PDA

View Full Version : Dems In Disarray



Warham
12-07-2005, 02:04 PM
BY JAMES TARANTO
Tuesday, December 6, 2005 3:26 p.m. EST

Dems in Disarray
The Chicago Tribune brings a useful reality check on the politics of Iraq:

Sen. Barack Obama said Monday that the Democratic Party was unlikely to reconcile its differences and reach a unified strategy for Iraq, conceding: "The politics and the policy of this may not match perfectly."

As Democrats work to win control of Congress in the 2006 elections, Obama (D-Ill.) said a cacophony of views over the Iraq war threatens to divide the party once again.

"It is arguable that the best politics going into '06 would be a clear succinct message: 'Let's bring our troops home,' " Obama said. "It's certainly easier to communicate and I think would probably have some pretty strong resonance with the American people right now, but whether that's the best policy right now, I don't feel comfortable saying it is."

On the other hand, San Antonio's WOAI-AM reports that party chairman Howard Dean is embracing defeat:

Saying the "idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong," Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean predicted today that the Democratic Party will come together on a proposal to withdraw National Guard and Reserve troops immediately, and all US forces within two years. . . .

"I've seen this before in my life. This is the same situation we had in Vietnam. Everybody then kept saying, 'just another year, just stay the course, we'll have a victory.' Well, we didn't have a victory, and this policy cost the lives of an additional 25,000 troops because we were too stubborn to recognize what was happening."

An e-mail from John Kerry's* "campaign" that popped into our e-mailbox this morning struck a decidedly different tone. It declared, "Each move they make we'll meet head on. We'll act quickly, decisively, and we won't yield an inch." Needless to say, Kerry referred not to America's enemies but to Republican fund-raising efforts.

It's important to keep in mind what is behind all the talk about Vietnam. The outcome of that war was a defeat for America, but it was a triumph for those who wanted America to withdraw. It was bad for the Democratic Party, which has lost elections far more often than not since splintering over the war in 1968, but it was a triumph for those Democrats who advocate a form of isolationism based on the premise that America is morally tainted. Those folks are still around, as New York's Daily News reports:

Anti-war activists furious with Sen. Hillary Clinton are vowing to bird-dog her everywhere she goes, starting with a swanky Manhattan fund-raiser tonight.

Clinton's letter last week clarifying her position on Iraq--which included rejecting a timetable for withdrawal--fanned the anger of some war opponents, who decided to launch a campaign against New York's junior senator.

"We're calling it Bird-Dog Hillary," said Medea Benjamin of the peace group Codepink.

The left-wing isolationists reached their apogee with the nomination of George McGovern in 1972, the same year the Democratic Party, at the presidential level, reached its nadir. Since then, they have won elections only when foreign policy receded as an issue: after the withdrawal from Vietnam (1976) and after the Cold War was won (1992 and 1996). Democrats, in short, thrive on the illusion of peace. That's why they're increasingly rooting openly for defeat in Iraq: They hope that a relatively quiet few years will follow, which would be good for their short-term political fortunes.

Presumably the reality of peace would suit Democratic interests as well as the illusion. That is, as with the Cold War, a clear victory would help the Democrats politically by neutralizing the issue of their foreign-policy fecklessness. Too bad the party's small but noisy anti-American base makes it untenable for the party's pols to take an unambiguously pro-American position.

* The haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat, who by the way alleges that U.S. troops are "terrorizing kids and children" in Iraq. But he supports the troops!

http://www.opinionjournal.com/

Nickdfresh
12-07-2005, 03:09 PM
You missed this great op-ed piece.:)

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007644

LoungeMachine
12-07-2005, 03:16 PM
So it's open season on slanted op-ed pieces now!!!


Oh boy, Oh boy, Oh boy.

Warham
12-07-2005, 04:49 PM
How's the party faithful supposed to decide who to follow when every member of the elected Democrats are going in a different direction on the war?

Nickdfresh
12-07-2005, 06:22 PM
Originally posted by Warham
How's the party faithful supposed to decide who to follow when every member of the elected Democrats are going in a different direction on the war?

Sort of like the Republican party.:)

Warham
12-07-2005, 06:27 PM
OK, so who's the Republican version of Howard Dean?

