to renounce clearly and unequivocally any interest in controlling Iraq’s oil resources.
The UN will administer contracts to repair Iraq. War profiteering will no longer be practiced by the White House. It will be necessary to suspend all reconstruction contracts and close the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority, because of the suspicion caused by the sweetheart deals that the Administration has given to large American corporations. In its place, the UN would help Iraqis administer funds to employ Iraqis to repair the damage from the invasion.
Bring US troops home as UN peacekeeping troops rotate into Iraq: The goal is to bring all US troops home by the new year, but in any case, to bring them home as quickly and as safely as possible with a planned and orderly withdrawal.

As soon as practicable after this address, the UN Security Council would ratify a new resolution on Iraq that would deploy a multinational force under UN mandate to keep the peace in Iraq while the interim Iraqi government receives UN support and a new Iraqi government is elected. It is my hope that within one month, the first UN troops and support personnel will arrive in Iraq, and the first US troops will be sent home. UN peacekeeper troops and Iraqis who are commissioned as police and military will replace the US (at a rate of two UN peacekeepers for every three US troops). In place of the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority, the UN will open an office to provide administrative support to the Iraqi Governing Council, which will direct the repair to infrastructure damaged by US invasion in the immediate term. In two months, the UN will begin to conduct a census of the Iraqi population to lay groundwork for national elections. At the same time, new temporary rules for the election will be promulgated, guaranteeing universal suffrage on a one-person –one vote basis. During the transition period, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the American and UN force commanders for a turnover period will settle the question of who commands the troops. The MOU will specify who is to be in charge in case an incident happens during that period. These might be local agreements such as have been used before or they might be for the entire area of operations. By the end of month three, all US troops will have returned home.

In month four, a major milestone will be reached when Iraqi sovereignty is established for the first time. A nationwide election will take place to elect representatives to a Constitutional Convention. The Constitutional Convention will have two duties: 1) elect a temporary Prime Minister who appoints a cabinet to take over responsibility from the Iraqi Governing council, and 2) draft a national constitution. Accountability of this Prime Minister is achieved by virtue of the fact that he can be recalled by a majority of the Convention.

In one year, there will be nationwide elections pursuant to the new Constitution, which will install an elected government in Iraq.

The US owes a moral debt to the people of Iraq for the damage caused by the US invasion. The US will also owe a contribution to the UN to help Iraq make the transition to self-government. American taxpayers deserve that their contributions be handled in an accountable, transparent manner. However, Americans are not required to build a state-of-the-art infrastructure as the Administration is planning. The Administration is ordering for top shelf technology from US corporations for Iraq and paid for by US taxpayers. Sweetheart deals have been awarded with billions of dollars to top corporations and political contributors. That is precisely what corrupts the Administration’s reconstruction efforts today. Instead, Iraqis should be employed to repair Iraq, and US taxpayers should pay only for the damage caused by the US invasion, including compensation for its victims. US taxpayers should not be asked, however, to furnish for Iraq what we do not have here.

The war and occupation in Iraq have been costly in other ways too. One price the Administration has forced the US to pay is America’s moral authority in the world. The Administration launched an unprovoked attack on Iraq, and the premises of the war are proving to be false. This has cost our credibility and done serious harm to America’s standing in the world. After the attacks of 9-11, the world felt sympathy for us. But this war and the occupation have squandered that sympathy, replacing it with dangerous anti-American sentiment in most of the world’s countries. And, perhaps most costly of all, the US occupying force serves as a recruiting cause for terrorists and people who wish us ill.

All we can do now is to make a dramatic reversal of course: we must acknowledge that the continued US military presence in Iraq is counterproductive and destabilizing. We have a choice in front of us: either we change course, withdraw our troops and request that the UN move in, or we sink deeper into this occupation, with more US casualties, ever higher financial costs, and diminished security for Americans.

We need a real change. My plan will bring the troops home by the new year, transfer authority to the UN with provisions made toward a rapid transition to Iraqi sovereignty, and it will save billions over the Administration’s occupation. It will enable the US to think creatively about how the US will deal with threats that come not from established countries with conventional armies (our armed forces are more than adequate to that task), but rather threats that come from networks of terrorist and criminals, who use unconventional means to injure Americans. We must also apprehend the criminals who masterminded the 9-11 attacks on this country, a goal that is hindered by the occupation of Iraq. Lastly, it will also enable the US to redirect scarce resources to rebuild America.

Sincerely,
Dennis J. Kucinich
Member of Congress


Kucinich is the only Dem candidate that has stood firm since before the war (February 2002) not just before it was imminent. He is also the only one not supporting a stay the course at all costs proposition nor is he proposing to cut and run. Based on what everyone in this thread has said thus far, Kucinich is the only choice.

If for nothing else it indicated a lack of courage and leadership.

No.

Everyone else should act according to conscience.

hell no

Democrats must start acting like Democrats. If they like the war, then switch parties now.

who supports an occupation designed to reward the UK/US war!

Only Kucinich and Sharpton are getting this one right! If you work for a campaign and are on a scouting mission, just tell whomever to imitate Kucinich and Sharpton!