the Dems are "F**CKING NOWHERE" on Iraq

[welshTerrier2]

most of the 2008 possible candidates have issued their little edicts about what we should do in Iraq ... the problem is, they issued their edicts a long time ago ... they were DOA then and they're DOA now ...

what has happened in the interim is that bush has continued doing whatever the hell he wanted to do ... some would argue that the Dems have no power ... they're wrong, of course ... the Dems could have plenty of power if they were willing to try to rally the American people to end the war NOW !! but they don't ... and seemingly, they won't ...

some complain that we're not given access to the media ... but look back over the last 6 months and ask yourself what Dem stood out when speaking on Iraq ... what Dem got tons of media coverage? what Dem stirred up the whole country and got us to truly focus on the issue? it was Murtha ...

is Murtha's plan the best? don't know ... were there other strategies that might have been better for the country, better for the Iraqis, better for world peace and better for the Democratic Party? perhaps ...

the point, however, is that taking a sharp and clear position in direct opposition to bush is the only way to change the status quo ... all the other proposals were DOA ... Murtha gave us a voice; none of the others was able to do so ...

and now, as the two-dead-Americans-a-day death toll continues to rise and Iraq moves closer and closer to full-scale civil war, Democrats have done virtually F**KING NOTHING ... a little criticism of bush here; a little "we probably shoulda done something else" there ... that's not LEADERSHIP ... real leadership requires a daily commitment to stop the war ... real leadership requires real opposition ... and real leadership requires educating the American people about why we can never succeed in Iraq and rallying them to demand an end to the war ... there are a few Democrats trying to do just that; very few ...

the US needs to get out of Iraq NOW ... not in 6 months ... not in a year ... not in, as Dean has suggested, TWO YEARS ... that's not what Democrats want ... that's not what the American people want ... and it is REALLY BAD POLITICS ... the bad news is that there are no answers in Iraq; each day we remain, more will die ...

some have assumed that we can train Iraqi forces to "shoulder more of the responsibility" ... the benchmarks Kerry and others have called for was always based primarily on the transition of power to the Iraqis ... well, wake the fuck up!!! it is NOT HAPPENING !!! we cannot continue to tapdance around the realities in Iraq ... and we should not support candidates who continue to vote for more funds to allow bush to continue this madness ... we are about to enter the fourth year of this insanity ... that's longer than we spent in WWII ...

STOP FUNDING THE DAMNED WAR or we will stop funding YOU !!! it's time to support only those candidates who vote to cut-off funding for the war ...

source: http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/24/iraq.security/index.html

Pentagon: Iraqi troops downgraded

No Iraqi battalion capable of fighting without U.S. support

The only Iraqi battalion capable of fighting without U.S. support has been downgraded to a level requiring them to fight with American troops backing them up, the Pentagon said Friday.

The battalion, made up of 700 to 800 Iraqi Army soldiers, has repeatedly been offered by the U.S. as an example of the growing independence of the Iraqi military.

The competence of the Iraqi military has been cited as a key factor in when U.S. troops will be able to return home.

The battalion, according to the Pentagon, was downgraded from "level one" to "level two" after a recent quarterly assessment of its capabilities.

Though officials would not cite a specific reason for downgrading the unit, its readiness level has dropped in the wake of a new commander and numerous changes in the combat and support units, officials said.

[Coastie for Truth]

1. Politically right.

But Americans like "Facts on the ground."

Katrina was the first "fact on the ground" that our response to the effects of terror is totally ineffectual. Even if - hypothetically - the levees in New Orleans had been breached by a terrorist - DHS would have still screwed it up. We Dem's have to burn that into every American's brain.

Wednesday's bombing of the Shiia shrines may have been the "Tet Offensive" in Iraq. But maybe not - because we don't have conscripts from every village, town, high school, and neighborhood in Iraq.

The vox populi is not there viscerally, yet. Katrina was a giant step - and maybe Iraq's Tet Offnsive was another giant step.

[welshTerrier2]

2. you want facts on the ground?

here you go: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11924.htm

[Coastie for Truth]

10. The Activists (like us on DU)

generally run ahead of the main body of the Party. Besides - VietNam became an issue to the main body of the populace on the burden of the war (draft calls and draftee deaths) combined with the futility ("") of the war, not the immorality of the war.

Yes I am cynical - I'm a Viet Nam era vet and I am in my 60's. I have earned the right to be a cynic. ;)

An argument made to the "other 85%" of America on the the immorality of the war is a loser - and will just elect McCain or Frist.

