’)From the 2004 Democratic party platform (PDF):
We will defend the dignity of all Americans against those who would undermine it. Because we believe in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a woman’s right to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to pay.
So here’s the thing: not every Democrat agrees with that. Clearly, the vast majority of Democratic party members and elected officials support that statement (I certainly do), but not 100% of Democrats do to varying degrees. In fact, the senior elected Democratic official in the country – Sen. Harry Reid – most likely doesn’t agree with the exact wording of it. Yet, there it is, in the platform. We’re not any less off for having a position on the issue, and Sen. Reid is no less a Democrat for his position.
I note this, because the refrain from many Democrats as to why there’s no official party position on what we should do in Iraq becomes “we can’t agree on one”. Since when has any position within any political party ever been the opinion of every single member of the party? It’s a cop out. The vast majority of Democrats would likely support strategic redeployment in order to more intelligently fight terrorism around the world instead of being bogged down in Iraq. But there’s no safety net for Dems, because there’s no party position. It’s left up in the air, for the right and the media to define. And that’s why Democrats are losing.
Maybe when your purportedly biggest advocate of “strategic redeployment” is advocating a strategic redeployment to a rapid response position in Okinawa, it isn’t all that surprising that y’all aren’t getting quite as many guys to sign on the dotted line.
And perhaps when you can make a case, a credible case that differentiates “strategic redeployment” from “turn tail and run away,” you might get more support as well.
You said:
Yup, that’s right! But you are a popular blogger, with an audience of a few thousand visitors every day; perhaps you can define a solid Democratic position that doesn’t sound like cut and run.
I realize now one of the major problems with the modern democratic party. One of the main reasons they can’t agree on things, or get elected.
You change the meanings of things.
“Marriage” becomes relative and negotiable.
“Retreat” becomes “strategic redeployment”
How can you develop consensus when know one actually knows the issue, cause you can’t even agree on the meaning of the words!
“Abortion” becomes “right to choose”.
I just don’t have the heart to tell my wife that when she is choosing an item off the restaurant menu, she is actually aborting her dinner.
And I wonder how Democrats would respond to a woman’s “right to choose” whether or not she drives an SUV or where she sends her kids to school.
Republicans prefer manly failure to cowardly prudence. Thanks for bringing logic-free machismo to the debate, GOP! Three more years of lives wasted doing the exact same thing with the exact same failed result — that’s the Bush plan! God save us from these narcissistic fools.
Actually, drpedro and Mike, you are the ones doing the redifining. Particuarly you Mike, who for some reason thinks making the “wrong” decision at dinner (whatever the heck that would be) is akin to aboriton.
Or was that just a lame attempt at sarcastic humor?
One more thought. Perhaps a clarification on the South Dakota referendum.
There is something inherently evil about forcing a human being (a woman) to suffer the emotional and physical pain of giving birth, as a result of rape or incest.
Such is the nature of conservative social engineering.
JK
Even in “strategic redeployment” you have to acknowledge the potential need to go back in. There are a vast number of Democrats that don’t believe in that premise. Thus three factions of Democrats- Begrudingly admit the need to stay and get the job done and complain that Bush got it wrong, Strategically redeploy with “quick strike” capability from Okinawa (HA!- or wherever) and complain that Bush got it wrong, and get the hell out and never participate in another war for any reason (and unilaterally disarm and let the United Nations protect the world) and Bush got it wrong.
Thus their only political message on the war- Bush got it wrong (but we don’t really have an answer.)
And let’s not forget these hits!
“Mercenary” becomes “contractor”!
“Osama bin Laden” becomes “Saddam Hussein”!
“Dump more arsenic!” becomes “Clear Skies Initiative”!
And real soon now,
“Iraq” becomes “Iran”!
It’s worth mentioning as a caveat to Oliver’s item, above, that South Dakota is putting Roe v. Wade to the test. The only thing that held it off from becoming law, was a petition.
