Is the Democratic Party Pro-War?

Judging from the national polling compendium that Bowers blogged below, it looks like Hillary Clinton is in command of the race.  She's picking up endorsements; today's was Tom Vilsack, who returned to his DLC roots with this endorsement letter.  I'm excerpting this section - pay particular attention to the sentence on Iraq.

I am proud to do it because of all the candidates running, she has the best ideas, the most energy, and the values and vision to lead our country in the right direction after eight long years of George W. Bush.

She's going to put an end to the war in Iraq. She's going to make sure every American has access to affordable health care. She's going to make us energy secure. And I know she'll put children and families first -- she has fought for them for decades.

In terms of the war in Iraq, she might be saying she'll end the war, and she might have surrogates saying she'll end the war.  But she's also saying this.

I think we have remaining vital national security interests in Iraq, and I've spoken about that on many different occasions.

I think it really does matter whether you have a failed province or a region that serves as a petri dish for insurgents and Al Qaeda. It is right in the heart of the oil region. It is directly in opposition to our interests, to the interests of regimes, to Israel's interests.

So I think we have a remaining military as well as political mission, trying to contain the extremists.

I think we have a vital national security interest and obligation to try to help the Kurds manage their various problems in the north so that one of our allies, Turkey, is not inflamed, and they are able to continue with their autonomy. I think we have a vital national security interest -- if the Iraqis ever get their act together -- to continue to provide logistical support, air support, training support. I don't know that that is going to be feasible, but I would certainly entertain it. And I think we have a continuing vital national security interest in trying to prevent Iran from crossing the border and having too much influence inside of Iraq.

There is just no way that she can say that she will end the war and that she will continue a military mission in Iraq to contain extremists and ward off Iran.  Those are mutually exclusive.  As Matthew Yglesias continually points out, she simply believes in a more militaristic approach to foreign policy than Barack Obama.  She's not calculating about it.  She voted for the war, she's not sorry for her vote, and she will sustain a military mission in Iraq if she's elected President to protect 'vital national security interests'.  She also holds the Iraqis responsible for not 'getting their act together' and says that those who don't agree with this approach don't agree that it matters if Iraq becomes a failed state or a 'petri dish' for Al Qaeda.  

Hillary Clinton, while no George Bush, cannot by any measure be considered an anti-war candidate.  So I'm wondering, and this is the big danger to our party, why there isn't more of a profound concern about how dangerous she really is.  Why aren't there PACs lined up against her stance on the war?  Why are donors rushing in to support her?  Why are her supporters going along with the fiction that opposition to her candidacy comes from some blind hatred of Clinton instead of a real disagreement with her policy choices and her judgment, both of which are demonstrably bad for America and the Democratic Party?  Why aren't local bloggers demanding she answer questions at events?  Why does Vilsack get off scot-free for endorsing her?

We're having a big fight over a supplemental bill, which we all know can only bring the date of the war's end closer but cannot end the war before Bush leaves office.  And the fight is among a group of progressives who all agree on the ends but disagree on tactics.  The amount of heat generated is high relative to concern about what happens in Iraq after 2009.  That does seem to be where we actually have leverage.  Whatever you think about the supplemental fight, our party's standard-bearer at this moment does not represent the party or the country.  

What is going on with us Democrats?  Are we really that stupid?

UPDATE: Since my passion is politics and political architecture, I've outsourced my policy-oriented opinions on Iraq to Matthew Yglesias. Here's how he draws the distinction between Clinton, Edwards, and Obama.

I think it's a mistake to elide the difference between an over-the-horizon force (meaning you want it to be logistically possible to re-re-deploy into Iraq if circumstances warrant) and an in-country force (meaning you've prejudged that there should be a continuing presence in Iraq) but that this is largely correct. Now, in a big picture sense, what this emphasizes is the extent to which it would be good to have a president you trusted. A provision that allows for some troops to continue being in Iraq even as combat forces are withdrawn could be prudence or it could be a loophole. To me, what separates Clinton from Obama and Edwards on this front is that Clinton appeared to be saying that one mission of her proposed continuing presence in Iraq would be trying to intimidate Iran which sounds more like loophole territory than prudence territory to me.

As for Ed Kilgore, I didn't argue that there's a litmus test for candidates on withdrawal of every single boot from Iraq, and I don't think there's much of a point arguing about different pony plans. I'm just wondering why Clinton is getting a free pass on Iraq. I have more faith in Edwards, since he apologized for his vote and recognized his earlier mistake, and Obama, who never made the initial error. I don't get why Democratic voters are giving a pass to Clinton, since she made a disastrously poor decision, claims she didn't vote for war even though she did, and is upfront that she would make the same bad choice today if given the same information. No other Democratic candidate is even in the same league as Clinton in terms of poor and misaligned arguments on Iraq.



Display:


Re: Is the Democratic Party Pro-War? (none / 0)

   I think Hillary's support is due in part to her name recognition, celebrity, and also her pro-business agenda. On the issue of Iraq, I think most of her supporters either don't care, or think that putting forces on iraq's perimeter will be so small relative to now (meaning 30-50 thousand troops), and that it will be Iraqis killing themselves and spending money, that it will cease to be an issue.
   As for other Democrats, I think there is some division, but I think it goes three, four ways. There are those who are still pro-war, from conservative to moderate Dems (think Hoyer). There are then those progressives who want to end the war now, damn the consequences, and so are threatening bills on Iraq that don't say explicitly that we're getting the hell out. And then there are the progressives who say don't rock the boat, and go with whatever bill is being shown to them.
    I really don't know where public opinion comes into this. The American public hates the war, yes, but whether they want to end it, or win it, is another thing. I can say I want to end the war, but actually mean win it, not pulling out. This is my only concern. That we pull out, and get tarred traitors by the public. I think thats what many Dems are thinking too.
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
by liberal2012 on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 04:18:07 PM EST

Re: Is the Democratic Party Pro-War? (none / 0)

Thank you so, so much, Matt.  Please keep pushing on this.  President Clinton really will be a disaster.

I think many leading Democrats are pro-war in the Clinton style or simply don't care.


by greebsnarf on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 04:25:02 PM EST

No (3.00 / 1)

Lets define the war as it exists today.  

the iraq war as we know it:  american soldiers policing a civil war.  fair definition??  I think so.  if you don't think so, come up with a better one.  this is what we all want to end, right?  I do..   It's an unconscionable, tragic way to use the u.s. troops.