[The Magistrate]

11. An Excellent Point, Sir

You are quite correct about the facts of the situation concerning the Viet Nam War, and the eventual popular disenchantment with it.

The popular disenchantment in our country today with the venture in Iraq is based wholly on the spectacle of the incompetence with which it is being conducted, and the evident futility of the effort. Agitation on the lines that it is an immoral and even criminal exercise will not move the people to demand immediate departure; if anything, it would likely provoke a reaction against the persons pressing that line, that would tend to diminish support for withdrawl, for most people would find it personally offensive and be angered by it. It does not matter if it is true or not --- that is one of the least important elements of a political line's utility.

The best line for Democratic Party figures in this situation is to hammer on the incompetence and futility, and urge that the only way to fix the matter is to halt it before further harm is done. Unfortunately, agitation for a halt to funding would be disasterous in its political consequences: it would be read as, and certainly assailed as, refusal to "support the troops," and with devestating political effect.

[welshTerrier2]

15. "It does not matter if it is true or not"

without question, this is the saddest sentence i have ever seen posted on DU ...

i will respond only by saying that i would rather lose and lose big fighting for the truth than hiding behind a lie ... remember, if bush were finding "success" in Iraq, that success would mean the installation of a puppet government and the successful blackmailing of their oil industry by Haliburton, Bechtel, et al ... the problem is not just with the incompetence; it's with the mission ...

if Democrats choose to play politics with this war and fail to educate the American people on the realities of America's global imperialism, expect this scenario to be repeated for the next hundred years or so ... if we are too afraid to fight for the truth, winning, while better than losing, will be a short-lived victory ... it is most importantly about missions and movements and mandates; it is not only about campaigns and polls and elections ... without the former, the latter is a sad business indeed ...

[The Magistrate]

17. Life Is A Sad Business, Sir

Anyone trying to convey an accurate appreciation of it will cause a good deal of distress, but it cannot be helped.

It remains a fact that whether or not a political line is true is the least important element in assessing its likely efficacy.

[welshTerrier2]

19. from DU's home page ...

The ever-unfolding, multi-dimensional disaster of the Iraq War alone should be enough to inspire dozens of John Murthas in Congress demanding US withdrawal and unleash hundreds of Seymour Hershes in the media, unveiling torture, special rendition, and wiretapping.

if it is so that whether a political line is true of not is the least important element in assessing its likely efficacy, then we must change that reality; not embrace it ...

[The Magistrate]

22. You Do Not Change Reality, Sir: Reality Changes You

But the sentiment you have quoted is certainly a good one, and really, it ought to be so.

[ClassWarrior]

3. Thanks for the broad brush.

I'm sure these people appreciate your positive reinforcement:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HE00635:@@@P

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HJ00073:@@@P

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR04232:@@@P

http://www.democrats.com/house-honor-roll

16-5.

NGU.

[welshTerrier2]

8. fair point, CW ...

on the other hand, i did include the line in the OP: "there are a few Democrats trying to do just that; very few ... "

my intent was to excuse the far-too-small group of Dems you linked to ... the voices of the progressive Dems in the House should be the mainstream party position on Iraq ... unfortunately, they aren't ...

[ClassWarrior]

20. Just strikes me as the sensationalist banner headline on page one...

...and the tiny retraction buried on page 1117.

Don't you realize that you treat the true heroes of our party as though they don't even count when you lump them in with a blanket slam against "The Democrats??"

NGU.

[Gman]

4. Your post sounds very full of frustration

and I don't blame you in the least. I think your frustration would be better placed by focusing on the American people and their unwillingness to accept that they have been lied to continuously about Iraq. Do you think people believe the things they do such as an Iraq-9/11 connection because they are not getting the message that that is a lie? How much of this is the that people only hear what they want to hear and believe what they want to believe.

In essence you are saying that despite the fact that Democrats have no control in any branch of the federal government, Democrats do have the power to somehow miraculously or somehow otherwise through mind control to enable the American people to somehow have an epiphanical experience in regards to this war and to then rise up and end it. The real problem is that nothing is going to happen until this war, as well as the many other things wrong with this country begin to seriously affect the average person. Right now it is still just something people see on TV.

I understand your frustration but don't blame the Democrats. Every day they are front and center sounding the siren about everything that is wrong. People need to start hearing and that's not something Democrats can control.

[Dunvegan]

5. I agree wholeheartedly, gman, it's not just lack of trying from Democrats.

[welshTerrier2]

7. i will blame the Democrats who keep funding the war

the job of an opposition party is to educate the public ... if we don't have the votes to stop the war, we have to do all we can to explain that we will never succeed in Iraq ... what we will do, if we keep voting for more funds (and thus more war), is send a message to the American people that "we can't just leave" ...