They will all hide behind state’s rights, but the truth is that EVEN in the case, of rape or incest, SD would prohibit abortion.
There is really something evil about that.
JK
Rheinhard Says:
June 20th, 2006 at 9:54 pm
Marriage becomes relative and negotiable.
Retreat becomes strategic redeployment
How can you develop consensus when know one actually knows the issue, cause you can t even agree on the meaning of the words!
And let s not forget these hits!
Mercenary becomes contractor !
Osama bin Laden becomes Saddam Hussein !
Dump more arsenic! becomes Clear Skies Initiative !
And real soon now,
Iraq becomes Iran !
And “Weapons of Mass Destruction” becomes “Spreading Democracy”
“Iraqi army battallion” becomes “sectarian death squad.”
If I had any power over the Dems, we would have won the last two elections and Bush would never have had the party’s blessing to invade and occupy Iraq. The Republican “strategy” is no more complex than stay in Iraq and die. We’ve been there almost as long as we were in WWII, the difference is in WWII we saved the world. The war against terror is a war against Al Qaeda and their affiliates – sitting in Iraq is making us sitting ducks like the two servicemen who were killed this weekend. What was once a two front army is not able to deal with the global terror network that threatens us because of the Iraq deployment. The hollow conservative response has been “victory” but we’ve won militarily against Hussein only to have the post-war blow up in our faces (which, I’m sad to say, is what I said three years ago). Saying the word “victory” three billion times over is not a plan. Following that logic we’d still be in Vietnam today pursuing “victory”.
We now see the 2006 campaign shaping up:
The democrats are either going to be saying both “withdraw our troops” and “strategic redeployment”. The latter is harder to understand by JQP than withdraw. And because “cut and run” is easier to understand, the republicans feel that this is a winning position, regardless of whether there is a shred of truth to it. This is the same horseshit that was used during the Viet Nam War and too many democrats are now too afraid to stand up for what most of the public already knows is right. If the republicans want to call everything cut and run, then fine. I say give the Iraqi government an ultimatum and then withdraw our troops on our terms. Its time for the Iraqis to take control of their own country and take the targets off of the backs of our troops, who deserve better.
As the death squads proliferate, and as the population finds its only interactions with any “government” are with the local fundamentalists religious gangs, the right wing retreats into the rhetoric of manliness, because there is no comfort in facts or news. Rest assured that when they find a convenient way to blame the media and the liberal traitors, the scales will fall from their eyes, and they will admit that our occupation has failed.
But history will remember who was really to blame. The decider, of course.
I say we DID save the world by invading Iraq. And a few million Indochinese REALLY wish we had stayed in southeast asia.
But I am not sure the democrats are ready for your kind of isolationism. However, there are a bunch of Buchanan supporters who would love it!
Save the world from what? In the time we’ve been in Iraq, international terrorism has increased. Yes, I’m sure some Vietnamese wish we had stayed but we’ve got a whole list that explains why we didn’t and shouldn’t have no matter what kind of revisionist history the right keeps trying to push.
How is opposing invasion of a country who didnt’ attack us, didn’t threaten us, and didn’t possess weapons of mass destruction that could be used against us (no matter how bad a guy the dictator is) in itself isolationism?
By your interpretation you must also believe in nation building.
GWBush, 2000 Campain:
We could have won Vietnam (and Nixon was a misunderstood saint), we saved the world by destroying Iraq, women are aborting steaks at Black Angus by the thousand while being forced to raise public schools and gas guzzlers to term. Thank goodness we avoided ruining marriages with interracial couples, and don’t even get me started on those atheists! And speaking of marriage, where’s my dowry?
Keyyy-rice-tah
Fun with Sin Tzu…
Torture, wire tapping, Geneva something or other, the whole illegal invasion, and so on. Yup, got that one dialed in. Not that anyone will remember once we attack Iran, of course.