Nickdfresh
12-07-2005, 06:47 PM
Originally posted by Warham
OK, so who's the Republican version of Howard Dean?

I don't know what you mean by that...

But one Republican (who invented the term Freedom Fries BTW) has been advocating that the US "declare victory, and bring the troops home" for some time now.

And even those for this quagmire, er, War, how can they be happy how it's being run?



How Walter Jones Grew a Conscience

By Jan Frel, AlterNet. Posted June 22, 2005.

After some soul-searching about the war in Iraq, the North Carolina congressman made one of the most staggering political about-faces seen in Washington since George W. Bush took office.
Walter Jones Conscience
Rep. Walter Jones with Marines stationed at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina.

In the heady atmosphere of war lust and post-9/11 New Patriotism that subsumed Washington in March 2003, GOP House Representative of North Carolina Walter B. Jones made a stand. Jones told the press that he hoped his effort to rename French fries, "Freedom Fries," in the House cafeterias would prompt visitors "to think of the thousands of military members overseas who are there for you, for me, and for the freedom of millions of people they never know personally."

It was the high-water mark in the Campaign to Hate France, a key splinter project of the Let's Get Iraq effort.

Two years later, Rep. Jones told North Carolina's big daily, the Raleigh News & Observer, that he wished the Freedom Fries incident "had never happened" and that Congress "must be told the truth" about the Iraq war.

Soon after, Jones stood with two of the most liberal Democratic representatives in Congress -- Dennis Kucinich and Neil Abercrombie -- and the Republican isolationist and libertarian Ron Paul to introduce legislation calling for the president to announce a withdrawal timetable by the end of this year. In other words, Walter Jones made one of the most staggering about-faces seen in Washington since George W. Bush took office.

What happened?

Mainstream newspapers and cable television's take on Jones' declaration so far has not gone much deeper than a kind of mild bewilderment. The surface-level political analysis on Jones that has made the progressive rounds goes something like this: shrewd, canny Republican realizes that calling for Iraq pullout is means of political survival in upcoming tumultuous 2006 elections, gets headstart against primary challengers. That analysis applies to the new posture Republican Senator Chuck Hagel struck, when he said a few days ago that the United States was "losing" in Iraq. Hagel intends to run for president and wants to distinguish himself from the pack.

But if re-election was the motivating principle behind Walter Jones' change of heart, you'd expect to find that his district -- North Carolina's 3rd -- was a swing district that narrowly went for Bush in November; that it was at the vanguard of dropping public opinion on Iraq; and that the county chairs, party activists and local residents had all been pressuring him to make a stand and call for withdrawal of the troops.

Nothing of the sort.

Jones' district is one of the most militarized in the country, if not the most. Sixty thousand veterans live in the 17 counties that make up his constituency, which on average voted at a mid-60s percentage level for Bush last November. There are three Marine bases that house thousands of active servicemen and their families; about 43,000 military and 5,000 civilians at Camp Lejeune in Onslow County; Cherry Point, the world's largest Marine Corp air station and Craven County's largest employer, which pumps $500 million annually into the economy; and Seymour Johnson Air Force Base which employs around 4,000 military and 500 civilians in Wayne County.

You can't be pro-military spending or patriotic enough for a congressional district like this. So no surprise then, that Walter Jones has a spot on the House Armed Services Committee or that he waded neck-deep in the propaganda effort to go to war in Iraq. Beside his Freedom Fries stunt, Jones has brilliantly shepherded his three garrisons out of Rumsfeld's massive base closure plans, presented to Congress this year.

Until recently, Jones was well-liked and respected by local Republican officials. The Republican county chairs I spoke with in his district told me they were caught flat-footed by his transformation. Steve Tyson, chair of Craven County (home of Cherry Point), told me he thought "it was more surprise than anything else for residents," whose reaction was this made him look "weak" on the military.

Bob Pruett, chair of neighboring Carteret County, and a 25-year veteran of the Marine Corps, said he was overwhelmed by the number of people who called him after Jones made his remarks. He said the general reaction wasn't that Jones called for the withdrawal of troops -- "which all of us of course want as soon as possible" -- but that it "sent the wrong message to the enemy" and worried veterans there might be a return to the Vietnam situation. "Some veterans were incensed," he said.

