Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

DU is (supposedly) an anti-war website. So let's support the anti-war candidate!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 04:41 PM
Original message
DU is (supposedly) an anti-war website. So let's support the anti-war candidate!
October 2, 2002

Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don’t oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain. I don’t oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the President today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings. You want a fight, President Bush?

Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe. You want a fight, President Bush?

Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil. Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not — we will not — travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/28/7343/

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00235

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00349
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 05:02 PM
Response to Original message
1. You clever bastard!
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SlipperySlope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 05:12 PM
Response to Original message
2. Is DU anti-war?
I can't find anything in the "About DU" page that says DU is officially anti-war.

I think it is well known that DU requires all members support the Democratic nominee, whomever they are. If the party nominates a pro-war candidate, then de jure DU becomes a pro-war website. No?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. now that would have been quite the slipperyslope
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Stranger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. No.
If you didn't know DU was anti-war, you must not have been here very long.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SlipperySlope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. DU members may be anti-war, but I've never seen Skinner announce that DU itself is anti-war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
countingbluecars Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. I kind of inferred it from the
"liberal and progressive ideas" part of the reason DU was founded. Could be wrong.


Democratic Underground (DU) was founded on Inauguration Day, January 20, 2001, to protest the illegitimate presidency of George W. Bush and to provide a resource for the exchange and dissemination of liberal and progressive ideas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SlipperySlope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 11:51 PM
Response to Reply #11
21. Well, but...
In a purely hypothetical case where a Democratic candidate was running on a pro-war platform, and a Republican candidate was running on an anti-war platform, DU would back the Democrat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lame54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. I thought Du was anti GD:P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joeybee12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 05:14 PM
Response to Original message
3. Amen! Let's go Dennis!!!! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lame54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 05:39 PM
Response to Reply #3
12. for a minute I thought he was suggesting Ron Paul.....
Yeah Kucinich is still running- GO Dennis
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joeybee12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #12
17. I forgot about Ron!
Good thing is, most people have, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #12
19. is DK still in it? I thought he was concentrating on his Congressional seat?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coexist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 05:20 PM
Response to Original message
6. .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
knixphan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 05:22 PM
Response to Original message
7. Needed to be said again:
"Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sellitman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 05:30 PM
Response to Original message
9. Is Kucinich still running?
Oh goody!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skip Intro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 05:41 PM
Response to Original message
13. oh, the anti-war candidate who wants to get our troops onto the "right battlefields" like Pakistan?
that one?

the one that stepped back from his supposedly deeply-held anti-war convictions in 04 to say such things as he didn't know how he would have voted on the IWR, and that there was room for disagreement, and that there wasn't much difference between his position and bush's at that point?

that one?

the one who voted to continue to fund the war he supposedly despised so?

that one?

the one who's top advisor said he woudln't be chained to rosy rhetoric on the campaign trail when it actually became time to act on his words?

that one?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #13
18. when did he say he would put troops in Pakistan?????


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skip Intro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. Yep, he said it - link right here:
doesn't scream anti-war, does it?

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

MSNBC: Obama says he might send troops to Pakistan

Obama said that as commander in chief he would remove troops from Iraq and putting them “on the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20070536/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquarius dawning Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 05:55 PM
Response to Original message
14. Why do you think we're in Iraq LSK? honestly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. securing Iraq's oil, war is profit for defense contractors, looting of the treasury
Edited on Thu May-29-08 06:08 PM by LSK
You might want to check out F9/11.

Please dont tell me you actually thought Saddam was a thread!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquarius dawning Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-30-08 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #16
23. Well
I do think he was a threat actually. It isn't a popular thing to think around here I realize but I think if one looks at the situation objectively one can only conclude that he was a potential pain in our ass for a number of reasons and, at the same time, I agree that it's all about the oil. Oil is what gave him the power to be a pain in our ass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cbc5g Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 05:59 PM
Response to Original message
15. I think unjust war -- many here would support strikes against bin ladin
But still, Hillary was FOR an unjust war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VotesForWomen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-30-08 01:36 AM
Response to Original message
22. well, kucinich isn't on the ballot any more, so i guess we're screwed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 04:26 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC