MyDD :: Conf rants: That's nice, but what about Iraq?

Conf rants: That's nice, but what about Iraq?

by Jerome Armstrong, Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 04:34:54 AM EST

It really sucks that many of the Democrats in DC are back to their 2002 position of ignoring that Iraq exists. They talk as though it isn't happening, that deaths are not occurring, that treasury is not being depleted. Democrats in DC envision Iraq completely off of the table by '08, and that Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, et. al. will be able to run unencumbered from having to discuss Iraq, or face the unpleasentness of having a solution to the occupation-- that there's no need to face their defacto or clearcut support for the occupation.

I don't buy it. Unless the Democrats face the problem with a solution, they have no credibility on the issue. And perhaps worse, for the Democratic Party, the centrists continued denial places liberals and progressives into a position of compromising authenticity to go along with the duplicity. I guess they don't recall Eugene McCarthy or George McGovern anymore. It's because of the Centrist Democrats in the Senate that we are in Iraq. Without their support, we wouldn't be in Iraq right now. They owe it to the Democratic Party to demand of Bush a correction of their error.

One other thing. I'm so tired of hearing the argument that there's a problem with all the leading bloggers being male, or that there's some sort of color or gender bias in the mix of who's the high-traffic blogger (and face it people, the confos and convos invite the popular bloggers). There was a day, prior to any pictures of myself on the web, when MyDD readers envisioned me as black (Jerome, from East LA, put it together...), but did it stop MyDD from being the most popular political blog during 2002? No, not at all.

The argument is full of straw. Can women go brass-knuckles politics? Sure, without a doubt, I've worked alongside them doing so. Is there a large traffic blogger that's a woman publically that does so? I don't think so, but if there was one that wanted to be, then hey, this is about as even a playing field as there is, it's zero-sum free enterprise at it's best, rock on.

I just don't buy into the argument that there's discriminating gender or sex bias in blog reading. You'll read what text sounds the best to you. Will you resonate toward? Sure, so why is it a wonder that when ~60% of the political blog readers are male, that the large traffic bloggers are themselves male? But if that's bias, then yea, we are all biased, move along... at least until we all get the transgender rainbow colored life.

Tags: Misc (all tags)

Permalink :: 25 Comments :: Post a Comment

Great (none / 0)

I think we should push the similarities to Vietnam, because 2004 was like our 1968, with the Democrats still supporting the war. Hopefully 2008, or maybe even 2006 will be our 1972 (without the losing) and we will fight against the war. On the point of white males having the most traffic in the blogosphere, the thing about blogs is that you don't really know who is writing what and can base your judgements on their thoughts rather than any bias you may have towards them.

Max Friedman

by Max Friedman on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 06:13:37 AM EST

i just ordered one of these (3.00 / 0)

get your's here.

Visit us at TexasKAOS, where we're taking Texas back!

by annatopia on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 11:59:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i just ordered one of these (none / 0)

Love it anna!

by Kyle Shank on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 05:32:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Disappointing (3.00 / 0)

Neither Dean or Edwards said anything about the BIGGEST issue of our time: Iraq.

"Why Isn't Iraq Topic One Among Democrats?"
- Arianna Huffington

"Iraq Is The Issue"
- John Nichols

"MIA at Progressives' Conference: Iraq"
- David Corn

The deafening silence by Democrats who command mainstream media attention isn't missed on the millions of working people who would reach into their pocket, nor is it lost on the families of those who have paid a terrible price for Bush's illegal and immoral "war".

Shunning this issue underscores the popular perception that the Dems have few deep convictions for the things that matter most in people's lives, and that they are less willing than Republicans to stand up and speak convincingly about them.

by fafnir on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 07:39:10 AM EST

absolutely (none / 0)

I think one of the key misperceptions bigshot Dems have is in thinking liberals don't care much about foreign policy. Iraq is still one of my top issues and will remain so in November of 05 and 06. I still have yet to hear a clear and cogent explanation of why we're there and why so many Dems voted for the war. Until we hear something about Iraq, I fear we'll keep losing defections to the Republicans.

by hotshotxi on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 12:55:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: absolutely (none / 0)

Democrats are worried they will be portrayed as weak if they come out against the war. This is only partially true - they will be portrayed as weak no matter what they do.

Given the situation, the WORST thing they can do is to hedge their bets and be indecisive cough John Kerry cough. The overwhelming majority of Democrats oppose the war and they need to take a stand on this.

That being said, those who want to end the fighting do need to move on about refighting the decision to go to war other than to remind people that it was fought under false pretenses. The anti-war movement must not allow itself to be protrayed as supporters of Saddam. The false dichotomy must be broken.

The simple truth is that it is getting to the point where we are doing more harm than good by staying and that the Iraqi's need to work out their own problems. We should not forget that the American people do want a free and democratic Iraq. The most effective way to end the war is to show them the contrast between a free and democratic Iraq and the US occupation.

Most importantly, the anti-war movement should always stick the blame where it belongs - at the top. The brave men and women of our Armed Services are doing their job, but the politicians in Washington have put them in a bad situation.

by wayward on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 07:30:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Crass politics on Iraq (3.00 / 1)

The explanation is simple. The leading contenders for the Democratic nomination are all on record supporting the Iraq War. Unfortunately their criticism of Bush's policy has been muted and infrequent.

Biden, Kerry, Hillary and Bayh are all followers of Peter Beinart's "robust liberal militarism" school of thought. They all show every intention of running as military hawks. The other day Bill Clinton made the standard declaration that we can't pull out now that we are there.

They are wrong, but can't take a clear stand on Iraq because the conventional political wisdom clashes with the anti-war sentiment in the Democratic party. They are all following the safe and craven advice that what you don't say can't hurt you.

The fundamental problem with their political strategy is that it also prevents them from making a harsh criticism of Bush's abject failure in Iraq. How can you criticize a policy that you want to adopt "with improvements"?

The party leadership has clearly put out the word that debating Iraq is off the table. The leadership is more interested in promoting the veneer of party unity than confronting a difficult and emotional problem. The Democratic party leadership has decided that they are not going to make Iraq an issue in the 2006 election.

The political calculus and the non-position position of the Democratic party are both wrong. We need an anti-war Democrat to start beating the drum for an immediate pull-out from Iraq. The anti-war parade has already left the barn and the Democrats are still working on decorating their float.

by Gary Boatwright on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 09:15:49 AM EST

Re: Crass politics on Iraq (none / 0)

And it also means that the "enablers" would get their ass kicked in '08...unless the economy falls to pieces.

As for '06, the Republicans can still get mileage out of bashing Democrat Senate canidates for being "weak on defense" but the CD races ought to be prime territory for the Dems to rip Bush on domestic issues. I mean, when the Congressman of the district you want to campaign in does not even appear...in Red State Kentucky...someone get the President a cold one...he's gonna need it.

by risenmessiah on Sat Jun 04, 2005 at 04:23:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Iraq is one of those issues of gray matter. (none / 0)

I did not see Larry King this week in which Bill Clinton was interviewed, but from what I am told he stated a position that many in the party agree with "Sadam was an evil ruler who needed to be removed" of course when he says this we all know who was going to remove him. In addition in the post 911 world the United States can not afford the room it gave Sadam as before, and he never did learn that.

However the President clouded the matter by not at the very least being grossly wrong about two issues. First of all there is no evidence of Sadam to 911 and links to Osamha and Alqueda are not clear either. And the WMD story also has its faults. What this means is that those who feel that invading Iraq was justified also feel mislead the Bush administration.

Politicaly speaking the nation knows we were mislead and the Bush administration and the GOP will have to deal with it in good time, as for the argument of should we have gone in to Iraq
the party is divided and that has been one of those issues that will continue to divide the party.

by THE MODERATE on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 10:02:06 AM EST

Say it with me boys and girls ... (3.00 / 1)

OK, all of you pro-Iraq Invasion folks, the first step is honesty. So just say it with me, "I made a mistake." See, don't you feel better now? You are still the same wonderful you, but now you've gotten a horrible burden off your chest!

I'm amazed that somehow, even in the face of all the evidence, support for the Iraq invasion is still the entree into "serious" foreign policy discussions. At some point, "toughness" became more important in American political life than "brains." Although, I blame the focus on incompetence during the election. The problem is not just that Bush ran the post-war period horribly. Someone with the wisdom of Lincoln, the rhetorical skills of Kennedy, and the military skills of Napoleon maybe could've pulled off the occupation period, but only maybe. It was a stupid, insane idea from the beginning, and until the Democratic Party accepts that fact, the Party will continue to have great problems.

by BriVT on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 10:43:42 AM EST

Re: Say it with me boys and girls ... (none / 0)

I did support the war. It seemed like a good idea at the time. Saddam was an SOB, a terrorist, and was giving the UN the run-around. We couldn't be worse than he was, could we? How was this so much different than throwing a madman out of Kosovo or Bosnia, right?

