Tom Hayden Urges Howard Dean To "End Collaboration With Bush Government"

[Itsthetruth]

The Nation Magazine
April 28, 2005
Editor's Cut by
by Katrina vanden Heuvel

Open Letter to Howard Dean

"Now that we're there, we're there and we can't get out," Democratic National Committee Chair Howard Dean told an audience of nearly 1,000 at the Minneapolis Convention Center on April 20th. "The president has created an enormous security problem for the US where none existed before. But I hope the president is incredibly successful with his policy now that he's there."

I agree with Dean--a political figure I admire-- that the war in Iraq has put the US in greater danger. But the question facing us today is who will speak for the millions of Americans who believe that continued occupation increases the danger? Who will speak for the millions who believe that the US has gotten bogged down in Iraq? Who will speak out against the (majority of the) Democratic Party's silent consent to the Bush Administration's Iraq war policies? Who will speak out about the wrenching human and economic costs of occupation? Who will speak out in support of a clear and honorable exit strategy? Who will make a clear, unequivocal declaration that the US will not maintain permanent military bases in Iraq?

For those who believe that America needs to change course, Tom Hayden's open letter to Howard Dean appealing to him not to take the antiwar majority of the Democratic Party for granted is an eloquent and important document. Read it, share it.

http://www.thenation.com/edcut/index.mhtml?bid=7&pid=2356


April 26, 2005

Dear Chairman Dean,

Thank you kindly for your call and your expressed willingness to discuss the Democratic Party's position on the Iraq War. There is growing frustration at the grass roots towards the party leadership's silent collaboration with the Bush Administration's policies. Personally, I cannot remember a time in thirty years when I have been more despairing over the party's moral default. Let me take this opportunity to explain.

The party's alliance with the progressive left, so carefully repaired after the catastrophic split of 2000, is again beginning to unravel over Iraq. Thousands of anti-war activists and millions of antiwar voters gave their time, their loyalty and their dollars to the 2004 presidential campaign despite profound misgivings about our candidate's position on the Iraq War. Of the millions spent by "527" committees on voter awareness, none was spent on criticizing the Bush policies in Iraq.

The Democratic candidate, and other party leaders, even endorsed the US invasion of Falluja, giving President Bush a green-light to destroy that city with immunity from domestic criticism. As a result, a majority of Falluja's residents were displaced violently, guaranteeing a Sunni abstention from the subsequent Iraqi elections.

Then in January, a brave minority of Democrats, led by Senator Ted Kennedy and Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey, advocated a timetable for withdrawal. Their concerns were quickly deflated by the party leadership.

Next came the Iraqi elections, in which a majority of Iraqis supported a platform calling for a timetable for US withdrawal. ("US Intelligence Says Iraqis Will Press for Withdrawal." New York Times, Jan. 18, 2005) A January 2005 poll showed that 82 percent of Sunnis and 69 percent of Shiites favored a "near-term US withdrawal" (New York Times, Feb. 21, 2005. The Democrats failed to capitalize on this peace sentiment, as if it were a threat rather than an opportunity.

Three weeks ago, tens of thousands of Shiites demonstrated in Baghdad calling again for US withdrawal, chanting "No America, No Saddam." (New York Times, April 10, 2005) The Democrats ignored this massive nonviolent protest.

There is evidence that the Bush Administration, along with its clients in Baghdad, is ignoring or suppressing forces within the Iraqi coalition calling for peace talks with the resistance. The Democrats are silent towards this meddling.

On April 12, Donald Rumsfeld declared "we don't really have an exit strategy. We have a victory strategy." (New York Times, April 13, 2005). There was no Democratic response.

The new Iraqi regime, lacking any inclusion of Sunnis or critics of our occupation, is being pressured to invite the US troops to stay. The new government has been floundering for three months, hopelessly unable to provide security or services to the Iraqi people. Its security forces are under constant siege by the resistance. The Democrats do nothing.

A unanimous Senate, including all Democrats, supports another $80-plus billion for this interminable conflict. This is a retreat even from the 2004 presidential campaign when candidate John Kerry at least voted against the supplemental funding to attract Democratic voters.

The Democratic Party's present collaboration with the Bush Iraq policies is not only immoral but threatens to tear apart the alliance built with antiwar Democrats, Greens, and independents in 2004. The vast majority of these voters returned to the Democratic Party after their disastrous decision to vote for Ralph Nader four years before. But the Democrats' pro-war policies threaten to deeply splinter the party once again.

We all supported and celebrated your election as Party chairman, hoping that winds of change would blow away what former president Bill Clinton once called "brain-dead thinking."

But it seems to me that your recent comments about Iraq require further reflection and reconsideration if we are to keep the loyalty of progressives and promote a meaningful alternative that resonates with mainstream American voters.

Let me tell you where I stand personally. I do not believe the Iraq War is worth another drop of blood, another dollar of taxpayer subsidy, another stain on our honor. Our occupation is the chief cause of the nationalist resistance in that country. We should end the war and foreign economic occupation. Period.

To those Democrats in search of a muscular, manly foreign policy, let me say that real men (and real patriots) do not sacrifice young lives for their own mistakes, throw good money after bad, or protect the political reputations of high officials at the expense of their nation's moral reputation.

At the same time, I understand that there are limitations on what a divided political party can propose, and that there are internal pressures from hawkish Democratic interest groups. I am not suggesting that the Democratic Party has to support language favoring "out now" or "isolation." What I am arguing is that the Democratic Party must end its silent consent to the Bush Administration's Iraq War policies and stand for a negotiated end to the occupation and our military presence. The Party should seize on Secretary Rumsfeld's recent comments to argue that the Republicans have never had an "exit strategy" because they have always wanted a permanent military outpost in the Middle East, whatever the cost.

The Bush Administration deliberately conceals the numbers of American dead in the Iraq War. Rather than the 1,500 publicly acknowledged, the real number is closer to 2,000 when private contractors are counted.

The Iraq War costs one billion dollars in taxpayer funds every week. In "red" states like Missouri, the taxpayer subsidy for the Iraq War could support nearly 200,000 four-year university scholarships.

Military morale is declining swiftly. Prevented by antiwar opinion from re-instituting the military draft, the Bush Administration is forced to intensify the pressures on our existing forces. Already forty percent of those troops are drawn from the National Guard or reservists. Recruitment has fallen below its quotas, and 37 military recruiters are among the 6,000 soldiers who are AWOL.

President Bush's "coalition of the willing" is steadily weakening, down from 34 countries to approximately twenty. Our international reputation has become that of a torturer, a bully.

The anti-war movement must lead and hopefully, the Democratic Party will follow. But there is much the Democratic Party can do:

First, stop marginalizing those Democrats who are calling for immediate withdrawal or a one-year timetable. Encourage pubic hearings in Congressional districts on the ongoing costs of war and occupation, with comparisons to alternative spending priorities for the one billion dollars per week.