Democrats, this is most Senate Democrats, keep handing bush every single penny he asks for ... and you want to blame the American people?

Democrats have gone along with the "pottery barn" bullshit for far too long ... and what has it led to?

you believe that Democrats are "front and center" every day sounding the sirens? really? that's an amazing statement ... you don't sound sirens by voting more money for war ...

try this ... go ask 10 or more of your neighbors or friends what is the official Democratic Party position on the war in Iraq ... i've done this ... the results were pathetic ... one said: "oh, the Democrats ... they're just against anything bush does" ... another one said: "i think they agree with it" ... and another one said: "didn't that one guy say we should cut and run?"

does this sound like a clear message to you? and now we have an article in the Boston Globe suggesting that Dems may be unifying around Dean's suggestion to withdraw all troops by the end of 2007? wow, what an anti-war guy Dean is ...

i'm glad you understand my frustration ... i'm disgusted with pro-war Democrats ... and let's not tapdance around the reality: if you vote for war (i.e. war funding), you're pro-war ... you may not like the war but you are supporting its continuation ... that's pro-war in my book ...

so i do blame those Democrats, and of course republicans as well, who are funding bush's war ... let's hope they're all driven from power by progressive Democrats ...

[Gman]

12. All points well taken

and no doubt the Democrat message is disjointed. But you cannot say Democrats are not out there every day sounding the siren. The message gets distorted because of the constant and in perfect unison GOP refrain that Democrats have no ideas. Gotta give the GOP credit here for successfully distorting our message.

So if Democrats stop voting for funding for the war, what do you have? Funding for the war as if the Democrats weren't even there because Democrats are in the minority. I see nothing wrong with the political immunization of voting for funding since a Democrat's vote makes no difference anyway. What is accomplished is that there is one less issue ad to be run against that Democrat in November. You may recoil in horror at that statement but what is accomplished is the Democrat keeps from being tied up in an intentionally (by the GOP) prolonged debate defending why he/she voted against funding. Therefore more issues can be discussed in the preciously limited time before an election. You see, that's what the GOP wants. They want to be able to keep us back on our heels defending a vote against the war in some form or fashion. That keeps things like Katrina, national security, bankruptcy legislation, and the many more issues from being debated. The GOP knows what they're doing while they're distracting us with the war.

Keep in mind that old street saying of "never play the other man's game." Those are very wise words for surviving. When we do what you are advocating we are playing their game by their rules.

[welshTerrier2]

13. you're making a tragic assumption

"never play the other man's game" ... implicit in this perspective is the view that if Democrats put themselves in the position of having to DEFEND a vote to cut-off funding, they will be in a much weaker position ... does that fairly state your point of view?

well, and let's note that your entire argument focussed on the political implications of the Democrats' "Iraq strategy", i think the weakness of the Dems position (politically speaking) is that they are seen as not showing any leadership on this critical national (and international) issue ...

the defending the Dems are going to have to do is that they offered no clear alternative to bush ... in spite of bush's colossal failures, the muddled message of most Democrats does NOT score them, or the Party, any points ...

Democrats may ultimately prevail this November; we'll see ... but if they do, it will be because voters rejected bush and the republicans, not because they endorsed a Democratic vision ... some might argue that a win is a win; i would argue that a win without a vision and a mandate, while better than losing, will be a short-lived victory ... it will lead to weak governance and the absence of a long-term tide toward a Democratic majority ... there's much more to winning than just winning ...

[Gman]

25. No, that does not fairly state my point...

My point is that the Dem candidate ends up spending all of his/her time defending their position, albeit a strong position. Nevertheless, that is the intent of the GOP. The candidate is now doing exactly what the GOP wants, to avoid talking about all the other important issues and consuming time defending a vote against the war. The GOP has now set the groundrules and framed what will be debated.

[Stanchetalarooni]

6. They've been on board all the time.

Check the record.
Not what they say.
WWhat they do.
What they ave done.

[leesa]

9. They gave up their moral authority because they refuse to say the invasion

was immoral and illegal. The entire world knows this and much of the country knows this. They have no moral authority at all as far as the war is concerned. Saying the war is being run badly is meaningless.

[Shelor]

14. What say we focus on winning in '06 before getting fixated on '08?

[welshTerrier2]

16. what say we focus on the war before playing political games?

this thread is NOT about '08 ... it's about a Party with a muddled message on life and death issues ...

