It's like the American people are on Earth and the candidates are on Pluto - they missed Mars by a wide margin of 30 polling points.

Not only do we not hear outrage from the contenders over Iraq, we hear them promising the same thing for Iran.

Obama is right about too many debates. They need to listen, not talk.

The worst thing you can do to a dogma is give it an empire. Anon

MJ:

I agree with you that, because of what this country has done in Iraq, I think we need to make a concerted effort to have an international presence (which has to be inclusive of Iraq's neighbors) to help prevent chaos at a level we have not yet seen when we leave (that's my assumption and it's subject to challenge I'm sure). But I am not sure that we are able to do that anymore in light of the credibility we no longer have with the rest of the world.

Indeed, this is one of the reasons our poor relations with Iran is such a shame and a tragedy. Even though my support for a candidate will ultimately be most influenced by who my clients in the labor movement support, I personally would love to hear from a candidate who I believe could help bridge the gap between this country and the international community.

So the question that must be considered is whether an expeditious withdrawal is the only viable alternative we are left with. If that is the case, instead of folks talking about Nader and other options that will ensure a GOP victory, I think Kucinich deserves the support of those who favor an expeditious withdrawal. Even if he can't ultimately get the nomination, a solid line of support for Dennis Kucinich will force the other Democrats to be more candid about where they stand.

I am a bit perplexed by the tenor of the campaign. To me, the war in Iraq is paramount on the minds of most Democrats, yet Kucinich seems to be disregarded--with some notable exceptions--even by the most strident in support of an immediate withdrawal.

In short, I guess I feel that concerns about electability (a concern I'm not shy about admitting to have) seem overshadowed by what, from what I read, is most important to the vast majority of posters on here.

Bruce

P.S. I don't mean to dis Gravel. I just think Kucinich is a more realistic spokesperson for those who advocate for an immediate withdrawal.

Here comes the 'broken record' again.

US military aggression in Vietnam wasn't stopped by peace marches or letters to the editor, and it certainly wasn't stopped by politicians. It only came to an end when the troops refused to continue the aggression, punctuated by mission refusals, mutinies, insubordination and even fragging (killing superiors).

What we're seeing from these brave men is that some US soldiers are able to think for themselves, and that there may be some hope of changing things from the bottom up. The difference from Vietnam is that now soldiers are lesser citizen-soldiers than in Vietnam. Now they are volunteers, often attracted by financial incentives and by the shear action of warfare.

We can now expect that the government will present us with a hundred soldiers who will say, in print and broadcast, that everything is going just fine.

Let's hope that these dissidents have started something, recognizing that it's a slender hope of ending the brutal US military occupation of Iraq..

I don't think that the US should try to just kinda shove some international force into our place in Iraq, any organized body which gets inserted into this equation is just going to be forced into the same role we're in now, as mitigators of a civil war. The violence in Iraq by this point is only partially resistance to us, there is a real competition going on for basic resources, territory and political power. There is no sense inserting anyone into that mess. They have to resolve it. It may mean long term fighting, it may not. But at this point, you can't force a solution onto the situation from outside.

This does present some potentially bad scenarios though. Saudi Arabia has already stated that they won't sit idly by, in a military sense, and watch the Sunni population get slaughtered. Nor will any of Iraq's Sunni neighbors, and the whole neighborhood is Sunni except for Iran and Iraq. If the conflict becomes widespread, it would be in danger of becoming an all out Sunni vs. Shia war, a gross replay of the Iran / Iraq war writ large. How do we, having squandered every drop and then some of good will that the Shia might have felt towards us, tell them to rein themselves in and dish out appropriate, proportionate political power? There is almost no way, other than the old-fashioned one - bribery. We have to get ourselves together, leave, and tell representative Shias that there's a whole lot of money in it for them if they work out a settlement everyone can live with. Which may not work at all, but is pretty much the only thing which could.

None of the candidates are really talking sense right now though, you're right. They're all trying to manage expectations instead of talking reality. Which I find very annoying and disappointing. The next Dem president has a chance to right a lot of wrongs, and alter the perceptions of Dems as foreign policy incompetents, which was a weak argument to begin with and which is now undercut by the Republicans' uninterrupted idiocy on display over the past 7 years. I fear that whoever is elected will fail miserably at this, because they are all hedging on actually ending the conflict. Not that they won't withdraw forces, but they won't just hand things (such as that imperial embassy we're building) over and leave the way we need to. They're going to try to hang on to this or that part of the Bush regime's policies/resource grabs. And it will never work. Vietnam didn't end for any reason EXCEPT that someone ended up in office who had not publicly or privately committed to continuing the war. Dems had better make a more clear and coherent case that they fully intend to End this thing with a capital E.

"Vietnam didn't end for any reason EXCEPT that someone ended up in office who had not publicly or privately committed to continuing the war. "Who are you talking about? Ford? The cease-fire started in 1973 when Nixon was President.Tom

Maybe because a good three years ago I passed already from anger to hopelessness, I can understand if the candidates delivering stump lines day after day and addressing a disillusioned American people prefer to talk about what they're going to do next. They all get their digs in at Bush, and I'm encouraged that we're going to see change.

I'm also discouraged when our anger stops us from seeing an election here. It breeds that cynicism that the blogosphere loves. See they're all the same. The nominees are all the same. The parties are all the same. Let's forget the whole thing. What's taking back America when we've got our virtual escape?

John

http://www.haberarts.com/

John:

I can understand your caution about wallowing in cynicism. But it remains fair, I think, to try and draw the candidates out in terms of what they are thinking of doing. The caveat, of course, is that I do think that demanding "detailed plans" from each candidate is unrealistic for both political and other more significant reasons. But I do think that it is appropriate to discuss what should happen and how proposals might be effected, and I also think it's fair, even if generally coated with cynicism, to point out the lack of any material distinction on Iraq, the paramount issue of the day.

Bruce

Come on, now! This is about a Presidential election.

The "American people" don't count; our Constitution sees to that. The only people who count are the 5% of voters located in Ohio and Florida -- principally independents -- who will decide the outcome. I trust that professional politicians have a better understanding of what they have to do and say to appeal to those voters than anyone on this board.

Don't like it? Change the Constitution!

SSDD, Same Shit Different Day.

None of the Democrat candidates has had to sacrifice anything in the Iraq war, so don't expect much passion. Expect more cover your ass political mumbo jumbo, just as many of these same people did during the 90s, scoring cheap political points by going to the well of the House or Senate and babbling about how evil Saddam was.
Heh, and now their cheap grab for the high ground, their words and deeds, have come back to haunt them.

As to getting together an international force to replace us and protecting the Iraqis, how can anyone suggest that with a straight face? What country would we, or the UN, go to first? How many could we actually get? Enough to make a difference?
300,000?

Getting this International Force has as much probability of success as Biden's creating 3 autonomous regions. Has anyone ever asked Biden how he would accomplish that?

I can see it now; as what's left of The Coalition of the Willing continues to withdraw from Iraq, they pass these International Forces going IN TO Iraq.
Heh, good luck.

Iraq ceased to exist when Saddam was overthrown. There is no Iraq, there are only Sunnis, Shia and Kurds living in that area.

The only control we have there is whether we leave or stay.

The American people count. It is the American people, through their votes, that made Ohio and Florida the swing states in the last few elections. It was the American people, sad to say, who took the entire Deep South (every state of which went for Carter in '76) and turned it solid Red in 1980 and ever since.
Our votes count, not all of them, but most.
After all, had Gore carried Tennessee or West Virginia or Arkansas, he would have been sworn in and not Bush.
This defeatism isn't called for. Yet.

bslev: "I can understand your caution about wallowing in cynicism. But it remains fair, I think, to try and draw the candidates out in terms of what they are thinking of doing." Oh, totally. We have to see who we can back, which is why we have elections. I just think that MJR was too focused on tone, the thing about which candidate most closely expresses my feelings. That's still the politics of image that the GOP has mastered. It's a little better than who we'd like a beer with, as it's about our anger at war. But it's yet not what you, Bruce, are fairly calling for.

I don't say things are hunky-dory at all. We still have even good candidates trying to pin down just how to exit, which is a hard problem, actually, where we might want more insistence on exiting. We still have Clinton playing tough guy, which is just plain disturbing.

On the other hand, we've got Obama reminding us often that he voted against the war, so that failure in Iraq is at the heart of is candidacy. We've his clear speaking on nukes and other aspects of foreign policy. We've got Edwards stating that he wants any American presence, more radically than in Obama's plan, restricted to the borders confining the conflict to Iran. We've got even Clinton voting with us in all Iraq resolutions for months now and saying she will end the war. We've got them all hitting Bush hard. So i'm not dispairing, especially while the GOP candidates are all running on more war.

Ok, so you or I or MJR can second guess which tone is best in a future president. When should they express our anger, our hopes, our this, our that. But it's not what you're asking, and it's not right. MJR is a really, really good person, and his stances on Israel have shown his heart, patience, and courage. But whenever he posts on the candidates, often pro one or the other, maybe he lets his heart speak a little too much?

John

http://www.haberarts.com/

mj,

agreed, on all 3 points.

I'd much rather my kids go off to Iraq than have to explain to them all about bundling, sub-prime mortgages, margin calls, and Why I can't buy them each a sports car.
You know what kids are like.

Our votes count, not all of them, but most.

Ellen and MJ, there's the rub. I'm a Palm Beach County voter.

Ellen, have you been reading Sandy Levinson?

The worst thing you can do to a dogma is give it an empire. Anon

Point well-take, John. Thanks.

PS I'm more antiwar than I am pro- any candidate. I wish McGovern was running!

"Obama reminding us often that he voted against the war"

If I am reading my calendar correctly (and I may not be), when Obama voted against the war, he did so as an Illinois state legislator.

Heck, I voted against the war too, as a member of my Homeowners' Association Board.

Each vote took at least a little courage, but neither mattered in the least.

No; but anyone whose discourse can be described as "bracingly unromantic" is my kind of guy.

Addendum: Just noticed Mario 4 dropped by to give one of my comments a rating. Here's a guy who's made 5 comments in 47 weeks, none of which received a rating higher than "1" -- and he's rating someone else's comments?  Sheesh!

MJ, There is a certain irony when you write "than Slobadan Milosevic could have solved the problems of Yugoslavia once he had destroyed the very idea of Yugoslavia." during a piece about where is the anger in our involvement in Iraq. One of the factors that led to the Iraq war debacle was the prewar lies and propaganda that preceded our actual attack.

Then you repeat a similar part of the preSerbian war propaganda that was used to prepare us for that war. Milosovic was widely demonized in the American press for 8 years preceding the actual shooting. Much of it was incorrect and all of it was lacking any context.

The nationalist feelings that led to the disintegration of Yugoslavia existed within all 5 states. In fact the precipitating event occurred in Slovenia. Milosovic, Izebegovic and Tudjman were the leaders that helped blow it apart after that event. Milosovic was not any worse than the others. The big difference was that Tudman's backers hired a Washington PR firm to spin the story in their favor. And that resulted, eventually, in our allying with Croatia in the civil war.

:-)

I'd place that call to Feingold. He is the perfect 3rd party candidate. Actually seems to have respect for the Constitution. His presence as a third party candidate would almost certainly pull the "mainstream" Dems off center a bit, one way or the other.

There is still only two choices: continued warfare or withdrawal. Because the latter choice comes with a bitter pill -- acknowledgment that we lost -- none of our candidates are willing to say this.
Who wants to be pilloried as a defeatist. And for sure if any top tier candidate did advocate complete withdrawal that is the image that would be stuck on them.

Actually, I do not really blame them for avoiding that fate. None has a big enough bank account to counter such a campaign that would be launched by the entire traditional press.

Thus I will accept something like "withdrawal of all combat forces and retreat into our permanent bases" or reduction of force levels to 40,000 or so. These cannot be solutions. Those residual forces would quickly be driven out anyway. Then our war would be over. So we end up with a permanent base in Kurdistan, just one more to add to the 700 others we have.

Wrong Madam, Diebold et al will decide (I hope you noticed what the cowards in Congress did to the bill that would have solve the problems with the vote altering machines.) as the establishment has crossed the Rubicon and cannot chance anyone not under their control looking into the crimes that murdered 3000 innocent human beings, kicked off two wars with more in the wings, and is busy daily creating a police state.

A Democracy requires a free, active press for informed decision making on the citizenry's part as well as a secure voting system to reflect that informed decision making, this nation does not have either one anymore. Stick the fork in this democracy. Nor should the Neo-Conservatives be proud of their crimes/work as they have created a monster that will quickly get free of their hands and will eat them as well as a lot of innocent people ...so well done ya s*&t-for-brains manipulators, didn’t you realize in the end you are only as safe as your fellow citizens are!

Diebold, Incorporated
5995 Mayfair Road
P.O. Box 3077
North Canton, Ohio USA 44720-8077

Mark Hanna; we hardly knew ye! 

"If I am reading my calendar correctly (and I may not be), when Obama voted against the war, he did so as an Illinois state legislator." Sorry. I misspoke. I meant only to say that he keeps reminding us, not unfairly I think in a campaign about such things as peace, vision, experience, and judgment, that he had this one right a long time ago. And of course Edwards has made a major deal of repudiating his vote. 

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

huh. not sure why feingold (or mcgovern for that matter) would need to leave the party and run third party. not to mention that it would be a disaster especially if you really wanted to end the war.

i grow suspicious that more 'progressives' consider ending the democratic party more important than ending the war.