Second, call for peace talks between Iraqi political parties and the Iraqi resistance. Hold hearings demand to know why the Bush Administration is trying to squash any such Iraqi peace initiatives. (Bush Administration officials are hoping the new Iraqi government will "settle for a schedule based on the military situation, not the calendar." New York Times, Jan. 19, 2005).

Third, as an incentive to those Iraqi peace initiatives, the US needs to offer to end the occupation and withdraw our troops by a near-term date. The Bush policy, supported by the Democrats, is to train and arm Iraqis to fight Iraqis--a civil war with fewer American casualties.

Fourth, to further promote peace initiatives, the US needs to specify that a multi-billion dollar peace dividend will be earmarked for Iraqi-led reconstruction, not for the Halliburtons and Bechtels, without discrimination as to Iraqi political allegiances.

Fifth, Democrats could unite behind Senator Rockefellers's persistent calls for public hearings on responsibility for the torture scandals. If Republicans refuse to permit such hearings, Democrats should hold them independently. "No taxes for torture" is a demand most Democrats should be able to support. The Democratic Senate unity against the Bolton appointment is a bright but isolated example of how public hearings can keep media and public attention focused on the fabricated reasons for going to war.

Instead of such initiatives, the national Democratic Party is either committed to the Iraq War, or to avoiding blame for losing the Iraq War, at the expense of the social programs for which it historically stands. The Democrats' stance on the war cannot be separated from the Democrats' stance on health care, social security, inner city investment, and education, all programs gradually being defunded by a war which costs $100 billion yearly, billed to future generations.

This is a familiar pattern for those of us who suffered through the Vietnam War. Today it is conventional wisdom among Washington insiders, including even the liberal media, that the Democratic Party must distance itself from its antiwar past, and must embrace a position of military toughness.

The truth is quite the opposite. What the Democratic Party should distance itself from is its immoral and self-destructive pro-war positions in the 1960s which led to unprecedented polarization, the collapse of funds for the War on Poverty, a schism in the presidential primaries, and the destruction of the Lyndon Johnson presidency. Thirty years after our forced withdrawal from Vietnam, the US government has stable diplomatic and commercial relations with its former Communist enemy. The same future is possible in Iraq.

I appeal to you, Mr. Chairman, not to take the anti-war majority of this Party for granted. May I suggest that you initiate a serious reappraisal of how the Democratic Party has become trapped in the illusions which you yourself questioned so cogently when you ran for president. I believe that an immediate commencement of dialogue is necessary to fix the credibility gap in the Party's position on the Iraq War. Surely if the war was a mistake based on a fabrication, there is a better approach than simply becoming accessories to the perpetrators of the deceit. And surely there is a greater role for Party leadership than permanently squandering the immense good will, grass roots funding, and new volunteer energy that was generated by your visionary campaign.

TOM HAYDEN

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

The letter is a public letter and not copyrighted

[NVMojo]

1. Right on, Tom!!! You da man!!!

[Terran1212]

3. I don't know who Tom Hayden is, but...

I know he kicks some serious ass, now.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. One of the founders of SDS. Once married to Jane Fonda.

Now, he is a rep in the California Assembly (I think). Great guy.

[Itsthetruth]

5. Here's Hayden's Biography On His Website

Biography

"Tom Hayden changed America", the national correspondent of The Atlantic, Nicholas Lemann, has written. He created the blueprint for the Great Society programs, according to presidential assistant Richard Goodwin. He was "the conscience of the Senate", said Sacramento Bee columnist Dan Walters. According to the Los Angeles Times, when he retired in September 1999 from the state legislature, he received the longest farewell of any legislator in memory.

Tom Hayden was born December 11, 1939. He has lived in Los Angeles since 1971. He is married to the actress Barbara Williams, with whom he has a son Liam. Tom has two grown children from an earlier marriage to Jane Fonda.

Tom was elected to the state Assembly in 1982 and the state Senate in 1992, seven consecutive victories on the west side of Los Angeles and the San Fernando Valley. He also ran "protest" campaigns for Governor and Mayor of Los Angeles during the 90s.

http://www.tomhayden.com/index.html

Tom's legislative record includes groundbreaking legislation on behalf of women, African-Americans and Latinos, Holocaust survivors and this generation's immigrants working in sweatshops. While in Sacramento, he was regarded by the Sierra Club as the strongest legislative protector of endangered species in the nation. He was recognized as the legislature's foremost watchdog against special interest waste and abuse of power in cases ranging from the LA subway controversy to the UC Irvine fertility scandal. He led the battles in Sacramento to stop university tuition increases, reform the K-12 system, and clean up fiscal mismanagement at LAUSD.

Tom was honored as "legislator of the year" by the American Lung Association for his battles against the tobacco industry, by the California League Conservation Voters for his environmental leadership, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference for his civil rights achievements, the UC and Cal State student associations for his committment to affordable higher education, the Jewish National Fund for his committment to Israel, and the Irish-American "Top 100" by Irish America magazine.

Tom was a leader of the student, civil rights and anti-war movements in the Sixties, and the environmental and anti-nuclear movements in the Seventies. He is currently a professor at Occidental College and social science adviser for Animo public schools: Venice, Inglewood, Lennox, South Central and Boyle Heights, California.

He is the author of nine books, including The Lost Gospel of the Earth, The Whole World Was Watching and Irish Hunger. The New York Times cited his 1988 book, Reunion, as one of the best 200 of the year.

[Terran1212]

8. Tom

sounds like my kind of guy -- not sexually, but you know, politically!

[Rainscents]

2. Great letter Tom wrote!

I am in agreement with him 100%. Well said!

[demnan]

6. Good to hear from Tom Hayden

I bet he was inspired by his former-wife's appearance on Bill Maher last week.

[wtmusic]

7. GOT damn he's good

:thumbsup:

[Dhalgren]

9. I've admired and appreciated his work ever since the

Chicago riots in '68 and the ensuing "Chicago 7" trials. I concur with Tom 1000%!

[Itsthetruth]

11. Last Week The Senate Voted 99-0 For War Funding

I think that last weeks Senate vote in favor the 80 billion war appropriation may have encouraged Hayden to write this open letter to the head of the Democratic Party. The Senate vote in favor of war funding was 99 to 0! One Senator abstained .... or perhaps he/she fell asleep during the vote. I don't know.

Of course, the Bush government tried to make it easier for Senators to approve the war appropriation by including some "pork barrel" projects and a little tsunami relief money.

[FreedomAngel82]

15. I hope more do speak out

Maybe it's time to put pressure on them to stop funding this war so they can get the hell out of there. But even if they don't have funding would and could Bush still stay there?