However, had I known then what I know now, I would have opposed the war. Saddam wanted to deal, but Bush had already planned his war. The intelligence was at best terribly wrong and at worst doctored. There were no plans for democracy or even reconstruction, just for a takeover of Iraq's oil infrastructure and and right-wing takeover of Iraq's economy.

Worse yet, a large reason for the war was so that Bush could do something his daddy didn't - get Saddam. Most disgustingly, it was a war for the personal glory of one who did not have to fight it. This is what emperors and dictators do, not leaders who value democracy.

by wayward on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 07:38:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

When Did You Change Your Mind? (none / 0)

People were saying this long before Iraq started. Are you saying that 9-11 influenced your trust in Bush enough to believe his version of events? This isn't said to mock...rather to me it appeared that Bush pretty much was lying all the way through. But I'd honestly like to know why many Democrats and progressives signed up for battle.

BTW, My suspicion is that Bush had Ahmed Chalabi attend the "secret" energy task force meetings in 2001. At the time, I doubt that it would have been big news had the Cheney advisor panel been revealed. But given the increase in name ID about Ahmed Chalabi, my money is on the fact that Bush always planned a "Return to Iraq".

by risenmessiah on Sat Jun 04, 2005 at 04:31:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: When Did You Change Your Mind? (none / 0)

Clinton bombed Iraq too, and prominent Democrats saw Saddam as a potential source of trouble long before Bush took office. Remember that we'd been having trouble with Saddam since 1990, and Saddam had been unusually uncooperative with the UN since the Gulf War ended. So no, 9/11 had nothing to do with how much I trusted Bush. If anything, I figured he would be like his father in respect to foreign policy and international relations, and expected a certain sense of responsibily from the man.

(If you'll remember, when Clinton did bomb Iraq in 1998, it was the Democrats who supported it and the Republicans who gave him hell for it.)

I did trust Bush more than Saddam, although I would not consider that to be a completely unreasonable position at the time. I believed Bush's policy to be an extension of Clinton's, albeit a much more aggressive one. After 9/11, I could certainly understand why we would no longer give a madman openly hostile to the United States the benefit of the doubt.

I do believe had a few hundred Floridians voted the other way, President Al Gore would have taken some sort of military action against Iraq, although the escalation would have been considerably slower and considerably more diplomacy would have been used both with Iraq and with the international community.

Something did have to be done about Saddam sometime. A full-scale invasion in March 2003 was neither the right thing nor the right time. What I did not know is that not only was this the only option being seriously pursued but that this had been planned long before 9/11. The Administration was negotiating in bad faith with Iraq and the world community and not being honest with the American people.

by wayward on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 08:06:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Which Bush? (none / 0)

I have no doubt your belief that containment was failing is sincere. Some of your comments sounded ambivalent though.

[i] ...prominent Democrats saw Saddam as a potential source of trouble long before Bush took office ...[/i]

Though I'm hardpressed to find documentation right this second, my guess is that even as early as the Baath coup in '68 there were voices in the Democrats (and probably still then the GOP) thinking that Hussein would be more than the usual tin pot dictator.

[i] So no, 9/11 had nothing to do with how much I trusted Bush....After 9/11, I could certainly understand why we would no longer give a madman openly hostile to the United States the benefit of the doubt.[/i]

So 9/11 didn't increase your willingness to trust Bush inasmuch as not trust anyone else more?

[i] I do believe had a few hundred Floridians voted the other way, President Al Gore would have taken some sort of military action against Iraq, although the escalation would have been considerably slower and considerably more diplomacy would have been used both with Iraq and with the international community. [/i]

I doubt that seriously. The US was thrilled to use Iraq as the "bogeyman" to keep both the Saudis and Israel in line. Just as it liked Saddam around to put Iran in its place. Refer to the so called "bulwark" strategy of embracing Nazi Germany in light of Soviet expansionism in the 1930s.