So that's what we know the war to be.  american soldiers trying to stop sectarian violence/civil war in iraq.  

So.  what does vilsack say. He says...


She's going to put an end to the war in Iraq.

As far as the War as it's defined, the War as we know it as it exists right now, that is true.  It is the policy of all Democratic Party Candidates.  And that's not parsing anything.  That's calling the war what it is, and saying it will end.  got that?  good.

Now.

hillary says we still have security interests in Iraq.  She says it does actually matter if Iraq becomes a failed state where terrorists can recruit and train more terrorists literally at will.

She's right.  If you think she's wrong.  if you think those are wrong statements, then say so.  but know that you will be disagreeing with other democrats like jim webb and brian schweitzer on that issue.  

does obama think we will no longer have anything at stake in iraq?

does edwards think we will no longer have anything at stake in iraq?

if they do, they're stupid.

the point is wether or not one can tell the difference between continuing the war in iraq and making some effort to clean up bush's disaster in iraq.  if you think there is some responsibility america has to do that, then you should look to the democratic candidate who is most concerned about doing that and stop worrying about wether or not a candidate meets standards of being anti-war that only slide back and forth anyway.

if one can't tell that difference, then the answer to the rhetorical questions you pose above might not be very flattering.


by Stewieeeee on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 04:26:56 PM EST

Re: No (none / 0)

The difference is while that Edwards and Obama both agree that we should leave forces in the region, they disagree that we have to remain in the region because we have "interests" there aside from fighting Al Qaida.  The notion of protecting our vital "interests" in the region (again, aside from fighting Al Qaida) is something that Hillary, alone among Democrats, is promoting.


"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR
by jallen on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 04:38:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (none / 0)

To elaborate, the notion that we must protect these vital "interests" means that we must have a more solid presence than what Edwards and Obama advocate.


"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR
by jallen on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 04:41:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't see a difference (none / 0)

Now we're parsing words.

Fighting al qaida is a vital interest we have in the region.

she says it's vital, if obama and edwards don't think it's vital then they should say so.


by Stewieeeee on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 04:41:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't see a difference (none / 0)

Both Obama and Edwards advocate maintaining a presence in the region to fight Al Qaida, so stop calling them stupid.

And when I hear her say "interests", she seem to be talking about more than our little war.


"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR
by jallen on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 04:54:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't see a difference (none / 0)

THis is what I hear when she's talking about "interests":
"It is right in the heart of the oil region. It is directly in opposition to our interests, to the interests of regimes, to Israel's interests."
"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR
by jallen on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 04:56:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't see a difference (none / 0)

It's code, jallen.  She's talking about Israel.


by justinh on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 04:58:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't see a difference (none / 0)

Sorry, I noticed you already said that!


by justinh on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 04:59:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't see a difference (none / 0)

I think the oil in the region is considered at least as important an "interest" as Israel.  I don't think that the invasion of Iraq was carried out solely with Israel in mind.  


by RickD on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 06:30:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't see a difference (none / 0)

yes.  there are other interests.  i'd like to hear obama and edwards address those interests and say they don't matter.

i'm not calling them stupid anymore.


by Stewieeeee on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 05:00:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (3.00 / 1)

So, your main point is that the difference is not whether they want to end the war, but the fact that Clinton's approach to ending the war will continue to provoke conflict?

Those forces "securing American interests" by staying in Iraq can either:

  • not engage; or
  • engage

If the former, they are doing no more good than forces based elsewhere in the region, and if the latter, then by this wonderfully simply definition they will be starting up the Iraq war again.

And I agree: Hillary should say, "I want to stop this war. And though I may find it necessary to restart the war again later, I promise you that I will work to stop it each and every time I restart it."


The words of the prophets are written on the subway halls
   and tenement halls
by BruceMcF on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 04:45:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (none / 0)

No.  My main point is that it certainly shouldn't be that difficult to see the difference between ending our involvement with sectarian violence/civil war (that results in 95% of troop casualties) and understanding that america will still have a stake in the outcome of iraq.

maybe it is too difficult to see that difference.


by Stewieeeee on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 04:55:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (none / 0)

What is difficult to see is how continued occupation is combined with ending our involvement in a sectarion-violence-amplified civil war.

How do you manage that? Only occupy the bits that the different sides of the civil war aren't fighting over? That would seem to be a temporary solution given that the very fact that we are occupying that space will attract the different sides to demonstrate their credibility by attacking us there.


The words of the prophets are written on the subway halls
   and tenement halls
by BruceMcF on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 07:05:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

stewieeee, you - and many others havn't a clue (none / 0)

if you think that this mess in Iraq is a simple civil war - a Sunni -Shii'a split in which we are getting in the cross fire. The Sunni are basically attacking US every chance they get - like shooting down helicopters -- they are not after Shi'a in those . They are also attacking anyone perceived to be HELPING US. That includes the police and army and recruits.

There are at least 4 major Shi'a factions; Moqtada al Sadr's Medhi army is basically doing the same as the Sunni (attacking US) plus they he has been working to bring the Sunni into the process and is very much a nationalist. (but still a murderous thug) Al Malaki is of the DAWA party and was the guy heading up the purge the Bathist team before. Now the US says fix it - to him! I forget their militia's name. The SCIRI party is Al Hakim who has control of the interior Dept - that's the police which has incorporated the Badr Brigade thugs. SCIRI is battling for power against DAWA withing the Shi'a, The Sunni are trying for a share of power - the amount varies from fair to all; Al Sadr just wants the US gone and Iraq not to fall apart - oh - and they all want an Islamic theocracy.  Add to that, no one can run a governmental agency. Plus there is a huge criminal element. Oh and there is a Medhi Army primarily in the south that hates Moqtada al Sadr but venerates his dead father. Add to that minor groups ---

The seculars and the christians are mostly gone. As are the Professors, Drs. and lawyers because of targeted assasinations.

We took a stable, secular country where most people prospered, but had a hideous dictator, and smashed it to pieces. Though much of the insurgency and factional fighting was forseen, I don't think anyone expected this much of a clusterfluck.  Words fail; where else have people been so traumatised? Maybe Darfur. It's not the same but the effects on the remaining Iraqis is similar.  The Iraqis national identity now includes PTSD and depression.