[Dhalgren]

16. I absolutely believe that if the Democratic Party does not

come to grips with it's support for and facilitation of this criminal war, it will no linger be able to rely upon the the huge base that grew up in the run up to '04. I know at least one voter, and contributor, and letter writer who won't go down that road again.

[Toots]

64. Two people

:-)

[G_j]

71. you are right

you, me and many, many others.
They want our votes and money but beyond that WE DO NOT EXIST.
And to the media we don't exist either.

Great feeling eh?

[leftchick]

84. Make that three...

:(

[madfloridian]

10. Damn that pro-war Howard Dean!

What in the world was he thinking when he wanted to go into Iraq!

(sarcasm off)

[NoPasaran]

12. Yeah, if that pro-war Howard Dean would just give the word

The House and Senate would cut off funding for that Iraq War and we'd be out of there tomorrow!

[Itsthetruth]

14. Perhaps Howard Dean Should Be Critical Of Bush's War

If would be nice if Howard Dean would not wish George Bush success in his war policy and actually opposed Bush's policies. Was that just election "rhetoric" we heard from Howard Dean last year, mere talk designed to corral the anti-war activists into supporting Kerry's pro-war campaign?

If Dean and the Democratic Party would end its collaboration with the Bush government on Iraq perhaps some Senators might actually vote against the war appropriations!

Why even during the Vietnam War, several Democratic Senators voted against Democratic President LBJ's request for war funds!

[madfloridian]

23. Do you think analytically at all? Hyperbole used by Dean.

Have you heard of the art of hyperbole or exaggerating for effect?

I seriously doubt he wishes Bush "enormous success" in his goals, but by saying this.....he makes it clear that Bush's failure there is disaster for that part of the world..our fault...and more danger for us.

[K-W]

54. Pro-occupation is pro-war.

Or did you think the war was over?

[Zhade]

59. Thank you. Stunning how easily that truth is missed - or ignored.

I do think that some, less informed people may believe that our occupation isn't the problem, or indeed illegal or immoral.

That's a problem.

[LittleClarkie]

13. How dare he stand by the position he's had all along

Helllllooooo lefties. Thanks for joining us on the same page. Sorry you were surprised. Perhaps you should have been paying attention. Dean was labelled by the media as the left candidate and the anti-war candidate. In reality, his stance wasn't that far off of most of the front runners.

He's just being consistent. Why are they acting like this is new?

[Itsthetruth]

17. Hayden's Letter Shows Zeese's Article Was On The Money

People were very critical of this article by Kevin Zeese. But, Hayden's open letter demonstrates that the article by Zeese was right on the money.

CounterPunch
April 22, 2005

"We're There and We Can't Get Out"
Howard Dean, Leader of the Other Pro-War Party, Backs the Occupation
By KEVIN ZEESE

It didn't take long, the former anti-war presidential candidate has now become the pro-occupation leader of the Democratic Party. Just when a majority of the public is saying the Iraq War is not worth it, Howard Dean the new leader of the Democratic Party is saying: “Now that we're there, we're there and we can't get out.”

Like the good partisan he is, Dean blames Bush for a war most in his party voted for and an occupation that most in his party recently voted to continue to fund. Of the President Dean said: “The president has created an enormous security problem for the United States where none existed before. But I hope the president is incredibly successful with his policy now that he's there.”
Chairman Dean does not seem to understand that the illegal occupation of Iraq is part of the problem, not part of the solution. In fact, the many fears he expresses regarding pulling out of Iraq are made more likely by the US occupation of Iraq.

According to an article in the Minnesota Star Tribune, Dean claims that an American pullout from Iraq could endanger the United States in any of three ways: by leaving a Shiite theocracy worse than that in Iran, which he called a more serious threat than Iraq ever was; by creating an independent Kurdistan in the north, with destabilizing effects on neighboring Kurdish regions of Turkey, Iran and Syria, and by making the Sunni Triangle a magnet for Islamic terrorists similar to the former Taliban-ruled Afghanistan.

A responsible withdrawal plan will minimize the risks that Dean fears by stopping mainstream Iraqis from supporting the resistance to U.S. occupation. If Iraqis know they will be getting back their country and that there will be a dual withdrawal of U.S. troops and corporate interests in the near future the resistance will lose support. Our presence empowers anti-US views in Iraq – our exit will make the U.S. invasion truly into a liberation of Iraq from Saddam. Our continued presence makes clear this was not a war of liberation but a war of occupation and dominance of the region.

Kevin Zeese is director of DemocracyRising.US.

http://www.counterpunch.org/zeese04222005.html

[madfloridian]

18. Kevin Zeese does not support the Demcratic party....

He says it is a failed party and time a 3rd one.

If Kevin and others want a new 3rd party, let them feel free to form one without attacking the chair of the Democrats.

Would you like me to post all these Counterpunch, Dissident Voice etc. articles all at once like I did in GD Politics? Might save you some time.

Damn that pro-war Howard Dean.

[LittleClarkie]

20. We agree Mad

They SHOULD form a third party so that they can work for positive change instead of always sitting in judgement of someone else. How does that help.

They need to crawl down from their ivory towers and DO something. It's to easy to just sit and criticize.

[madfloridian]

24. Correct. To organize like this against a new party chair is wrong.

It is a danger to the party, as there are enough of the DC Democrats who are not that happy with him yet.

Organizing against the major party closest to progressive views in counter-productive.

I think something like this happened here in early 02 before I came. I think the mods had to step in. Using the forums for other groups' needs.

[LittleClarkie]

27. There's this ivory tower purity test in use that is quite annoying

And I'm getting rather sick of it. If you're not for us, then go find something you CAN be for, rather than against.

I believe From was wrong to say we should move away from MM and that side of the progressive movement. But who wants to join forces with a faction that is always finding fault with you. How about some CONSTRUCTIVE criticism at least.

[madfloridian]

30. Welcome to the moderate middle.

When I came here in 02, I was pretty moderate, pretty much centered, not radical. I still am, though fringe leftist was bandied about.

The DLC is no more dangerous to our country than its equal on the left. I like the motives of the left the best, and agree with most of their views. I disagree with their methods.

[LittleClarkie]

43. The term I use is "lefty freeper"

Freeperism is never a good thing, no matter which side is operating in that mode.

I lean left, but I will brake for a good idea, even if it's coming from someone on the right. That's being a moderate to me. Common sense and being open to the occasional non-partisan action if the plan is a good one.

I guess I'm just looking for some sanity. If that makes me a Moderate, so be it. I think you're right. It's more a mode of travel than an actual ideological stance to me. Hell, living in Freeperville, I'm considered a flaming liberal anyway, so what I am called changes with the company I keep.