9/11 was what caused the wrinkle in the "Vice" President's Office. For years, Cheney had thought the neo-con movement was largely bullshit. But now that the US had this insurance policy on the Saudi royal family (called Prince Sultan Air Base) ol' Dick's drilling business would be at the mercy of diplomacy should the US decide to withdraw its military footprint from Saudi Arabia. So Cheney signs onto the neo-con wet dream of hitting Iraq. The war would be short, but the reconstruction long and the new government (thanks to Chalabi) would not might a contigent of US troops there permanently. From this "Arabian Heidelberg" the US military could keep its force close to Saudi oil fields if political instability did appear all the while keeping the Iranians at bay.

No terror attacks though, and neither the Bush or Gore Administration would have used all-out invasion to bring down the Baathists. Maybe the "Pinochet option" or the President Diem one, but nothing like what we've seen.

by risenmessiah on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 05:04:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Female Bloggers (none / 0)

I agree Jerome. Avedon Carol of Sideshow did an excellent job last week while subbing for Atrios listing many popular liberal female bloggers. There are plenty of us out here and many of us get get decent traffic. If there's a bias, I don't see it. I hope the media doesn't insist on creating one.

by TalkLeft on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 11:40:10 AM EST

Iraq support among the cong. Dems. / Fembloggists (none / 0)

I don't think that they are ignoring the war. I think that they are dealing with realities, those being... OK, we lost, now how do we drag our feet until the next election? How do we hold things up until we get another chance?

Dean is doing nothing. There is no cohesive visionary in the party and Kerry is wimpering like Gore did. He's got no shot at a second try. Hilary denies she's running while trying to change her stripes...er image, and not many are buying either. They blather about Soc. Sec., judges and military base closings, but are ineffectual at offering alternitives.

The Dems are as hysterical regarding the judgeships as the Repubs are wimpy about putting forth the constitutional option. Neither want to yield, because the other may be in power one of these days.

As to the female bloggists... Try Malkin, no lightweight there.

by Robert Treat Paine on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 12:35:33 PM EST

Re: Iraq support among the cong. Dems. / Fembloggi (3.00 / 1)

malkin? don't make me laugh. she may be popular (yea, those right wingers really drive some traffic), but she's a goddamned joke and a self-hating asian.

Visit us at TexasKAOS, where we're taking Texas back!

by annatopia on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 01:29:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Malkin is an ultra lightweight (none / 0)

If you like reading political fiction, she's your gal.

by Gary Boatwright on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 03:21:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Courage (3.00 / 1)

Agreed. Without facing the issue of Iraq, Dems have no credibility. And no credibility on this issue means losing elections. Again.

It's time the Iraq Supporters in the Democratic Party step up, and admit they were wrong.

It's called Courage.

If you don't have it, you don't need to be in office.

by cscs on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 12:38:23 PM EST

Wimpy D's (none / 0)

I agree wholeheartedly that the Democratic leadership has wimped out on Iraq. If Kerry would have been consistent on Iraq, and came out against the war and called for a responsible withdrawal, I think he would have done a lot better. However, his vote to give Bush the authority to attack Iraq would have made this seem like another "flip-flop." (Not to mention that Bush flip-flopped on vitually every major issue but the corporate media never pointed that out.

Why not make Teddy Kennedy or Robert Byrd the Democratic leaders? They are amond the few who spoke out courageously against it. (Well-known that is).

The Democrats have to decide who and what they stand for. Do they stand for the working people that they claim they do? Do they stand for peace and the non-violent solutions to conflict, if that is possible? Do they stand for living wages for Americans or for corporate profits and "free" trade?

Until they do, don't count on them retaking the Congress or the presidency anytime soon.

by MichiganDemocrat on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 06:33:09 PM EST

A realistic exit strategy for Irag (none / 0)

From Mercury Rising. I don't know why she calls it The Kerry Plan for Iraq, but it has merit. The problem is that Bush and the Theocons will never adopt it or anything like it:

There is a better way, but it would require a better US government. The key steps are these.

Trust is broken. It can only be re-established by making it clear that the US presence in Iraq is temporary. Base construction and the looting of the Iraqi oil industry should cease. Oil revenues should be nationalized until a genuine Iraqi government is in place.
The "Salvador option", of supporting death squads and other repressive secret police must cease immediately. People like John Negroponte need to be removed from authority (and ideally sent to replace a declining population in Guantanamo).
US troops should be replaced by Arab/Muslim troops for all police functions. My guess is that there are enough former Egyptian, Jordanian, and Indonesian policemen-- or troops who could be trained for police duties-- to fill the gap within a few months. Then there could be genuine training of an Iraqi police force.
Basic services need to be restored immediately. That means turning over control of the electric grid and water pumping to Iraqi engineers and those engineers need to be provided strong security. Sanitation needs to be restored promptly. US and European medical personnel should temporarily replace Iraqi medical personnel, who the resistance is driving out of the country.
Finally, the puppet government has no credibility. There should be real elections. These should begin at the local level, with all local autonomy being immediately ceded. The US should temporarily handle national control. A preliminary constitution should treat Iraq as a confederacy, in which each region retains veto power over any national constitution.
The US should commit to pay $60B of reparations to rebuild infrastructure and train a new generation of professionals.