Marty Orgonis, the Republican chair of Onslow County -- which hosts Camp Lejeune -- said that no one in the local party's 57-person committee wanted a vendetta with Jones, but they felt on the whole that his judgment was "misguided and premature." One of Onslow County's commissioners last week went on local television and fumed, calling for Jones to resign. He later withdrew the request. Orgonis told me that if Jones continued down the track he'd taken, things "could get out of hand."

Johnny Rouse, the Democratic chair of Pitt County -- which gave Kerry the closest margin over Bush in last November, 53-47 -- said the local reaction of Republican officials and area residents was more about supporting the president in a time of war. Rouse, himself a veteran, said while about half the residents of his county were against the war, the issue "goes beyond politics in a way. Everyone here believes that the duty of a congressman is to support the president in a time of war, and that's what the troops need to hear."

This was the consensus of every political official I spoke to, and the substance of remarks from troops quoted in local media reports in the aftermath of Jones' statements.

So if it wasn't local political pressure, what made Jones change his mind about the war?

For most of us, Iraq is at worst an unpleasant reality TV show. Even for most politicians in Washington, it's a problem they've so far been able to throw public funds at with the hope it will go away or improve, muttering out the sides of their mouths in public about the "lack of progress," and in private, despairing like the rest of us.

But it's become too much for Jones. Iraq has subsumed Jones' political and private life on the Hill and in his district, a consequence of the ubiquitous military presence there. Perhaps more than any other politician in Washington, Jones has witnessed exactly what the Iraq policy he helped shape has done to the lives of the people he's supposed to represent.

A congressional staffer who works closely with Walter Jones' office right now told me that Jones changed his mind about Iraq after some "difficult soul searching," and that the "growing gap" between the truth about Iraq that plays out in his district and the Republican party line he's supposed to toe in committee hearings has taken a "terrible toll on him." When I asked Jones' press secretary what led to the shift, she told me it was a combination of "the top-secret briefings, researching the issues, and talking to families."

In every single direction, Iraq is staring at Walter Jones in the face, and it's turned him into an emotional wreck. Jones hangs photographs of the fallen soldiers from his district at the entrance to his congressional offices, and their eyes meet his every time he enters the offices. More than 100 Marines from Camp Lejeune have lost their lives; Jones has written letters to the 1,300 family members who survive them. Mix in the closed-door sessions he attends with generals and intelligence experts telling him every single thing is going wrong, the despair of wives and children on the bases who have seen tours of duty extended, and the disquiet, misery and injuries of the returned combat veterans. Jones still talks about the funeral he attended two years ago of Sgt. Michael Bitz, who never saw the birth of his twin sons.

The Raleigh News and Observer article that broke the story in May about Jones' switch on Iraq also reveals that he "is quicker to tears than to laughter" and that he's been trying to build a memorial to the dogs that have helped U.S. servicemen in war:

He flips through a book dog handlers gave him, leafing past stylized drawings of animals leading their masters through danger. He starts to read, then catches himself. "I better not read this now," he says. "I never get through it without crying."

It isn't just the book about war dogs, it's anything at all. This isn't about politics; it's personal, and utterly emotional. Walter Jones can't lie about Iraq anymore. He's worked in the beating heart of this rotten American war effort for almost three years, and he's complicit in all of it. It's enough to make a congressman cry.

Jan Frel has worked as an editor for AlterNet and TomPaine.com, and occasionally posts entries on MyDD.


http://www.alternet.org/story/22281/

Wayne L.
12-08-2005, 07:54 AM
Democrats are in disarray because they have a lunatic party chairman named Howard Dean who probably blew their chances in 06 & 08 with his MISGUIDED political rhetoric but they never learn from past elections.

ashstralia
12-08-2005, 07:58 AM
yaaaay!!! wayne's back!!

i missed you, wayne.
how's that foot thing going?

Wayne L.
12-08-2005, 08:00 AM
How is IT going for you ashtralia?

ashstralia
12-08-2005, 08:01 AM
ooops! sorry. back on topic in




3













2














1.....\M/

ashstralia
12-08-2005, 08:05 AM
Originally posted by Wayne L.
How is IT going for you ashtralia?

all's good, mate.
we're heading into summer!!!!:hula:

FORD
12-08-2005, 01:31 PM
Originally posted by Warham
OK, so who's the Republican version of Howard Dean?