[Dhalgren]

25. It's also easy being a good Democrat.

[madfloridian]

26. I never claimed to be a good Democrat.

I am a Democrat who resents other groups using it for their own means.

I wish we were out of Iraq, but I understand in a minor way the lack of infrastructure and the fear and terror it brings. After 3 hurricane eyes, we felt lost and vulnerable. There were no services to turn for a while, it was a helpless feeling.

We have literally destroyed what was once the cradle of civilization. There is a lack of power, drinking water, food. Even a lack of shelter, especially in areas like Fallujah where we bombed the hell out of them.

Now to be fair, Howard Dean was against that in the first place. Yet he is the one the so-called progressive groups are using to gather strength for their 3rd party.

I may not be a "good" democrat, but I have a conscience. We destroyed a country, and for a man to say be careful about pulling out is not wrong. It is responsible.

[LittleClarkie]

29. I woudn't know yet. I'm new

Not a New Democrat. Just a new Democrat.

It's not easy being unified and working toward positive ends. Certainly not in a place like this, anyway.

So much negative energy. Bad karma, dude.

[Dhalgren]

33. My response was to post #20, but that's ok.

I would not advocate withdrawing our troops and leaving the victimized Iraqis to the wolves - I don't think anyone has. I would advocate the immediate cessation of hostilities; the immediate formation of an all-parties working group for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq; the immediate disengagement and withdrawal of all non-Iraqi companies and corporations with the simultaneous contracting of Iraqi or non-US served companies as replacements; the immediate development of a non-US controlled, US funded reparations account to be disbursed to Iraq on an as needed basis until full reparations are paid; and a fully international commission (without US participation) to administer and assist the Iraqis in rebuilding their own country, with their own people. Withdrawing the troops who are currently killing Iraqis is not irresponsible, it is the only humane, responsible thing to do. Any excuse to continue the killing of Iraqis and the looting of their country, is just that; an excuse.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

35. So? Are you against the war or merely for the party?

Whatever it's leaders advocate? Is Dean so saintly that he is above criticism?

But, I agree with you, "Damn that pro-war Howard Dean" and all of the other collaborators in the slaughter called "Spreading Democracy", "Stabilizing Iraq", or "Hunting down the Terrorists".

[LittleClarkie]

44. It would be nice if the criticism was at least fair

Is that so much to ask.

[madfloridian]

46. You are excusing poor behavior by blaming me.

It does not matter what I think, though I hate the mess we are in there. What matters is to hold the right people responsible. You are not doing that. You are deflecting criticism to me....wrong way to do it.

[Itsthetruth]

47. Are We Suppose To Scream?: "Right On Dean, Way To Go!"

So do you expect everyone to cheer Howard Dean's support of Bush's Iraq occupation or at least remain silent. If Dean is unwilling to act like the leader of an "opposition party" please permit progressives inside and outside the Democratic Party to speak out against George Bush and the Republican Party. Would that be all right with you? I sure hope you don't expect progressives to applaud Senator Reid's hard work in getting Bush's bankruptcy bill passed.

I have to wonder how much some Democratic Party "Bush enablers" have to go before you will sanction any criticism of their actions. I mean, progressives do need the DLC and your approval to do that in order to avoid getting attacked .... right?

[LittleClarkie]

48. How about if people would have merely noticed it before now

This is no surprise. We knew where he stood when he ran for prez and when he ran for Chairman.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, I'm more concerned with his efforts toward beefing up the grassroots, esp down south. He is not the policy maker, he is the organizer, and I'd rather he wasn't distracted from that task.

[Zhade]

61. I must have missed Dean supporting an illegal occupation all along.

You and madfloridian seem to differ on that view. I certainly don't remember a time when Dean was all for the illegal invasion and occupation of another, nonthreatening, country.

I remember some unconvincing attempts to compare Kerry's views on the war with Dean's, but nothing like what you've stated here. If Dean really was supportive of illegally occupying a country, well, I'm sorry I gave him any money (and for the record, I was a DK guy, not a Deaniac).

[Boredtodeath]

74. Kevin Zeese is a GREEN

Ran for office in Maryland as a Green and is very active in the Green party.

Just stating the facts.

Kevin Zeese served as Press Secretary for the Ralph Nader Presidential Campaign in 2004.
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Nov2004/Frank1129.htm

http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Kevin_Zeese

[LittleClarkie]

19. No, both Hayden and Zeese are not correct

in that they're making it sound like Howard Dean has changed positions and become something he's not. He didn't. He's always had this position. He was incorrectly labelled the anti-war candidate from the first.

Who did you support in the primaries, btw. Unless it was Kusinich, I guarantee Counterpunch has probably attacked YOUR candidate as well. They are the Newsmax of the Left. I am not pleased with them. At all.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

34. Eeek! A Vast Left Wing Conspiracy!!

Dean, Kerry, et al still support the occupation so you attack the messenger that points that out?

[LittleClarkie]

40. Still support, not suddenly support

Dean hasn't turned. He's always been this way. It's their show of surprise I find most galling.

Nah, no conspiracy. The puddy tats on our side aren't that organized. Calling them a conspiracy would be giving them too much credit.

[Dhalgren]

22. I guess it comes down to this:

What does the Democratic Party stand for? I don't care what Dean said last year, he is the chairman of the DNC now. Is the Party for or against the continued illegal occupation of Iraq? It is a simple question. Is the party for or against the continued funding of this bloody, dirty, illegal war? Before anyone gives another dime, or attends another rally or casts another vote, we deserve straight forward answers.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

37. Don't expect an answer from the apologists.

The occupation is good...because that's what our intrepid leaders say. You just don't understand that killing people is OK if it serves the party's best interests and makes the politicians look good.

I mean, what do you expect, honesty? You ain't nuthin' but a disruptive leftist.

[Eloriel]

39. Hayden's letter shows nothing of the sort --

or if it does, you're going to have to make your point a WHOLE lot more explicitly.

[shance]

21. It's a good letter. Tom is right.

<< To those Democrats in search of a muscular, manly foreign policy, let me say that real men (and real patriots) do not sacrifice young lives for their own mistakes, throw good money after bad, or protect the political reputations of high officials at the expense of their nation's moral reputation. >>

I believe Tom Hayden is right on this issue.

Unless we are there to repair what we have destroyed, bombed, murdered and pillaged, which it seems abundantly clear at this very moment we are not doing anything to improve the situation, there's no reason for us to be in Iraq. We now know that the Project for a New American Century is looking to privatize Iraq, eviscerate its culture and take the oil which is not ours and has never been ours.

Like Germany, this invasion, no matter how much any of us hate it, is still being done in our name.

There were many Germans who despised and deplored Hitler, even tried to have him overthrown, but those Germans were blamed for Hitlers' actions and paid for it anyway.

Germany is still paying for it. Ask some Germans if you ever have a chance. Ask them about the heartbreak and shame so many have had to endure for over sixty years for something so many of them were forced into and once their country hit the point of no return, they had no choice. But the good people were blamed and scapegoated unfairly anyway.

We will be too, if we don't stop what is going forth.

Right is right.

Wrong is wrong.

This is wrong. Our tax dollars should not be going to Halliburton, Bechtel and into Dick Cheneys' and Donald Rumsfelds hands on the backs of innocent young kids whose futures are being flatlined because of such ammoral men, who individuals Joe Biden are promoting and supporting, and probably benefitting from as well.

Governor Dean is in a difficult position and one I don't envy. The compliment of this whole deal is individuals like Tom Hayden are writing to Dean not only because he's been outspoken about the war, but because Dean has proven to be a leader who listens, Dean has the conviction others lack, and he cares tremendously about what is happening in Iraq and here at home.

There should be townhalls and much more listening from Washington to those families and individuals who are seeing their family members be shipped off to a war that is being engaged in solely to make Dick Cheney and others wealthier and more powerful.

Do individuals like Dick Cheney need any more money and/or any more power?

[madfloridian]

28. They should hold accountable the ones who are responsible.

Sending a petition to Howard Dean as chair is one thing. But have you seen the letters I posted in Politics? They are ripping they guy to shreds.

Tom Hayden writes a good letter. He just sent it to the wrong person. I had a post locked because names were mentioned, so I won't do that. But he needs to send petitions to those who let this war happen.

[LittleClarkie]

31. Apparently circular firing squads are easier to form

than opposition parties.

To me, it's just spinning our wheels. They'd rather be right and pure than helpful.

[Dhalgren]

38. I have been a "card carrying Democrat for 33 years.

And I will criticize the Party and anyone in it if I think the criticism is valid. The "circular firing squad" is a cute cliche, but if the party becomes it own worst enemy, then "lock and load"! If I am forced to leave this party because it has and continues to support the illegal war in Iraq, then I will be sad, but only for my personal loss. I will continue to fight for progressive ideals and for this nation to conduct it business in an honorable, just manner. It is fine to be flippant on a discussion board and belittle the ideals and legitimate criticisms of long-time party members, but remember that "out there" in the world, people and ideas are real; and blood, death and pain are real; and if we are in the business of causing any of that blood, death and pain - then, my friend, we are in the wrong business.

[LittleClarkie]

42. Oh yeah?! OH YEAH?! Well I've been a card-carrying member since...

ahem... February, and if I feel like defending my newfound affiliation when I think the left has jumped the shark in their criticism, then I will do that as well. Both sides should have it pointed out to them when they're in the wrong. Neither should be immune to the truth.

I'm not adverse to criticism. But I am a member of the party now because I want to fight for positive change and the Dem Party is where I want to do it. And I don't appreciate someone here making that sound like such an easy thing. It's not easy to remain positive. But I figure that's what the party needs right now. Criticism when they're wrong, praise when they're right, and defending when being attacked unfairly. This attack on Dean is unfair. So here I am.

The Dem Party Back Watch... It's hard werk.

[shance]

41. Agreed 100%. The letter and the focus needs to be pointed at

those who signed the checks, not at our new DNC chair. Can you imagine all the scrutiny and focus on Terry McCauliffe and his first few months at the DNC? No, because he's not Howard Dean for one.

That why I mentioned that Hayden would go to Dean because Dean is looked upon as the true leader of our party, which in my opinion, he is.

I believe Governor Dean, along with Senator Boxer, are the most trusted leaders Democrats and Progressives have, and Dean is also trusted by many I know who are Republicans. To me that is why the divisionaries (those who are trying to divide our country)are targetting him to try and create a wedge. They won't do it. Even if I disagree with Governor Dean on this issue, and this is a big issue for me, I will always stand by him as will others like you, despite any differences on certain issues.

Thats why I admire your steadfast loyalty and support Floridian. I will take a look at what these other letters say (and feel my blood begin to boil). Governor Dean has been consistant and steadfast on this issue as you and I know, not to mention this is NOT a black and white issue, certainly with regards to Washington politics. And his compass has always been right around 99% accuracy in my opinion.

We have to trust Governor Dean's looking at this issue from every angle. I believe Hayden hit at the eye of the storm with the issues and did it I believe in a very heartfelt honest way. I am worried sick about these kids of ours being cannon fodder over there Floridian, as I know you are and of course the Iraqis and their futures and families too. I don't even have children and it makes me sick to think about it. I have spoken with people who have been over to Iraq before and after the war, and nothing has affected me more than to hear those accounts. The way the Iraqis are so discriminated against and almost characatured and one dimensionally shown as screaming fanatics on t.v. enrages me and I'm sure breaks the spirits and hearts of many American Iraqis to be so wrongfully demonized and miscast. That is why Americans have become so one dimensional and narrow minded because of the deliberate illusions our media wants to create in Americans minds.

Apologies! I went off a bit.

I say this quite a bit, but thanks again for all you contribute Floridian. It keeps us informed and makes a big difference.

[mitchtv]

32. Time to get out-real soon

Tom Hayden should challenge Dianne in the primary

[not systems]

50. yes! n/t

[sandnsea]

36. Woolsey has no exit plan either

Here's Woolsey's plan. The one Kerry has been pushing since before we ever even went into Iraq. I will never understand how people on the left think. The words withdrawal don't mean withdrawal, any more than mission accomplished meant there was no war. This is a plan for success in Iraq. Is success really that horrifying to the left? I don't get it.

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that the President should--

(1) develop and implement a plan to begin the immediate withdrawal of United States Armed Forces from Iraq;

(2) develop and implement a plan for reconstructing Iraq's civil and economic infrastructure;

(3) convene an emergency meeting of Iraq's leadership, Iraq's neighbors, the United Nations, and the Arab League to create an international peacekeeping force in Iraq and to replace United States Armed Forces in Iraq with Iraqi police and Iraqi National Guard forces to ensure Iraq's security; and

(4) take all steps necessary to provide the Iraqi people with the opportunity to completely control their internal affairs.

[matcom]

45. Tom Hayden - MY American Hero

has been for most of my life

[glitch]

49. Words like "collaboration" and "appeasement" really need to be used

as much as possible. Hayden is still rocking after all these years.

[Disturbed]

55. Hayden is correct.

The Dem Party decided to run J. Kerry as a war hero. They decided to be pro-Iraq invasion, albeit done is a different manner than the Bush Junta. They decided to ignore the anti-Iraq invasion faction of the Dem Party. J. Kerry said that if he knew then what he knew now that he would have still voted for the Iraq Resolution which would lead to an invasion. Some say that Kerry thought Bush would be prudent and wait until the inspectors had completed their job, gotten the usual Allies on board and the UN behind it all. That was either real naive of Kerry or he knew damn well that Bush would invade. Didn't Kerry say this?