You said it, Sin baby.
Just remember, the war will only cost about a billion and will be paid for with Iraqi oil.
How’s Afghanistan going? North Korea? What was that about a civil war?
But there are plenty of gigantic multi-national corporations…
And the royalty will get tax breaks and subsidies!
Or 1/3 to 1/2 a trillion dollars, whichever comes first…
What if no one expected the insurgency to be so strong…or the levees to fail…or planes to be used as weapons…or goes on vacation right before the worst attack on U.S. soil in a century despite being warned of impending danger (sorry, Pearl Harbor wasn’t on U.S. soil since Hawaii wasn’t forced into statehood until 1959)…
Or just throw phosphorus on ‘em while levelling whole cities, which ever works.
Now that we have al-Qaeda on the run in Iraq…doh! Of course, this could just as easily apply to to the dems and elections…or just about anything else (I couldn’t find a quote for poll humping “centrist” whores).
I’m sure he means who knows “when to fight and when to cut and run.”
And will be summarily reassigned to a post above the Arctic Circle…
“I say we DID save the world by invading Iraq.”
The doctorb is self-medicating again.
(“The ‘b’ is for ‘bargain’.”)
you are the same folks who said “hey, it’s Europe, they ain’t threatening US!”
Oliver perhaps you can write off 3 million cambodians with “I have a list saying why we should have left!”, but I don’t find it that simple.
you are the same folks who said “hey, it’s Europe, they ain’t threatening US!”
Oliver perhaps you can write off 3 million cambodians with “I have a list saying why we should have left!”, but I don’t find it that simple.
Hmmm, Bushwhacked.
I can’t think of anything that happened between then and now to change Bush’s outlook on the issue.
In Oliver’s world, 3 years is almost as long as 60.
Pedro’s confused again. Containment is not the same as isolationism. Also, WWII was a popular war that was a reaction to us being attacked, and our allies invaded. The Iraq war was a reaction to Bush wanting a “legacy” and his supporters liking to kill first and think later. Big difference. Another difference: we won WWII. But Bush lost Iraq.
“On a lighter note, Ollie s wacky world view seems to falling from favor. I note that he has a 4-fold decrease in hits since this time last year.”
Why don’t you do your part to make it 5-fold?
On a more serious note, how does one who is sincerely opposed to the war express that opposition without being labeld as hoping for defeat?
“The democrats in WWII didn t use the war as a tool to get elected”
Pedro, you don’t *get* irony, do you?
yea here are a few other differences….
We waited UNTIL genocide was occuring to go to europe, rather than preventing it.
The american people, left and right, understood the need for the nation to get behind the war effort in order to be victorious. It was considered unpatriotic to do otherwise, and in some cases, seditious.
The press supported the effort wholeheartedly. In fact, the press became jingoistic in its support of america, referring to the japanese as the “Japs” and germans as the “krauts” and publishing all sorts of cartoons lampooning them. This all had the effect of helping to drive public opinion.
We were attacked regularlly while enforcing the no-fly zone over Iraq, and Iraq violated no less than 12 UN resolutions imposed by our allies.
A final big difference. The democrats in WWII didn’t use the war as a tool to get elected. Neither party was hoping for defeat so that their candidate could get into office.
Finally, in the era of the internet, chemical/biological weapons and terrorist, “containment” is a myth.
On a lighter note, Ollie’s wacky world view seems to falling from favor. I note that he has a 4-fold decrease in hits since this time last year. I guess the echo-chamber, circle-jerk is not as appealing as it used to be. Better get on it Ollie, or you aren’t going to get the cush job in the Democratic Department of Propaganda!
drpedro Says:
June 21st, 2006 at 10:05 am
I think Ollie knows full well that if people like me left his blog, only the idiotic left would remain& recycling the same old tired refrains of no blood for oil! Bush lied people died& ..etc. And his numbers would drop even MORE precipitously.