As far as al Quaida in Iraq, they are extremely dangerous - but they are tolerated and helped because they are trying to get US out. If we wer to leave I think the Iraqis could and would exterminate them pretty quickly.  Would all the power struggles cease? No, not for a while. But we are doing nothing to help them decrease. We will not be able to provide "security" for them to what? sit down and have conferences about power sharing?  The Iraqis want us out. The main supporters of our staying are the government players who know they are seen as American puppets and will be killed if the don't flee fast enough.

Hillary's stuff sounds so much like Nixon's campaign where he said he had a secret way to end the war. We were still waiting when he got reelected. (Finally Ford ended it.) If Hillary gets elected we will be in the same position 6 years from now if we don't have a MAJOR disaster like the Lebanon baracks.

We need to:
Pull US troops to borders and bases - use for training and national border patrol;
 Massive employment program - long term -- like marshall plan plus our depression era conservation corps  plus ship in critically need medical supplies;
Announce all bases and ~ 90% of the Green Zone will be turned over to the Iraqs and
Allow/ promote massive evacuation/ immigration to US of Iraqis who worked for/with us - not leave them behind to be massacared.

Read Juan Cole, BBC, Iraqis' own blogs - there are hundreds.

The Iraqis have a good chance of controlling things and of wiping out al Quida, after a few more years of vicious fighting. All we know for sure is that we can not do so.

sam


by sam dobermann on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 04:32:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

stewieeee, you - and many others havn't a clue (none / 0)

if you think that this mess in Iraq is a simple civil war - a Sunni -Shii'a split in which we are getting in the cross fire. The Sunni are basically attacking US every chance they get - like shooting down helicopters -- they are not after Shi'a in those . They are also attacking anyone perceived to be HELPING US. That's the police and army and recruits.

There are at least 4 major Shi'a factions; Moqtada al Sadr's Medhi army is basically doing the same as the Sunni plus they he has been working to bring the Sunni into the process and is very much a nationalist. (but still a murderous thug) Al Malaki is of the DAWA party and was the guy heading up the purge the Bathist team before. Now the US says fix it - to him! I forget their militia's name. The SCIRI party is Al Hakim who has control of the interior Dept - that's the police which has incorporated the Badr Brigade thugs. SCIRI is battling for power against DAWA withing the Shi'a, The Sunni are trying for a share of power - the amount varies from fair to all; Al Sada just want the US gone and Iraq not to fall apart - oh - and they all want an Islamic theocracy.  Add to that, no one can run a governmental agency. Plus there is a huge criminal element. Oh and there is a Medhi Army primarily in the south that hates Moqtada al Sadr but venerates his dead father. Add to that minor groups ---

As far as al Quaida in Iraq, they are extremely dangerous - but they are tolerated and helped because they are trying to get US out. If we wer to leave I think the Iraqis could and would exterminate them pretty quickly.  Would all the power struggles cease? No, not for a while. But we are doing nothing to help them decrease. We will not be able to provide "security" for them to what? sit down and have conferences about power sharing?  The Iraqis want us out. The main supporters of our staying are the government players who know they are seen as American puppets and will be killed if the don't flee fast enough.

Hillary's stuff sounds so much like Nixon's campaign where he said he had a secret way to end the war. We were still waiting when he got reelected. (Finally Ford ended it.) If Hillary gets elected we will be in the same position 6 years from now if we don't have a MAJOR disaster like the Lebanon baracks.

We need to:
Pull US troops to borders and bases - use for training and national border patrol;
 Massive employment program - long term -- like marshall plan plus our depression era conservation corps  plus ship in critically need medical supplies;
Announce all bases and ~ 90% of the Green Zone will be turned over to the Iraqs and
Allow/ promote massive evacuation/ immigration to US of Iraqis who worked for/with us - not leave them behind to be massacared.

Read Juan Cole, BBC, Iraqis' own blogs - there are hundreds.

The Iraqis have a good chance of controlling things and of wiping out al Quida, after a few more years of vicious fighting. All we know for sure is that we can not do so.


by sam dobermann on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 05:16:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (none / 0)

"Ending the War as we know it" is a good formulation, even if it does evoke "ending welfare as we know it."

However, there is a big difference between saying we should leave troops "in the area" (presumably Bahrain, Dubai, Qatar, some 'stan or even Afghanistan, or some island navy base), and saying we should leave troops "in Iraq."  The former is to protect against invasion by a neighbor and the latter is to train troops and root out "al Qaeda."  

Hillary seems to mean the latter, while I'm not sure, but Obama may mean the former.  This is a big difference, especially to those who believe that opposition to our very presence in Iraq is a major cause of most of the Sunni insurgency.


by Mimikatz on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 04:46:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (none / 0)

if obama thinks he can keep track of terrorist activity in iraq from qatar, ok.  i think that's the kind of thing we need to hear from him.


by Stewieeeee on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 04:56:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If Hillary has a strategy to ... (none / 0)

... remain in Iraq without stimulating terrorist activity, we need to hear that too.


The words of the prophets are written on the subway halls
   and tenement halls
by BruceMcF on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 07:06:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Hillary has a strategy to ... (none / 0)

I'm all for it.  100%.


by Stewieeeee on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 09:49:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Its not your support for the strategy at issue ... (none / 0)

... just its existence in the real world. What you have described so far sounds like a recipe for more American involvement in a civil war.


The words of the prophets are written on the subway halls
   and tenement halls
by BruceMcF on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 11:24:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not at all. (none / 0)

Precisely the opposite.


by Stewieeeee on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 09:36:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Democratic Party Pro-War? (none / 0)

I know you hate Hillary but llok at Obama's plan.
This from barack obama's web site. He says the exact same thing as Clinton.Note the last sentence.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

From barackobama.com:
Senator Obama introduced legislation in January 2007 to offer a responsible alternative to President Bush's failed escalation policy. The legislation commences redeployment of U.S. forces no later than May 1, 2007 with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008 -- a date consistent with the bipartisan Iraq Study Group's expectations. The plan allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain in Iraq as basic force protection, to engage in counter-terrorism and to continue the training of Iraqi security forces.


by bsavage on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 04:30:23 PM EST

Re: Is the Democratic Party Pro-War? (none / 0)

However, she is for permanent bases, none of the others have said that and EDWARDS does not want permanent bases and Obama does not either.


by BDM on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 04:35:58 PM EST

Bingo (3.00 / 1)

This is a big issue.