Now the majority of Dems support the Occupation for as long as it takes for Iraqis to provide their own security. Problem with that is they probably never will be able to do that. Most Iraqis want the Occupation to end. The Bush Junta doesn't give shit what most Iraqis want. Apparently either do most Dems.

It is so obvious to me that the Bush Junta never had and never will have an exit plan. Iraq will be an Amerikan outpost of 14 Military bases and have one of the largest embassies on this planet for as long as the planet exists. Most Dems support this.

[MontageOfFreedom]

51. Howard Dean is smarter than anyone knows....

He's not going to accept defeat, ever.

[Straight Shooter]

52. I will await Chairman Dean's thoughtful and reasoned response to Hayden.

Perhaps Dean will bring him on board somehow.

[Itsthetruth]

56. That's A Pipedream

I don't think Howard Dean will ever bring Tom Hayden on board to support the occupation of Iraq. Never. And don't think that many anti-war Democrats will ever support a pro-war hawk like John Kerry for President again.

[Straight Shooter]

100. I'm not referring to the occupation of Iraq.

I'm referring to being on board in the sense of cooperation to find a solution to this dilemma in which we find ourselves. Obviously, bush and his gang aren't interested, except for their own political and financial interests.

We didn't start this river of vomit which is drowning Iraqis. Do we walk away from them? What a quandary. I want our troops home, and I don't want to abandon those people there who need help.

Maybe we should ask the Sphinx.

[candy331]

53. What a very well written open letter, I think many points in it could be

well taken by Democrats and also DEAN. Sometimes the times and circumstances require a person to change their previous view and make adjustments. Now might be a very good time for Dean to give a second look to his views and see if an adjustment might be made. I think that whomever stands up and inflicts casualty wounds and ultimately defeats Goliath* and his minions will gain the power to lead. Who has the courage to do?

[Disturbed]

58. Are most Amerikans Schizoid?

Now most Amerikans feel that the Iraq invasion was a nmistake and that the Bush Junta intentionaly mislead them into supporting this mistake. At the same time most still support the U.S. staying to "finish" the job. What job is that? Does the fact that most Iraqis want the U.S. and it's contingent out of their country factor in at all? Obviously...not!

The majority of the Dem Party on the wrong side of this issue, behind the 8 Ball.

[Wizard777]

57. I agree!

There can be no collaboration with a regime we should be spending ever effort to Impeach and bring to an end. The charges are there to pursues. The charges against Bush are valid and should be pursued. The first collaboration that must end is the Democrats using Bush's lawyers, especially the ones at the DOJ, to determine criminal liability on Bush's atrocities. We also must refuse to try to seize the power Bush has amassed for himself for our own uses. I think that is the real problem with real opposition to Bush. Everyone is putting their designs on the power he has amassed. Of course they console themselves by thinking they will put it to better uses. Our politician can rewrite the laws of America. But they will never rewrite the law of human nature that says. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Reagan committed treason with his paramilitary war on drugs and the Democrats jumped on board. But they aren't paying the price in that war either. The 600 peopled killed in LA, 300 killed in Baltimore, and untolled others in other cities are paying the ultimate price for this treason. If the Democrats jump on board the Bush Atrocity Train. I'm leaving the party for another. In my eyes the old party will be one again. It won't be democrat and republican parties. It will the Democrat Republican Party reborn. The party split and has been keeping us choosing between the lesser of two evils ever since. I'm now looking for a party more clearly defined and separate from the republicans. If I can't have that. Then I am looking for a party more clearly defined and separate from the Democrat Republican party. Maybe then I will finally be afforded the opportunity to vote for something that is not evil at all?

[David Zephyr]

60. Kick!

:kick:

[Zhade]

62. I can't BELIEVE I'm the one to point this out...

...but the Nation got at least one thing wrong, I think:

Who will make a clear, unequivocal declaration that the US will not maintain permanent military bases in Iraq?

Pretty sure Kerry did mention this in the debates. Everyone knows I'm no Kerry fan, but you gotta stay honest, and I think the Nation dropped the ball on that.

I think the Hayden letter is right on. Even if it doesn't fully apply to Dean, it's STILL good advice!

[eridani]

67. Yes, Kerry did indeed say that

which means there is no goddam reason why that should not become the official position of the party. Lots of wiggle room for people who disagree about how long the process should take, what 'stability' means, etc.

[Kevin Spidel]

63. Tom Hayden Speaking on this issue at a PDA event here...

Host a House Meeting with Tom Hayden A DVD featuring Tom Hayden's key-note address, "Stop The Funding of Iraq War," to the Western Regional Forum in Phoenix is now available. Contact us for a copy of the DVD.

This DVD is a perfect tool for local groups to use in organizational meetings and house meeting fundraisers. Arrange for a viewing in your community now, email us, and we will send you a DVD. Although there is no specific charge for the DVD, a donation to PDA would help defray the costs of production. Please consider supporting PDA by becoming a Founding Sustainer. You can now have your contribution processed automatically each month.

PDA thanks the incredible production team Finis Productions and the leadership of the Arizona Democratic Progressive Caucus who made production of this DVD possible. A DVD featuring all keynote addresses from the Western Regional Forum in Phoenix (including Medea Benjamin, Rev. Lennox Yearwood and Amy Goodman) will soon be available for $20 on this website.

Watch Tom Hayden DVD speech online with free RealPlayer: http://www.pdamerica.org/video/2005_AZ_forum/hayden-hi-res.ram]

[Lorien]

65. With the majority of American's knowing that they

were lied to about WMDs and wanting out of Iraq, I don't see any political risk for the Dems in taking an antiwar position. Far from it; I believe being anti-war would bring back alienated progressives and win many independent and moderate repug votes.

[Itsthetruth]

66. Why Some Democratic Party Leaders Won't Oppose The War On Iraq

Answer:

Because they fricken support it!!!!!!

Many progressives have wondered why the Democratic Party and most Democratic Party leaders have not taken a clear anti-war position against the occupation of Iraq.

The answer to that question is obvious. It's not a mystery at all! That question has been answered very clearly many timea by Howard Dean, John Kerry, Senator Reid, Senator Clinton and other Democratic Party leaders.

Just listen to what they say, watch how they vote and pay attention!

They haven't taken a position against the Bush governments occupation of Iraq because they support the occupation! They want a successful occupation of Iraq. They are against withdrawl from Iraq and letting the Iraqi's control and determine their own destiny.

What do people refuse to believe these Democratic Party leaders. I guess they just have to beat some people over the head with a rock before they "get it"!