“I wish I knew how to quit you!”
Typical Pedro: all you can muster is hatred of liberals. Nothing else exists in your world. Come back when you have something useful to add to the discussion.
You see why people say you are defeatists Tom? Because you are.
Shorter Tomy:
The American Military is making Iraq WORSE
I’m not a defeatist, Pedro. Reality is. And if the military is worsening the situation, that’s not a reflection on the military’s goodness or skill; it’s just that they’re not the right tool for the job. I’m not sure there’s anything that can stop Iraqi society from melting down now, but that doesn’t mean we have to keep our troops in the crucible when they can’t make any difference.
And on a lighter note JSA. I think Ollie knows full well that if people like me left his blog, only the idiotic left would remain…recycling the same old tired refrains of “no blood for oil!” Bush lied people died…..etc. And his numbers would drop even MORE precipitously.
Shorter Pedro: I want Americans to die for nothing except my own personal self aggrandizement.
Hope isn’t a factor. The fact is that we cannot rebuild Iraqi society with the military. In fact, the presence of the military may be hastening the ethnic cleansing, providing cover for the death squads, and legitimizing the fundamentalist street gangs. In short, we are powerless to stop the meltdown of Iraqi civil society. No amount of moralizing, chest thumping, or liberal hating will change this dynamic.
I think the cat is out of the bag. The only way to be sincerely opposed to the war is to be labeled as hoping for defeat at this point.
The “war” is over. We won. Now we are trying to rebuild the country. If you are opposed to rebuilding the country, you should say so. But the deed is done.
Let me put it another way. If Bush said, “Murtha, you’re right, we’re bringing everyone home tomorrow”, what would the leftists say? Good on you George! No. As soon as things went from bad to worse in Iraq, they would pummel the republicans with it.
The leftists CANNOT allow America and Iraq to come out of this ahead. If they do, they know they are doomed to electoral failure for the forseeable future. Right minded democrats are supporting finishing the job in Iraq. I think some are even calling for MORE troops.
I don’t believe there is way for you to oppose the reconstruction withou being labeled as hoping for defeat, because I think that is exactly what you are hoping for.
What you think Ollie? Should me and Dugger and Frank and Farris and our band of merry men just leave?
Sorry Tomy, how exactly would YOU paraphrase
“In fact, the presence of the military may be hastening the ethnic cleansing, providing cover for the death squads, and legitimizing the fundamentalist street gangs.”
I thought I had done it quite accurately…..
Also, can you please point out where I mentioned “hatred of liberals” anywhere in my last 5 posts? Or last 500 for that matter?
Good idea fact. Certainly better than actually recognizing what a shambles your world-view has become.
Shorter Factcheck: nyah,nyah,nyah….I’m not listening! LOL
Let me get this straight, drpedro,
You think that the media is being unfaithful to the soldiers because they don’t use ethnic slurs to describe the enemy?
Pedro, he’s just “supporting the troops” by telling them how much they suck at their jobs.
tomy, you say your not a defeatist, then go on to describe yourself as……. a defeatist.
Read your last post a bit more critically, I think you will see the irony you accuse me of being unable to recognize.
And Roni, I feel your pain. I am like M&M’s, you can’t just eat one! It’s a curse……..
roni, these trolls have nothing in their lives, that is why they troll here. It is either troll or commit suicide. That’s why I pretty much ignore most of them. They are very small, sad people, looking for validation.
Farris is only able to see the world in terms of liberals being evil, in this case, by hating the troops. In reality, the military is not the appropriate or even an adequate tool for doing what the political leadership asks of it. This is Bush’s failure, not the Army’s. I know you Malkinites want to blame anyone but Bush — maybe liberals, maybe the media, maybe liberal generals — who knows?
But this failure is Bush’s, and Bush’s alone. History will remember.
No sundown, as usual, you don’t have it straight.
Back to your Fundamentals in Propaganda class…..
Tomy as usual gets all unresponsive and changes the subject when he is caught dead to rights describing himself as a defeatist…thats ok, the silence speaks volumes…
Tomy just say these words out-loud
“I am a defeatist. Nothing the US Military does in Iraq will change my mind. I am completely beholden to failure in Iraq, as that is the only way my political party has a snowball’s chance in hell of winning an election”
Honestly, if the leftists here would just admit this, I think most of us cons would have little left to argue about.
If you’re accusing me of believing that we have already lost the war, I think the picture next to my comments is clear enough. Playing word games isn’t going to change the fact that Bush wants to keep flushing soldiers down the toilet for nothing more than to flatter himself and his followers’ self conceptions.
“Success achieved liberals! At the cost of US lives you have weakened our reconstruction of Iraq& .”
How? And why are US lives being lost at all if we’re in the “reconstruction” phase?
Oh no, I have begun howling that already. It is clearly the case that those usual suspects have weakened our Iraqi stance. Of interest, that was their goal!
Success achieved liberals! At the cost of US lives you have weakened our reconstruction of Iraq….Bravo!
Mark my words: by November 1, Pedro will be howling about how the Democrats, liberals, media (the usual Malkinite boogeymen) lost Iraq. Between that time, there will be chest beating, muscle flexing, and more GOP masturbation. There will also be death, heroisim, and savagery. But none of it has a chance in hell of redeeming Bush’s strategic blunder. This enterprise was doomed from the get-go.
So Pedro’s a defeatist too, he just puts the defeat down to different enemies. Fine. Hatred of your fellow countrymen is nothing new, but it won’t help our soldiers or our country, nor will it redeem an unwinnable war. Bring the soldiers home now.
please read carefully. I said weakened, and that is what I meant. Reconstruction doesn’t mean there isn’t any violence.
Tom, the war was won in 6 weeks. We are there helping the Iraqi’s get back on their feet after living under the heel of an autocrat for the last 30 years.
drpedro Says:
June 21st, 2006 at 11:10 am
And Roni, I feel your pain. I am like M&M s, you can t just eat one! It s a curse& & ..
factcheck Says:
June 21st, 2006 at 11:10 am
roni, these trolls have nothing in their lives, that is why they troll here. It is either troll or commit suicide. That s why I pretty much ignore most of them. They are very small, sad people, looking for validation.
Well Roni, at least you recognize my intellectual superiority!
; )
As long as I never have to be a ‘patient’, ‘drpedro’. Can you differentiate your ass from a hole in the ground (important for a ‘practicing surgeon’) wearing the rose colored glasses you share with The Decider?
“How does one who is sincerely opposed to the war express that opposition without being labeld as hoping for defeat?”
I would suggest that if you want to believe the former while claiming to believe the latter, then the problem would be yours.
I certainly don’t know how.
Frank,
I don’t think we should have invaded. But now that we have, I hope we don’t fail. If others can’t accept that, well, I can’t help it.
JSA: But now that we have, I hope we don t fail
That makes sense. It’s not the same thing as saying, “I support the NY Yankees, and it’s the 7th inning. Let’s leave the field, because I don’t think they should have played today — even though they’re itching to stay in, and win, the game.”
Since when has any position within any political party ever been the opinion of every single member of the party?
Yes, Oliver, since when?
“That makes sense. It s not the same thing as saying, I support the NY Yankees, and it s the 7th inning. Let s leave the field, because I don t think they should have played today even though they re itching to stay in, and win, the game.
That makes sense, too. The problem is staying loyal to the team while you have issues with the manager and GM.
Apparently you don’t know how many diehard Yankee fans hate Steinbrenner, and would be hardpressed to recall the name of the general manager…
See, if you don’t support the efforts of the troops, they becone demoralized, and have difficulty performing their mission.
Personally, I can tell you that it’s distracting, and leads to carelessness.
That means more flag draped coffins.