Me | My Work | Future Majority
by Josh Koenig on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 05:32:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Huge. (none / 0)

Anyone who happens to be at a Hillary event in the next few months - the question should be "Do you support the establishment of permanent military bases in Iraq? Why or why not?" She (and the other candidates too) should have to answer that question every week.


by joesaho on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 05:56:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Huge. (none / 0)

Make the republicans answer too.

Wedge. Issue.


Me | My Work | Future Majority
by Josh Koenig on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 10:46:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Democratic Party Pro-War? (none / 0)

They'll keep troops in Iraq.

I guess they'll put them up in a hotel.


by Stewieeeee on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 05:57:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Democratic Party Pro-War? (none / 0)

Progressives must watch out for candidate fever, just as all Dems must be careful. You can tell you are coming down with it when you argue appearance or electibility.

Or, what the candidate looks like to other voters. Or, giving style points for appearances for energetic, confident, in-command of issues type speaking. Next stop, earthtone clothes, bad hair, lethargic, troubled, stumbled badly, people say, has a reputation for, not what Americans want anymore...blahblah. I say this because we try so hard to spot propaganda and bury it. But we get the fever when we forget that we learned the difference between appearance vs. reality.

Instead of trying to fit the person's appearance onto my projected image upon the wall, I try to hear their speeches as a serious job interview. First I must know the job requirements so I can do a good hiring job, that's my duty. Next I listen for the one who matches the qualifications; next I join the effort to hire my guy.

First question: What's your plan for bringing home the troops?


by mrobinsong on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 04:38:20 PM EST

Re: Is the Democratic Party Pro-War? (none / 0)

Hillary has been campaigning on about four things.

One, she is a woman and could be the first female President.

Two, she is married to Bill Clinton and electing her would put him back in the White House.

Three, she is inevitable.  She has the money, she has the poll numbers, she has the campaign staff, she has Bill.

Four, she has been there and can handle the likes of Gingrich, DeLay, and Rove.

All of these will wear thin after a while(and some already have...got news for you Hillary, Rove, Gingrich, and DeLay will not be there after 2008) as people realize that she has failed on a major candidate question.  It is the same question that killed Teddy Kennedy's campaign in 1980.  Why do you want to be President?  I can go to Obama's announcement, I can go to Edward's announcement and they both say why they are running for President.  When I go to Hillary's what do I find?  Nothing.  Why are you running Hillary?  

I'm not just starting a campaign, though, I'm beginning a conversation -- with you, with America.

She's running so she can have a conversation?


by msstaley on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 04:38:30 PM EST

Re: Is the Democratic Party Pro-War? (none / 0)

Evidently, its the only way she can get people to talk to her.


The words of the prophets are written on the subway halls
   and tenement halls
by BruceMcF on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 04:48:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Democratic Party Pro-War? (none / 0)

Perhaps the situation here, Matt, is that many do see that the United States has "vital national security interests" in Iraq. Abandoing Anbar providence to a state of anarchy would allow Al Qaeda to operate with immunity there until a central government grows strong enough to drive them out, or unless the sunni tribes get serious about removing them, neither of these scenerios are likely to occur any time soon. This prospect is enough to give anyone pause, and the fact that Clinton appears at least to recognize this, despite activist support for withdrawling despite the consequences, is somewhat refreshing in that she's not pandering to a part of the electorate and foresaking her views on national security.


by bjschmid on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 04:42:35 PM EST

Re: Is the Democratic Party Pro-War? (none / 0)

I guarantee you this - the US cannot stop the insurgency in Anbar province.  Period.  Why do people continue to have this pie in the sky idea that the US staying will stop the insurgency?  It fuels it.  The only thing that will stop the insurgency is a real government in Iraq.


by Ian Welsh on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 08:42:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You're confusing Insurgency (none / 0)

With Terrorism.

Not every Insurgent is a Terrorist.

Not even very many at all.


by Stewieeeee on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 09:47:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Democratic Party Pro-War? (none / 0)

I believe we need to pull all troops out of Iraq IN 18 MONTHS.

We still have bases in Kuwait and the surrounding area's as well as naval forces in the gulf

I served in Vietnam and all of the experts said if Vietnam fell all of SE Asia would fall.

They were wrong and we have a good relationship with Vietnam today.

If we followed Hillary's advice for Iraq WE WILL BE THEIR AT LEAST 20 YEARS AND APPLYING THAT TO vIETNAM WE WOULD STILL BE THEIR TODAY.


by BDM on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 04:46:41 PM EST

Is the Beltway pro-war? (3.00 / 1)

I've been ranting, off and on, for three years about  the establishment of permanent bases in Iraq.  They exist. They're designed to hold about 50,000 troops. Every senator running in this race knows about them.  The plan was, from the beginning, to replace the Saudi bases with Iraqi bases. That plan, as far as I can tell, is unchanged.  It may be the case that Hillary is just telling a truth.

Now the House bill did expressly ban permanent bases.  But I would still like to hear a clear stand, and an answer to the question of the 1) disposition of those bases and 2)how iraq can have a defense force with no armor and no air power.


by jayackroyd on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 04:49:02 PM EST

Re: Is the Beltway pro-war? (none / 0)

I have been ranting about this for years myself.  


by Winston Smith on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 05:12:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Beltway pro-war? (none / 0)

I worked in Saudi Arabia in the late 80's and early 90's prior to the first Gulf war. The moslems there (and around the world) consider Saudi Arabia as the custodian of the their 2 holiest cites (Mecca and Medina - both in Saudi Arabia). All moslems pray towards Mecca when they pray. This is why all moslems are adamant about removing American forces (the infidels) out of Saudi Arabia. The only other strategic location for american troops is Iraq. I believe this is why some presence in Iraq will be necessary until Iraq is stable and regional peace agreements are reached. Hillary and Obama (and most likely Edwards) are aware of these circumstances and have developed their Iraq positions to accomodate these realities.


by meliou2 on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 06:35:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Beltway pro-war? (none / 0)

What about Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar?