[Larkspur]

70. Howard Dean never supported the 2002 Iraqi war and I dare you to prove it

with links to articles please.

Dean was never anti-war because he said that the President takes an oath of office to defend this nation and that defense may require military action, but Dean was against the 2002 Iraqi war because Bush never proved his case for war.

Dean's support of our "occupation" of Iraq is not the same as Bush's and the Neo-cons support of it. The Neo-cons had a 3 fold plan for Iraq -- 1) secure the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world, 2) turn Iraq into a showcase of Privatization, and 3) turn Iraq into a giant base in the Middle East to launch strkes against any Middle Eastern nation who will not bend our way.

Dean's view is shaped by the failed state Afghanistan turned into after the Soviets withdrew. Iraq is much closer to Europe and of course our current oil supplier, Saudi Arabia, than Afghanistan is. For Iraq to become a failed state like Afghanistan did, would be a lethal threat to Europe, our allies in the Middle East, and the US. If Iraq became a failed state, we or someone would definitely be planning an invasion of Iraq again and the losses could prove much greater.

[bklyncowgirl]

68. This was a thoughtful and well reasoned letter.

It was not an attack on Howard Dean although both Dean's detractors and defenders on this board have taken it as such.

Hayden is right and there needs to be a dialog and debate on this issue within the progressive movement. I don't know whether Dean as party chairman can do that much. If he did begin to push for troop withdrawals, mainstream Democrats and the corporate media would be calling for his head. The loss of Dean as party chairman would mean a big setback for those who believe that the bast chance for getting this country back to some sort of sanity is to reform the Democratic Party.

There does need to be discussion and since apparently Dean did talk to Hayden, that may well be what this letter is intended to spark.

[Larkspur]

69. Dean has always held the position that we can't abandon Iraq the

way Reagan and Bush I abandonded Afghanistan post-Soviet withdrawal.

But if we can't sustain the troops levels without a Draft, a popular uprising here over the Draft will make a withdrawal from Iraq inevitable.

What Dean was hoping for was that 2004 would have issued a regime change here in the US. A change that would have signalled to our allies that we were done with unilateral wars. Dean was hoping to get European, Arab, and Muslim troop support to relieve American soldiers. Bush had an offer from our Arab allies for them to do the day-to-day policing and thus leave our troops only for major assaults, but Bush rejected the offer. I don't think Dean or Kerry or any Dem Prez nominee would have rejected that Arab offer.

Dean does want to bring our troops home, but he doesn't want it to happen at the expense of creating a larger security problem later on, like what happened in Afghanistan.

[SHRED]

72. Fine letter except

Third paragraph from the end he states;
... including even the liberal media,....

:wtf:

[DemonFighterLives]

73. Hayden hit the nail on the head

I like Dean very much, but it appears that he has knuckled under. His voice has been quieted. I had such high hopes for him and I hope "they" haven't gotten to him.
The war and subsequent occupation is not in our interests. It has cost too many lives and too much wealth. I think I will write my own letter to the Doc.
Just seeing the names of our Dem leaders is enough to make me cringe. What has Kerry, Clinton, Reid or any of them done to stop the current regime from their murderous ways. The sad answer is nothing.
I want the ole Screaming Dean back. Let him out of the box.
:nuke:

[RetroLounge]

75. But I thought Dean wasn't setting DEM Policy?

Isn't he just a fund raiser?

You Dean bashers can't have it both ways.

Must realy piss off some people to see Dean get more attention and have (seemingly) more power than the failed candidate.

boo freaking hoo.

RL

[NYCGirl]

76. You're correct, Retro. But acknowledging that would put a definite

crimp in the fiery rhetoric of the "lefter than thou" faction.

Please don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant.

[tsuki]

77. According to Hayden and his faithful band of "Remember When-ers,"

Chairman Dean is.

[Itsthetruth]

78. Dean Not A Leader Of The Democratic Party?

"Isn't he just a fund raiser?"

So Howard Dean isn't the head of the Democratic Party national leadership body, the National Committee? He just passes the hat for money. I wonder how well Howard is doing in collecting those big corporate funds.

His fund raising duties hasn't prevented Howard Dean from speaking out in defense of the Bush governments occupation of Iraq. But, Howard Dean's silence regarding Bush's appointments and legislation like the class action and bankruptcy bills has been duly noted. Perhaps thats because the Democratic Party has not opposed those Bush appointments and legislation. Too many Democratic Party leaders have been functioning as "George Bush enablers" as they vote for one appointment and legislative bill after another.

It seems that poor Howard is only permitted to speak on those few issues that the Democratic Party has taken a clear stand on. They are:

1. Support to the war against Iraq. The Senate voted 99-0 for more war funding.

2. Opposition to Privatizing Social Security

3. Opposition to changes in filibuster rules. Senator Reid is still trying to work out a "compromise" with Republicans on this matter.

[NYCGirl]

79. Did McAuliffe set policy? The DNC Chair's job is to organize.

What about that don't you understand?

[RetroLounge]

80. Again, don't let facts get in the way of a good rant

by the bashers...

RL

[Cleita]

81. Love Tom Hayden.

He was my Congressman for many years when I lived in Santa Monica. I love Howard too.

[NashVegas]

82. Open Letter (a quick one) to Tom Hayden

Dear Mister Hayden -

I appreciate your anti-war stance. I didn't want our country to invade Iraq, either. It was an obviously trumped-up premise.

However, we are there. And while an immediate pull-out would probably make anti-war people ecstatic at having gotten their way, it would also be a disaster for our country, overall, morale-wise.

It would also leave what's left of Iraq in civil war.

Whether you and I like it or not, our country is now obligated to help Iraq get its shit together. I hold no illusions that what you and I may consider that to be and what the Bush administration considers that to be are two different things. Nonetheless, it is important for that country to have stable leadership.

What separates the anti-war left in 2005 and the anti-war left from 1968 is its current, near-complete unwillingness to stand up and risk losing a fight. Y'all didn't care if you got busted in 1968; today people are more worried about their credit card bills and their car payments and mortgage and jobs. Let alone another repeat of Kent State.

When the political leaders of the Democratic party are willing to fight for their beliefs at the risk of losing, like Chairman Dean did last year, like, and it pains me to say this, the BFEE on occasion, you just might find yourselves becoming leaders, once again.

[Itsthetruth]

83. So You Think Dean & Company Should Defy Wishes Of Iraqi People?

" And while an immediate pull-out would probably make anti-war people ecstatic at having gotten their way, it would also be a disaster for our country, overall, morale-wise."

Ending the occupation would be a disaster?

It would hurt our "morale"?

Pulling out would be allowing anti-war, anti-Bush activists to have "their way"?