Information we got. Knowledge we ain't got.

And there's the rub. We're literally swimming in data, which fools us into thinking we have knowledge - thereby allowing our feeble-mindedness to blithely continue undetected.

Knowledge includes not only acquaintance with facts, but acquaintance with truths and principles, as from study or investigation.

Foreinstance, expecting a debating candidate to, in two minutes time, lay out his/her 'solution' to the Iraq 'problem' is a blatant example of just how feeble-minded he and we have become.

Embrace a romantic...you're more likely to get hugged back.   But, remembering that you discus politics with your wife (I did remember that from a previous post, right?) you probably already know about hugging romantics.  <grin></grin>

aMike

Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom; and with all thy getting get understanding.

Ah, Sophia.

To fix Iraq we just need to install an iron fisted, totalitarian sociopath as President of Iraq.

Since we have lost Saddam; our best hope for fixing...oh wait, that won't work.

Well, the only iron fisted totalitarian sociopath we have left to send is Cheney. Maybe he would take the job as Iraqi President on 1-21-09?

The Democrats running for President and their missing outrage are exemplified by Senator Leahy today. In addressing the White House ignoring his deadline for obeying the subpoena, he all but said;

'The White House ignored our deadline for the papers subpoened, and this forces me to issue an ultimatum to the Bush Administration; You have a one year extension to heed the subpoena or we will be forced to give you an extra year.'

I apologize for replying to myself but the debate format should be 30 minutes per candidate per subject hosted by Moyers and Lehrer. For each topic they should bring in one subject matter expert to co-host.

Debate topics:

Iraq
Foreign Policy
Tax structure, deficit, debt
Social Security and Medicare
Health Care
Free Trade and Jobs
Candidates Choice

Any other ideas?

IMO what ought to said to the squatters in the White House is you have forty-eight hours to comply with our legally issued subpoenas or we will initiate impeachment proceedings, and afterwards trials for high treason seeking the death penalty…all just to hear GW whine ala CF Tucker please don't kill me...hee hee!

You can say that again.

I am tired of cutting the Democrats slack just because they are better than their demonic step-sisters in the GOP. Every time we excuse the cowards on the left because they're not as despicable as the cowards on the right, we enable cowardice. I am done with that.

So, what shall we do?

Think about this. There's a lot of talk about the power of AIPAC, and how it is able to exert extraordinary influence over American foreign policy, and there's no argument here. But AIPAC doesn't just do it with money. AIPAC and its allies can send the message down to local synagogues and in less than a week have hundreds of thousands of people from all over the country caravaning into Washington, D.C. to flex their muscle on this or that issue. The pro-lifers, I suppose, can do the same.

And, as MJ, aMike and others can tell you from first-hand experience, there was once an anti-war movement in this country that didn't just do it with money; they did it with sweat and hard work and they marched on Washington and they made their presence known and they made their perspective resonate in a way that all the corporate money in the world couldn't silence. Is that what ended the war? Who knows, but I bet it accomplished something.

Start renting some buses people.

It's because our culture would rather deny a wrong than to see it for it really is and attempt to correct the mistake.

Most of these clowns were involve with the war effort and are just as culpable as the admininstration.. We seem to for get that the evidence presented at the time did NOT sway for the weapons of mass destruction, but directly AGAINST it.

the only things I remember (please correct me if I am wrong) shown to support the existence of these weapons, is the testimoney of one Iraq official with NO believability, and the rantings of Hussein.

The administration made a case that Hussein himself bragged about the weapons... interesting, since this is the ONLY instance the administration EVER believe him. In fact, anyone who has ever talked to folks from that part of the world (including our spies, even as inept as they were later to be presented) knows, this is a way their culture negotiates. We are seeing the same rhetoric continually from almost everyone newsworthy in the mideast. WE will most likely be attacking Iran next, and use this same reasoning as one of the excuses.

During this same time (prior to attacking), we had United Nation inspectors searching, questioning, and assessing all the data coming in from actual, first hand (as opposed to 2nd and 3rd hand heresay from unknown and disreputable sourses) experience.

I believe, from everything I remember, these folks who WE were supporting, relying upon, and giving the responsibility to... these folks were adament that they could find NO instances of ANY WMDs.

The administration stated their belief (whether actual or construed) that there was a real danger. Both THEY AND CONGRESS had access to the UN reports. Both THEY AND CONGRESS had access to relevant info, and both THEY AND GONGRESS chose to wage war, when the overwhelming, first hand proof was completely opposing their actions.

We are paying the consequence of the actions of many of these folks who now want us to forget just what they have done to (yes, I meant "to", not "for") this nation. Apparently, from the looks of their donations and fans, it's working quite well.