Iraq wont be stable while there is an American occupation.  


by Winston Smith on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 07:53:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Depends What She Means... (none / 0)

If she's talking about leaving 15-20k troops outside of Iraq, essentially to contain whatever happens there from spilling over into a regional war, then I don't think it's fair to call her "pro-war" in the same sense as GWB.  In point of fact, I agree that it may well be in out "interests" to mantain that level of troops in the region.  

If she's talking about mantaining a larger presence of troops, or envisions using troops stationed outside of Iraq to actively continue missions within the state, then that's something else entirely.  Honestly though, I would be hugely surprised if that's what she's talking about.  Hillary is far down my list of candidates -- in part b/c she's so hawkish -- but reading what's cited here I have a hard time implying what Matt seems to see.  Maybe I'm wrong though -- wouldn't be the first time.  


by HSTruman on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 04:54:10 PM EST

Re: Is the Democratic Party Pro-War? (none / 0)

I know one thing, calling Democrats "stupid" for supporting Hillary Clinton isn't going to sway anyone.

People seem to accept the fact that Barack Obama is doing well in large part due to his charisma and charm, since he's relatively green politically. Why can't people accept the fact that, to a lot of people, Hillary Clinton also possesses that "rock-star" persona. A lot of Democrats just really, really like her as a person, and when you're drawn to someone in such a way, you'll forgive their various other shortcomings.

It's not rocket science.


by zt155 on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 04:56:53 PM EST

Re: Is the Democratic Party Pro-War? (none / 0)

She is talking about leaving a force in Iraq outside of Baghdad with permanent bases, according to the NY times article.

Pentagon estimate of her plan woule be 50-75,000 troops.


by BDM on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 04:58:30 PM EST

Re: Is the Democratic Party Pro-War? (3.00 / 1)

Sen. Clinton saw what Lieberman did in Connecticut and probably said, "if it worked for him it can work for me."  


by LionelEHutz on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 04:58:32 PM EST

Maybe I -am- that stupid. (none / 0)

"I think we have remaining vital national security interests in Iraq, and I've spoken about that on many different occasions."

Does anyone disagree with this? Seems obvious to me that we have remaining vital national security interests in Iraq, given how we, y'know, turned the place in a civil war-torn terrorist breeding ground. Also, we destabilize the region. And there's lot of oil. So, yes. No?

"I think it really does matter whether you have a failed province or a region that serves as a petri dish for insurgents and Al Qaeda."

I think it matters, too. Not saying what should be done about this, but anti-war people particularly think this matters.

"It is right in the heart of the oil region. It is directly in opposition to our interests, to the interests of regimes, to Israel's interests."

Yes, I agree that having sparked a civil war in Iraq, and serving as a breeding ground for terrorists is in opposition our interests and the interests of many other regimes.

"So I think we have a remaining military as well as political mission, trying to contain the extremists."

An over-the-horizon military presence, a la Murtha, along with a certain number of in-country troops? (Wasn't that the Murtha plan?) I don't know much about military issues, but Murtha does. Maybe CLinton isn't talking about the Murtha plan, and maybe I'm mixing up his plan with something else, but on its face, this isn't necessarily anti-withdrawal-from-Iraq. Could be over-horizon and limited-training-and-gov't-protection stuff.

"I think we have a vital national security interest and obligation to try to help the Kurds manage their various problems in the north so that one of our allies, Turkey, is not inflamed, and they are able to continue with their autonomy."

Yes. Bad to screw the Kurds again.

" I think we have a vital national security interest -- if the Iraqis ever get their act together -- to continue to provide logistical support, air support, training support. I don't know that that is going to be feasible, but I would certainly entertain it."

I hate, hate, hate this idea that those lazy Iraqis just aren't serious about not having a civil war. They have silly disputes, and should simply put them aside. We aren't to blame for all of that: who know that if you put a cobra and a mongoose in a cage, they'd fight?

"And I think we have a continuing vital national security interest in trying to prevent Iran from crossing the border and having too much influence inside of Iraq."

Sure. How we try that is a good question, but it's certainly in our interest to prevent Iran from actually unwrapping this amazing gift we gave them.

I'm wholeheartedly against candidate Clinton. I think she learned caution too well, and she woos the right instead of the left. I think she's suffering from political Stockholm Syndrome. I think she'd undermine the progressive movement with a fairly comprehensive completeness.

But I'm not sure this is quite the mushroom cloud Matt says. (And if it wasn't for Chris's recent post about how mydd avoid sycophantic posts, I would've written about a half-dozen to Matt in the past month: he's on fire! Maybe I am being stupid, but I don't this is so far from the other candidates' positions.)


by BingoL on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 05:04:42 PM EST

Maybe I -am- that stupid. (none / 0)

"I think we have remaining vital national security interests in Iraq, and I've spoken about that on many different occasions."

Does anyone disagree with this? Seems obvious to me that we have remaining vital national security interests in Iraq, given how we, y'know, turned the place in a civil war-torn terrorist breeding ground. Also, we destabilize the region. And there's lot of oil. So, yes. No?

"I think it really does matter whether you have a failed province or a region that serves as a petri dish for insurgents and Al Qaeda."

I think it matters, too. Not saying what should be done about this, but anti-war people particularly think this matters.

"It is right in the heart of the oil region. It is directly in opposition to our interests, to the interests of regimes, to Israel's interests."

Yes, I agree that having sparked a civil war in Iraq, and serving as a breeding ground for terrorists is in opposition our interests and the interests of many other regimes.

"So I think we have a remaining military as well as political mission, trying to contain the extremists."

An over-the-horizon military presence, a la Murtha, along with a certain number of in-country troops? (Wasn't that the Murtha plan?) I don't know much about military issues, but Murtha does. Maybe CLinton isn't talking about the Murtha plan, and maybe I'm mixing up his plan with something else, but on its face, this isn't necessarily anti-withdrawal-from-Iraq. Could be over-horizon and limited-training-and-gov't-protection stuff.

"I think we have a vital national security interest and obligation to try to help the Kurds manage their various problems in the north so that one of our allies, Turkey, is not inflamed, and they are able to continue with their autonomy."

Yes. Bad to screw the Kurds again.

" I think we have a vital national security interest -- if the Iraqis ever get their act together -- to continue to provide logistical support, air support, training support. I don't know that that is going to be feasible, but I would certainly entertain it."

I hate, hate, hate this idea that those lazy Iraqis just aren't serious about not having a civil war. They have silly disputes, and should simply put them aside. We aren't to blame for all of that: who know that if you put a cobra and a mongoose in a cage, they'd fight?