Those sound more like arguments one would hear from those Republicans who support Bush governments policies in Iraq rather than from someone claiming to be some sort of progressive. However, since you do acknowledge that you support the colonial occupation of Iraq against the wishes of the Iraqi people that should not surprise anyone.

If the Bush government can be forced to withdraw from Iraq like the Nixon government was forced to withdraw from Vietnam that would not hurt my morale in the slightest. Why should it? We want our troops brought home now. You along with Dean and company want to keep them in Iraq. So I have to wonder how many more GI's you think should be sacrificed for a war based upon lies and fabrications.

And I would like you to explain why you believe that the Bush government should have the right to dictate the fate and destiny of the Iraqi people. Now you might have some little tactical disagreements with the Bush government about how it conducts the military occupation, however, you clearly do believe the United States government has some political and moral right to run things in Iraq. And you do believe that the Bush government and its Democratic Party supporters should ignore the demand of most Iraqi's for self-determination and the withdrawl of U.S. troops. Isn't that right?

The Iraq's have an unconditional right to independence and self-determination. Those who wish to deny them that right are guilty of imperial arrogance!

Perhaps you think Iraq is the "white man's burden". Sorry .... I don't subscribe to any kind of imperial colonialism, not even the liberal kind advocated by Tony Blair, Senator Clinton, Senator Reid or even good ole Howard Dean.

[janx]

85. Go throw some rocks

at a bank or something.

[Itsthetruth]

86. Throw Rocks At Bush And His Democratic Party Enablers?

I don't think that's the most effective way to oppose Bush's occupation of Iraq.

Any other suggestions?

[NashVegas]

89. Opposing Bush's Occupation at This Point Does Nothing Constructive

All you're doing is standing there yelling while people die.

Maybe you'd like to put your money where your mouth is, and volunteer to go over and help out the Iraqi people via some NGO? There is nothing better you can do for our country right now than show average Iraqis that Americans aren't all assholes.

Iraq *is* our burdon right now. We fucking invaded their country and tore it to pieces. But we have also got to think about our country, too, like it or not. There are certain things a society needs in order to be cohesive and remain stable. A positive self-image is one of them. It is better for the United States, internally and globally, if we can find a way to come out of this smelling of roses. How to do that, I've no idea, especially with this administration.

[Itsthetruth]

90. Supporting Bush's Occupation Would Be Constructive?

"Opposing Bush's Occupation at This Point Does Nothing Constructive"

Well, will you be organizing a pro-war march in support of Bush's occupation or some other constructive action in support of the war effort? Perhaps you should consider enlisting in the Army so that you can contribute your body to the war effort. Now that would be real "constructive".

If you plan on participating in some pro-war demonstrations I have to wonder which of the following statements you would print on your pro-war banner or sign?

"Support Bush's War On Iraq Terrorists"

"Keep The GI's In Iraq To Fight For Freedom"

"Don't Cut And Run From Iraq"

"Support Our President"

"We Wish You Success President Bush!"

"Anti-War Protests Hurt Our Nation"

Which is your favorite?

[Guaranteed]

98. See, you're just using Bush's name to make what Dean is saying sound bad.

You put "Bush's" next to "occupation" to leave a bad taste in people's mouths. That's just dishonest.

Dean's right. We can't leave yet.

[Guaranteed]

94. First off, how do you know what their will is?

Secondly, the hope is that us being there is actually going to help them have their will heeded- i.e., the people blowing things up don't take control of the government.

The Iraqis get to elect their government.

That's the idea, at least from the Democratic side, at this point.

But, hey, if you want to pull out and let the Iraqis be terrorized by a ridiculously fundamentalist terrorist government, you have every right to your opinion.

[realFedUp]

87. I agree with him on a negotiated end to the occupation.

snip
What I am arguing is that the Democratic Party must end its silent consent to the Bush Administration's Iraq War policies and stand for a negotiated end to the occupation and our military presence.

and as Joe Biden said, the Chairman of the DNC does not make policy.

[madfloridian]

88. Calling Dean a Bush collaborator is tasteless stuff.

I am surprised to see that.

[Itsthetruth]

91. It's True

"Calling Dean a Bush collaborator is tasteless stuff."

I know. It's hard to swallow but true. Of course, we can only go by what Howard Dean says in defense of Bush's occupation of Iraq.

Dean wishes Bush success in his war against Iraq. I wish Bush failure.

[madfloridian]

92. What you are doing is damaging. It is not the truth.

You don't seem to realize what you are saying.

[Guaranteed]

93. Dean's only collaborating if his goals are the same as Bush's.

What is Dean's goal?

To give the Iraqi people democratic representation in their own government.

What is Bush's goal?

To rape the Iraqis for their oil.



Calling Dean a Bush collaborator is totally dishonest.

[NYCGirl]

95. BullGoose, shame on you for saying something so logical.

Don't let logic get in the way of a good flamethrowing rant.

[Guaranteed]

96. We're past the point of no return.

They had democratic elections.

If we want democracy to stick, if we want this war to be anything other than a total disaster, we need to stick around and see it out.

Otherwise, it's all for nothing. If we pull out we're handing the country over to the terrorists.

[Itsthetruth]

97. Most Iraqi's And Americans Opposed To Occupation

Miami Herald
April 30, 2005

Withdraw U.S. troops
BY MEDEA BENJAMIN

A Zogby poll taken a week before the Jan. 30 Iraqi election showed just how unpopular U.S. forces are: 69 percent of Shiites and 82 percent of Sunnis want U.S. forces to withdraw ``either immediately or after an elected government is in place.''

Here in the United States, there is a similar disconnect between the political leadership and the general public on the question of whether U.S. troops should stay in Iraq. Politicians -- both Republican and Democrat -- say that the troops shouldn't come home until the country has been stabilized.

The Senate recently voted unanimously to allocate $82 billion for the war, and even former anti-war Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean told an ACLU dinner in Minnesota on April 20 that, ''Now that we're there (in Iraq), we're there and we can't get out.'' Surprisingly, while policy-makers are afraid to have a real discussion about leaving Iraq, a majority of Americans have come to the conclusion that it's time for the troops to come home. A Washington Post-ABC News poll conducted April 21-24 found that 58 percent of Americans say that the United States has gotten bogged down in Iraq, 60 percent don't think that Iraq will have a stable, democratic government a year from now and 54 percent say the war with Iraq was not worth fighting.

The majority of Americans and Iraqis want to end the occupation. We now have to make our elected leaders -- both in the United States and in Iraq -- reflect our will. Our mission will truly be accomplished when our troops come home and Iraqis are given the chance to rebuild their beleaguered nation.

Medea Benjamin is founding director of the human-rights group Global Exchange.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/11528636.htm

[Guaranteed]

99. That was before the election.

That was how *I* felt before the election.

Now, we're past the point of no return. They had an election. We have to support it.