In the current Republican party?

NOBODY

But if you're looking for a Republican against the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, how about Poppy Bush? ;)

Warham
12-08-2005, 03:35 PM
Bring me a quote where he says we shouldn't have went in, and maybe I'll agree with you.

LoungeMachine
12-08-2005, 08:14 PM
Originally posted by Warham
Bring me a quote where he says we shouldn't have went in, and maybe I'll agree with you.

Are you kidding???


HE PUT IT IN HIS FUCKING BOOK

paraphrasing = " being an occupying force in Baghdad would be a major mistake, and leave us in a quagmire for years"

I'm sure FORD / Turk will post the exact quote.

blueturk
12-08-2005, 10:46 PM
Don't mind if I do. I feel certain that Warham will ignore this post...

Excerpt from "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam" by George Bush [Sr.] and Brent Scowcroft, Time (2 March 1998):

While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.

LoungeMachine
12-08-2005, 11:33 PM
Originally posted by blueturk



We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.







Pretty God Damn Prophetic, wouldn't you say...........:rolleyes:

FORD
12-09-2005, 01:21 AM
Poppy is one evil bastard, but unlike his son, he's no idiot.

Warham
12-09-2005, 07:12 AM
Looks like he was talking about the first Gulf War. What does that have to do with today's situation? It's 2005, not 1991. Alot can change in ten years.

Nickdfresh
12-09-2005, 08:06 AM
Originally posted by Warham
Looks like he was talking about the first Gulf War. What does that have to do with today's situation? It's 2005, not 1991. Alot can change in ten years.

No. Now we a world of brainless Neo Cons and their irrational SHEEP living in a land completely devoid of reality....

knuckleboner
12-09-2005, 09:27 AM
Originally posted by Warham
Looks like he was talking about the first Gulf War. What does that have to do with today's situation? It's 2005, not 1991. Alot can change in ten years.

which means we shouldn't mind anything bill clinton said about saddam and WMD in 1998, right? ;)

FORD
12-09-2005, 10:52 AM
Originally posted by knuckleboner
which means we shouldn't mind anything bill clinton said about saddam and WMD in 1998, right? ;)

Good point. And something else that Warham overlooked was that Poppy's book was also published in 1998. And he said nothing to indicate he had changed his mind in the 6 years since he had left office.

Which puts Warham's favorite President on the same page as Bush Sr.

http://photos1.blogger.com/img/163/2384/1024/capt.mepw10206281456.topix_clinton_bush_mepw102.jp g
Of course he seems to be there a lot lately.........

Warham
12-09-2005, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
No. Now we a world of brainless Neo Cons and their irrational SHEEP living in a land completely devoid of reality....

And then there's the alternate world where Kerry, Dean and Murtha live in. It's the place liberals dream of.

Nickdfresh
12-09-2005, 04:31 PM
Bill CLINTON will be attending the Buffalo SABRES' game Wednesday in Buffalo, with REPUBLICAN owner Tom GOLISANO.

I wonder if he'll be at the U2 concert tonight, I know I won't be.:(

http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20051209/1070968.asp

LoungeMachine
12-09-2005, 04:35 PM
How does the DATE or YEAR matter when it comes to the FOLLY of being an OCCUPYING force in IRAQ ??????

It would have been stupid in 1991

It was stupid in 2003

Jesus tittie fucking christ, warpig........IT WAS A MISTAKE TO DO WHAT WE DID, HOW WE DID, WHEN WE DID IT, WHY WE DID IT.

Guitar Shark
12-09-2005, 04:42 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I wonder if he'll be at the U2 concert tonight, I know I won't be.:(


Why not? They put on a hell of a show.

Guitar Shark
12-09-2005, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by LoungeMachine
How does the DATE or YEAR matter when it comes to the FOLLY of being an OCCUPYING force in IRAQ ??????

It would have been stupid in 1991

It was stupid in 2003


Very well said.

Warham
12-09-2005, 04:52 PM
I don't feel it's stupid.

I guess we'll just agree to disagree.