"And I think we have a continuing vital national security interest in trying to prevent Iran from crossing the border and having too much influence inside of Iraq."

Sure. How we try that is a good question, but it's certainly in our interest to prevent Iran from actually unwrapping this amazing gift we gave them.

I'm wholeheartedly against candidate Clinton. I think she learned caution too well, and she woos the right instead of the left. I think she's suffering from political Stockholm Syndrome. I think she'd undermine the progressive movement with a fairly comprehensive completeness.

But I'm not sure this is quite the mushroom cloud Matt says. (And if it wasn't for Chris's recent post about how mydd avoid sycophantic posts, I would've written about a half-dozen to Matt in the past month: he's on fire! Maybe I am being stupid, but I don't this is so far from the other candidates' positions.)


by BingoL on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 05:04:42 PM EST

We get what we deserve (none / 0)

 When was the last time Americans had to alter their lifestyles to pay for a war? World War II? And what we went through then doesn't remotely compare to what Europe went through.

 The Iraq war, like every war since WWII we've been involved in, has been personally painless for most Americans. And the fact that most of us don't really directly suffer the costs of this war is what skews our perspectives as a nation -- war is just another foreign-policy tool.

 Americans have forgotten that war is hell. And because of that, Americans flock to warmongers like Hillary because they seem "tough".

 Organized religion also needs to be held accountable. During Vietnam, most of our churches were powerful voices in eventually exposing the injustices of the war; today's churches, for the most part, have hid under the bed, if not flat-out supported the invasion. Pope Benedict has kept a remarkably low profile regarding Iraq, quite unlike his predecessor.

  So as long as war is perceived as just one of many painless options, pro-killing candidates like Hillary Clinton will retain their popularity.

  It took the complete destruction of Europe in WWII to finally change that continent's attitudes toward war. The human race is just inherently evil; not much we can really do about that, really...


by Master Jack on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 05:12:28 PM EST

Re: Is the Democratic Party Pro-War? (none / 0)

While I agree, we have to remember where our elders came from.  Since 1968 (at least), the Democrats were K-I-L-L-E-D on national security issues.  And for Democrats running for President, the perception that Democrats were weak on national security was a bar to success (think Dukakis in the tank).

Then came Bill Clinton in 1992.  He was militaristic and aggressive on all manners of foreign policy, including trade (forcing free trade, that is, fair trade is something different).  And for the first time in almost 20 years, a Democrat became President.  So, the narrative became, "to win as Prez, a Dem has to be like Clinton."  What, you think that Hillary would ignore that kind of narrative when she helped craft that very narrative.  Of course not.

We have to remember that everything has changed.  10 years ago, Jim Webb wouldn't dare to go near the Democratic Party, much less become one of its progressive anti-war leaders.  Think about that.  I can't think of a bigger change in politics in my lifetime.  

But Clinton is still stuck in the 90's.  She still believes that the media is mostly liberal, that the left are reviled, and being pro-war is the best place to be.  And what we as the progressive blogosphere have to do is bring all politicians like Clinton into the 21st Century (kicking and screaming if we have to).


by Jim Treglio on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 05:25:23 PM EST

Re: Is the Democratic Party Pro-War? (none / 0)

This administration has lied about every important issue in this war so far. Here is a small sliver
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1TugPlEo ho

No wonder Bush doesnt want his Chief of Staff to speak under oath. They always lie.


Watch Bush Cheney and Rumsfeld in the short film "The Masters of War": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1TugPlEo ho
by diggperson on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 05:26:33 PM EST

Re: Is the Democratic Party Pro-War? (none / 0)

Clinton's statement raises some difficult and somewhat uncomfortable questions, but I think Matt is well over the top in the conclusions he draws from it. What I want is to hear Clinton explain that statement, and that won't be enough, either; I want to get a real sense for her understanding of the situation in Iraq and the Middle East, and I want to get a real sense of her understanding of the modalities available to the U.S. to positively influence the Middle East and to salvage the best possible outcome of the disastrous Iraq adventure. I also want to hear the same explanations from Obama, who has indeed said things about Iraq that aren't that far removed from Clinton's statement.

I won't be ready to choose a candidate until I hear a good bit more from each of the contenders. But as for right now, I am quite comfortable that electing any of the 6 or 7 top Democratic contenders would be a massive improvement over the current government, and in fact that the idea of repudiating the current Republican philosophy of government by crushing the GOP at the polls is significantly more important than what seems to me to be the minor variations on themes that differentiate the Democrats from one another.

I guess what I'm saying here is that I'm more alarmed by hysterical over-reactions to statements by any of the major Democratic candidates than I am by anything any of those candidates have said.

Finally, let me say one more thing: whichever Democrat gets elected--and I'm pretty cocky about our chances at the moment--I DON'T want the new President to feel locked into an all-troops-out-in-90-days policy or anything resembling that. I would like to see an honest broker who is not wedded to saving face for the Bush Administration turn the full analytical and diplomatic powers of the United States on the problem to come up with the best possible solution to try to get us out of the hell we have created.

I would start from assuming good faith on the part of the new President and giving him or her some leeway to work. Although my current feeling is that we are doing more harm than good by staying over there, I am quite open to the idea that an entirely different diplomatic approach to the world, the region, and the political sectors within Iraq might lead to a solution that could actually work and that involves our maintaining at least some portion of our occupation forces in Iraq for a significant period of time.


by Trickster on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 05:30:48 PM EST

Re: Is the Democratic Party Pro-War? (none / 0)

You people are completely f*cking insane.

Of course, we have vital interests in Iraq.

Of course we have a responsibility to our allies.

Of course, we will need to keep some troops in Iraq.

Guess what? Obama has said the exact same thing.

They understand the situation. Damn near all Democrats understand the situation.

It's only you idiot liberals that can't seem to get your heads out of your asses.  


by Kujan on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 05:44:20 PM EST

Re: Is the Democratic Party Pro-War? (none / 0)

I don't see what the bif deal when Obama and Edwards have said the exact same thing: end  major combat oprations but keep a small force in Iraq. Someone should really tell Stoller about this if he doesn't already know.


by bsavage on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 06:08:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Democratic Party Pro-War? (3.00 / 0)

"she's not sorry for her vote"

Geez Louise, how much longer do we keep having to hear this canard?  Hasn't it been disproved about a million times now?