[Shelor]

Oh really? If this thread.............

..........isn't about 2008 then why was 2008 the very first thing to come out of your mouth at the beginning of the thread?

[welshTerrier2]

24. the post is about the Dems and Iraq

if you only read the first line, you probably missed that ... maybe that's why you chose not to discuss the issue of Iraq at all ...

the reference to the 2008 possible candidates was made only because they are prominent Democrats and are often perceived as the "voice of the Party" ... this was clearly NOT a thread about 2008; it is a thread about a muddled message on Iraq ...

[BootinUp]

18. They are somewhere just not where you are.

They realize its going to take a majority bipartisan coalition to change the direction of the executive branch. They also realize they can't win anything with your suggested strategy, its a loser strategy in more ways than one. Things are changing in Iraq, its just a matter of time, the Dems do not need to do anything different.

[jenmito]

21. I'm hearing Repubs. taking MURTHA'S stance...

But not calling it Murtha's stance, of course. O'REILLY was just saying our troops can't really do anything with the civil war going on so we should get out and let them handle it, as well as other stupid Repub. talking heads saying our troops should get out of the way and maybe stay outside of Iraq or on the edge...that we can only help politically. Murtha and any other Dems. who agreed with him should get out there NOW and start pointing out STRONGLY that they're glad the Repubs. are finally coming around to HIS plan! Don't let them take credit for his idea!!!

[leftofthedial]

23. virtually all the Dems represent the status quo

(concentration of wealth, corporate power, etc.)

the status quo LOVES this war--any war.

nearly all the Dems are so compromised on their support for the bush crime gang's phony "war" on "terror" that they are paralyzed on this issue.

there is effectively NO organized political opposition

[lyonn]

26. Murtha gave the Dems some ammo and they ignored it

Would bush please tell the people how he thinks we are stopping Anything in Iraq in the way of hostilities. Possibly Iraq could turn into another Afghanistan when they were left to figure things out after Russia and the U.S. left. Yet what is happening in Iraq now seems even worse than what happened in Afghanistan and we are still there??

The world knows Iraq was a big U.S. mistake. More Muslims hate us than before, we have truly given them a cause in their minds. We are seen as invaders that want to take over the ME. Now what do we do? Let's see, in Viet Nam we got more bombs and bombed more countries, Laos. Murtha's idea is the only one I've heard that sounds like it might work. Might even save a few Iraqi's lives.

[thatsrightimirish]

27. I can't wait until

Webb gets elected into the senate. Then we will really have a voice!

[snowbear]

28. Have you read many of General Clark's articles on Iraq?

http://securingamerica.com/node/607

Just wondering.

[welshTerrier2]

31. the problem with Clark's plan ...

to answer your question, i did read every word of Clark's plan ...

but the problem with Clark's plan is that it went nowhere ... it was DOA ... it was irrelevant ... it had zero impact ... it did not rally either Democrats or the American public ... that's been the problem with all the Democratic plans except one ...

the point is that, although Clark has some good ideas on Iraq, they did not move the nation or the national dialog ...

the same could not be said, however, about Murtha's plan ... for a brief moment, the nation listened to a Democrat ... there was a spark and the nation awakened ... "the Chair recognizes the Democratic Party - what say you on Iraq?"

and what did the Democratic Party say to Congressman Murtha? what did the Party say to Americans about Murtha's ideas ... they said he was a good guy but he was dead f**king wrong ... and hence, Democrats, including Wes Clark, withdrew from the debate ... and the war goes on ... and on ... and on ...

[wyldwolf]

29. There is a plan in the works

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/20/democrats_may_unite_on_plan_to_pull_troops/

[welshTerrier2]

30. not much of a plan

the "plan" calls for "nearly" all troops out of Iraq by the end of 2007 ... even the repukelicans are likely to get us out of there by then to protect the 2008 elections ... if that's what the Democratic hawks are offering, no thanks ...

from the Boston Globe article you cited:

The concept, dubbed ''strategic redeployment," is outlined in a slim, nine-page report coauthored by a former Reagan administration assistant Defense secretary, Lawrence J. Korb, in the fall. It sets a goal of a phased troop withdrawal that would take nearly all US troops out of Iraq by the end of 2007, although many Democrats disagree on whether troop draw-downs should be tied to a timeline.

Howard Dean, Democratic National Committee chairman, has endorsed Korb's paper and begun mentioning it in meetings with local Democratic groups.

[wyldwolf]

32. well, when they ask for your approval, tell them your opinion.