US forces are needed to guard Iraq's borders against external rivals such as Iran, to prevent importation of weapons to continue the conflict, and to allow Iraq to gain control over its own commerce, notably oil. There is absolutely no reason for US forces to be searching houses or performing basic police functions.

I think this is what the Kerry plan was. I don't know, of course. But he is intelligent enough to have seen these issues.

If that's the Kerry plan, he should adopt it within the next 30 days. It would make a reasonable plan to use against the Theocons. That's exactly the kind of posture the Democrats need to adopt immediately. If they wait until 2007, it's two years too late.

by Gary Boatwright on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 07:15:28 PM EST

Re: A realistic exit strategy for Irag (none / 0)

The problem is that the Salvador option worked quite well in El Salvador.

Oscar Romero did NOT rise in the Salvadorean people, and the nation is still an poor banana republic ruled by a small elite.

Even Carter supported the regieme for far too long, despite Romero's pleas and even after Romero's assassination. The murder of the American nuns finally got him to pull the plug, but by then he was a lame duck, so it made no difference.

In the 2004 Vice-Presidential debate, Cheney all but cited the death squads of El Salvador as freedom fighters. Few people noticed.

I am afraid Iraq will remain a bloody mess for years to come. As the US body count gets higher, look for cuts in American forces and an increased reliance on native death squads, which will be called "police", "security forces", or "pro-American fighters".

by wayward on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 07:47:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The Salvador option worked quite well? (none / 0)

The families of a whole lot of dead El Salvadorans would disagree. A whole lot of families of dead Iraqis are demonstrating their disagreement with how well the policy is working in Iraq by blowing themselves up along with as many of their fellow Iraqis American G.I.'s as they can.

by Gary Boatwright on Sat Jun 04, 2005 at 12:42:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Enough of these "moderate" Democrats (none / 0)

They came out for the war when they knew Bush was lying, because it was politically in their interests. Now they are continuing to support it for political reasons even though they know it's futile. Enough with the Dems who voted for the war. I won't vote for them again no matter what they do. Let's just boot them out of office and get some people with real heart and ideas. They forced John Kerry down our throats, and they still lost the election. I don't care what they say or want.

by steve expat on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 09:55:55 PM EST

We don't need to go there right now (none / 0)

It's because of the Centrist Democrats in the Senate that we are in Iraq. Without their support, we wouldn't be in Iraq right now. They owe it to the Democratic Party to demand of Bush a correction of their error.

This line seems to confabulate the question of how to punish fellow Democrats for selling us out over the initial invasion with the question of what is the best position to take right now. The answer to the second question depends upon where we think we are going short term in Iraq. If you believe that we will hang on in Iraq for decades without much change unless we call for withdrawal now that is one thing. But if you believe, like I do, that things are much more critical and dangerous than that, and we are likely to see some disaster there before the next elections, then it makes more sense to not put ourselves in a position where the blame for the coming disaster can be shifted to us.

Taking a position public position that we should "bring the troops home" (at a time when they may be chased home rather soon) runs the risk that we will be blamed for a Dunkirk in the Desert it the same way that Newsweek is now held responsible for the increasing violence in Afghanistan.

Now I don't think that the violent jihadi in Afghanistan send much time reading Newsweek's "periscope" column and I don't think that they were really waiting for a Pentagon report to confirm the claims by prisoners in Gismo of mistreatment of the Koran. Likewise I don't believe for a moment that the insurgents in Iraq are waiting for Democrats to call for withdrawal before they make their big push. But the administration and the main stream media seem very capable to making most Americans believe that is the way it works.

So I think we "owe it to the Democratic Party" not to fall into that trap when there is no pressing need put ourselves in such a position right now.

by Fred in Vermont on Sat Jun 04, 2005 at 09:10:33 AM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.