Of course, if they were truly angry, they would have to take a good look at themselves... and maybe live with who they REALLY are, not just who they BELIEVE they are.... IMHO

Start renting some buses people

This would be a good date/destination.

Thousands of Americans from around the country will join together to demand the impeachment of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and insist on the immediate end to the war in Iraq. September 15th is the date General David Petraeus is mandated to make a report to Congress on the progress of the so-called surge. The eyes of the national and international media will be focused on Washington DC at that time. In the coming weeks we will be taking out newspaper ads, producing 500,000 leaflets, flyers, and stickers, and setting up outreach committees for the September 15th March in Washington all over the country. Click here for more information.  

• all that's necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to remain silent
• all that's necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to remain silent
• all that's necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to remain silent
• all that's necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to remain silent
• all that's necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to remain silent
• all that's necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to remain silent
• all that's necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to remain silent

aMike

Excellent Mike:

I assume that this is in heavy planning stage already and I will look to see and report on whether any groups in the NY Metro Area are already organizing to head down. Anyone else interested should do the same with in their areas too. Cool. Thanks for turning my rants into something productive.

Bruce

It would be totally cool to meet on the Amtrak, so long as you can tolerate an eight-month old for the three hours or so we'll be on the train. Hee

skip

Doing the "undoable" has it roots in saying the "unsayable". Which in turn is rooted in thinking the unthinkable. In this little part of the world we're involved in the earlier stages of the middle activity. Keep Making it happen. (and, Thank you, Jonathan Alter.)

Kevin Russell Cook

Do you even think these guys (except Kucinich and Gravel) are really angered and pained about Iraq. I don't see it.

Maybe I can induce you to scan my diatribe about another guy I am not all that fond of here.

Whatever the case, Richardson has taken a lot of heat for proposing precisely what you moan no one but the two hopeless suspects is advocating.

You are exactly right IMO on the other candidates.

Best, Terry

Ah, Sophia.....Loren

I think you have touched the underlying dilemma. The same logic that says we should never have invaded Iraq works in defense of our domestic political status quo. As bad as he was, Saddam prevented what we can now see would obtain without him. As bad as the Republican/Democratic nexus is, we all fear to abandon it in favor of the uncertainty and insecurity of some unknown alternative. Who would inherit the power? What would guarantee my liberty? Would I still have a job? No matter how bad it is, we all suspect it would only get worse. Checkmate!

Richardson is not the only one who says he would leave Iraq. Kucinich and Gravel would as well but Richardson will not acknowledge the other two.

There are other areas where Richardson distinguishes himself as you know, Stephen.

For instance, Richardson did more than just sign New Mexico's medical marijuana law. He has tried to tell the feds to leave desperately sick, even dying, patients alone. Lot a' luck.

Unfortunately Richardson is a terrible speaker and not overly diligent in doing his homework. But he does offer a chance to debate real issues rather than petty points of propaganda.

[sigh] Such will never happen I fear.

Best, Terry

I am not arguing that the U.S. should not share the bulk of the responsibility for the situation in Iraq today, but what about Saddam Hussein?

After all he adamantly rejected U.N. inspectors from checking many, many sites in his country for more than six years leading most nations of the world to believe that he had some forms of chemical, nuclear, or biological weapons. And once the U.S. led coalition threatened to step in if he would not comply with the U.N. inspections, Iraq sent more than 22,500 tons of rail shipping across the border to Syria between January and March of 2003. Hum, I wonder what was in those 22,500 tons of rail cars? Of course it couldn’t have been WMD's? Could it?

Of course since the coalition only found a small amount of WMD's, the world wonders if it was really worth attacking Iraq just to take down the single most bloody dictator in the world. I suppose one could argue that it is not our job to remove dictators since every nation has the right to elect butchers who murder millions of their own citizens and for us to remove them would make us Imperialists trying to impose non-holocaust philosophies on others. How dare us!

I agree that the U.S. is a bunch of buttinskies to try and help a nation where millions are killed for simply speaking their mind against a horrible dictator. We should just keep to ourselves like so many suggested we do during WWII. Fortunately, we live in an era when we can speak freely about this. In the WWII era, FDR and his cronies would have thrown anybody who disagreed with the war or with him into a concentration camp in central California under the Sedition and Treason Laws. Thank God Bush isn't as mad and as vicious as that fucking Democrat Roosevelt!

Yeah, and, and, and what about Woodrow Wilson??????

And don't get me started on Clinton who bombed Pearl Harbor and framed the Japanese!