She views her vote as a mistake.

She said that if the actual intelligence had been known, there wouldn't even have been a vote to apologize for because it would have obviously been insufficient.

What more do you want?  Do you insist on a groveling abasement, like Meryl Streep's Baroness Blixzen in "Out of Africa?"  What does it take to get you to quit smearing one of your party's own candidates?  Don't the Republicans do a good enough job of that without your helping them?

Crimeny.

"Hillary Clinton, while no George Bush, cannot by any measure be considered an anti-war candidate.  So I'm wondering, and this is the big danger to our party, why there isn't more of a profound concern about how dangerous she really is."

So is your position that only anti-war candidates who fit your definition of what it means to be "anti-war" are not "dangerous?"  I think there's plenty of measures by which Hillary can be seen as an "anti-war" candidate, first among them being that if she had been President in March 2003 we most likely would not have troops in Iraq right now.  Just what do you mean when you say Hillary is "dangerous?"  Dangerous to whom, exactly?  Dangerous to the Democratic Party?  Dangerous to Progressivism?  What?  And in what way?

You imply she's dangerous because of "her policy choices and her judgment, both of which are demonstrably bad for America and the Democratic Party."  What "demonstrably bad" policy choices?  Her advocacy of universal health coverage?  Her opposition to the Bush surge plan?  Her autism bill?

If Hillary gets the nomination, are you going to refuse to endorse her?


by liberalrob on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 05:48:00 PM EST

What are you talking about? (none / 0)

She views her vote as a mistake.

What are you talking about? She had a press conference and announced that she wasn't sorry. The only one spinning here is you.


by delmoi on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 06:53:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What are you talking about? (none / 0)

Feh.  Another absolutist heard from.  And I didn't say anything about spinning.

She doesn't need to say she's sorry to agree that it was a mistake, given what is now known.

I think her "refusal" to abjectly apologize is just a position she has taken on how decisions get made.  The vote to authorize the war was only a mistake in hindsight; at the time, given what she knew, she felt it to be correct.  So did I.  Now we both know differently.


by liberalrob on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 01:09:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Democratic Party Pro-War? (none / 0)

From what I have read most of the Democratic field have similar positions that include keeping a military presence in Iraq. Even the Kucinich plan includes protecting our interests and those of our allies and stability for the region.

If Clinton, Obama, or Edwards are elected what I think would happen is they would end the combat operations but keep a military presence in Iraq for a number of years to keep the oil flowing, to stop it from becoming a terrorist base, etc. There is very little difference in the direction that any Democratic president would take because there are just not many options at this point. The differences between what each candidate would do are very minor.


BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog
by robliberal on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 05:58:32 PM EST

Re: Is the Democratic Party Anything? (none / 0)

I think polling shows that more voters label Clinton liberal than label Edwards liberal.  (And more label Obama liberal than label Clinton liberal.)  Clinton is around 50% among women.  How many prefer her because of the progress it would make/represent to have a woman president?

I think nominating anyone with contradictory positions on THE issue in American politics is dangerous, but then I'm a man with a graduate degree. (See Brownstein on warrior v. priest dynamic in the Party.)

Matt, if you were running the Edwards or Obama campaign, when would you start attacking Clinton's ridiculous Liebermanesque con on Iraq?  I would do it today and do it using the candidate, not surrogates.


by McFrederick on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 06:03:41 PM EST

Re: Is the Democratic Party Pro-War? (none / 0)

Thanks Matt for an excellent post.  I agree that thus far Clinton's stance is more pro war than against.  References to essential "strategic interests" reflect this, and to me imply a longterm military presence in Iraq.  However, one issue which hasn't been explicitly addressed much is the extent to which she is forced to the right of the other Democratic candidates on the Iraq issue, in order to deter insiduous attacks from Republicans suggesting that, as a woman, she would be weak on national defence.


by ramfar on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 06:07:18 PM EST

Re: Is the Democratic Party Pro-War? (none / 0)

I don't think Hillary is any more "pro-war" than the other candidates. I have no doubt in my mind that she would not have started the war in 2002 based on the intel we had. Saying that the president should have the authority to initiate military action is very different than actually invading a foreign using faulty intelligence. Obviously no one likes war, but it is an option that should never be taken off the table.

Her position on a military base in Iraq for the foreseeable future is not any different than the other candidates. IMO, it's a responsible approach to the unfortunate reality on the ground. The new president in 2009 will have to deal with the repercussions from the war.


by PhillyGuy on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 06:08:05 PM EST

Re: Is the Democratic Party Pro-War? (none / 0)

Why is it responsible to keep a military base in Iraq?  In what meaningful way does this posture differ from wanting to continue to fight a war indefinitely?  In what way is this "responsible"?  The US was the aggressor in a war and the insurgency simply wants the US to leave.  Only American narcissism thinks that peace cannot possibly happen in Iraq with the US troops calling the shots.  


by RickD on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 06:34:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Democratic Party Pro-War? (none / 0)

We created the mass in the middle east and therefore we should be responsible for providing technical and logistical support for the Iraqi government.

Again this position is not any different than either Obama or Edwards'


by PhillyGuy on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 07:08:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Democratic Party Pro-War? (none / 0)

Actually, according to Bush, God created the mass, but Bush certainly created the mess. And guess who's going to have to clean it up now?

Just like when he was a kid, creating messes for other people to deal with. The GOP deserves to be destroyed for forcing this POS on us. Maybe they should all be drafted and sent to Iraq to clean up his mess. But they'd probably crap their pants on the way there and be useless.

Sorry, I'm in a snarky mood tonight.


by kovie on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 03:10:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Democratic Party Pro-War? (none / 0)

He's talking about Al Qaida in Anbar, not the insurgents in the rest of Iraq (other than Kurdistan), who will need to be dealt with eventually. I don't see the need for permanent bases for this, though, and US troops don't need to do this alone, as it's in secular Iraqis' interests to get rid of them.

And Feingold agrees with this, as I showed in another comment here. What's your reaction to that?


by kovie on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 03:13:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Democratic Party Pro-War? (none / 0)

Yes, Democrats are that stupid.  The left has this fatal hubris of acting as if Democrats are much smarter than Republicans, that progressives are much smarter than conservatives.  The truth is that they're not and pretending that they are doesn't do the Democratic Party any favors.

What we need are the other candidates themselves to go negative with attacks against Hillary Clinton and take the lead is asking the questions that you think need to be asked. The anti-Hillary 1984 ad was great.  Kudos to the first candidate who uses a picture of Hillary Clinton and Joe Leiberman together as a fundraising tool.


Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
by Anthony de Jesus on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 06:25:59 PM EST

Re: Is the Democratic Party Pro-War? (none / 0)

Agreed.  Yes, the Democrats are that stupid.  There is a sizable cohort of neocons in the Democratic leadership that has never done anything other than support Bush's foreign policy.  Hillary will say enough during election season to win the White House, but I suspect her foreign policy would look identical to Bush's in most meaningful ways.

Sure, we need an anti-Hillary candidate to take her down.  The problem is that whoever does such a thing will end up being a stalking horse for whoever steps into the vacuum.  


by RickD on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 06:38:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Democratic Party Pro-War? (none / 0)

I'm really talking about rank-and-file Democratic voters, not the politicians, when I say that Democrats are that stupid.


Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
by Anthony de Jesus on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 07:23:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Democratic Party Pro-War? (none / 0)

Yet more nonsense, because if anything, they're even smarter than the politicians. The revival of the Democratic party and progressive movement is largely due to the rank and file. Not people who are registered Dems but do nothing but vote (if that much), but activists, bloggers, writers, organizers, etc. They are massively smarter than their counterparts on the right. Not even close. Name ONE contemporary conservative who's the intellectual match of today's best progressives. Maybe Sullivan, when he's in honest mode. And don't even think of mentioning Brooks.

Yeah, I didn't think so.


by kovie on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 03:04:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Democratic Party Pro-War? (none / 0)

You act like honesty is in some way an indicator of intelligence.


Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
by Anthony de Jesus on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 07:50:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Democratic Party Pro-War? (none / 0)

No, I'm not, and it's not, but it is a refreshing quality that one would hope accompanies intelligence. You don't agree?

And I'm still waiting for examples to prove your specious point.


by kovie on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 02:28:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Democratic Party Pro-War? (none / 0)

You make a point, but let me addd...
Intellegence should NEVER be considered a sign of honesty.

They are exclusive and each only valuable if the other is present.


by Marshall Adame on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 03:34:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Democratic Party Pro-War? (none / 0)

NEVER done ANYTHING other than support Bush's foreign policy? Name one, other than maybe Lieberman, who isn't even a Dem. Even the most conservative Dem has voted with Dems more than with Repubs. I've got serious problems with quite a few Dems but none of them are Bushies. None.


by kovie on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 03:07:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Democratic Party Pro-War? (none / 0)

What are you talking about? One need only have a pulse to be smarter than today's conservatives. How is it possible for anyone to NOT be smarter than these morons? Are you saying that Jim Webb is not smarter than George Allen? Sherrod Brown no smarter than Mike Dewine? Obama not smarter than Bush? The people who run MyDD, DailyKos and Glenn Greenwald not smarter than the idiots at RedState, LGF & TownHall?

Surely you're joking.


by kovie on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 02:59:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm confused (3.00 / 1)

I am in no way a Hillary supporter. Here, at DailyKos and elsewhere I have repeatedly and harshly criticized her for being an unprincipled, pandering, weak and cowardly sellout to the DLC and her ambition, who must not be allowed to become our nominee for president. No need to go into why--we all know why.

However, I am nevertheless confused by how you can reconcile your implied assertion that she is a pro-war Democrat with the following excerpt from a speech given on the floor of the senate during the Iraq War Resolution debate held earlier this month, by a well-known Democratic senator:

...Congress cannot wait for the President to change course - we need to change the course ourselves.

This resolution recognizes, and acts on, that reality. It would effectively terminate the misguided resolution authorizing force in Iraq, while allowing a minimal number of troops to remain to perform very limited functions: protecting personnel and infrastructure, training and equipping Iraqi forces and conducting targeted counter-terrorism operations. The latter provision is a particular priority of mine, which is why my legislation includes the exact same language. Clearly, the U.S. has an ongoing role to play in addressing the terrorist threat in Iraq. While Iraq was not a hot-bed of terrorism before the President led us to war in that country, al Qaeda and its allies are trying to use the anger and frustrations unleashed by that war to their advantage. Like Afghanistan and Somalia, Iraq will need to be closely monitored to ensure that it does not become a failed state and breeding ground for terrorism. And we must be prepared to pursue targeted missions to take out terrorists...

The senator who gave this speech? Russ Feingold. And I don't hear anyone accusing him of being pro-war or weak on the effort to end it.

Again, I'm NOT trying to defend Hillary's refusal to apologize for her war vote let alone the vote itself, or her position on just about anything. But in this matter, it seems to me that, at face value at least, her statements on what she thinks our long-term military involvement in Iraq are not all that different from that of the rest of the party, and even its most liberal elected members.

I posted a similar comment on this in response to a recent similar diary by Matt on this issue, and am still not sure how Hillary's STATED position on this is all that different from that of the rest of the party. And yes, I know, what Hillary says and what Hillary means might well be two different things. Duh. But I'm referring to stated policy here, not what only a mindreader can know with any certainty other than Hillary and Bill (and I'm not convinced that even they know, given how she seems to base her every move on what the latest focus group says).

And yes, I realize that the title of this diary is about whether the Democratic party itself is pro-war, but since you decided to single Hillary out--which seems to contradict its title--I was just looking for some clarification on how you reconcile this with how just about the entire caucus appears to support a similar policy of keeping limited forces in Iraq for limited and specific missions.

And note that I'm not trying to debate whether that is a good or bad policy (personally, I agree with Feingold on the need for limited forces for these limited and specific missions, but that's a whole different discussion), but simply whether it's fair to single Hillary out here. As I asked in my previous comment, what am I missing here?


by kovie on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 06:35:40 PM EST

Re: I'm confused (none / 0)

It's easy to reconcile.  She's as big of a liar as her husband and not as smooth.


Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
by Anthony de Jesus on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 07:25:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I dunno, maybe we *ARE* pro war? (none / 0)

I mean, outside of the activist base.  I'm not personally anti-war, I just think it's impractical in most cases.


by delmoi on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 06:45:45 PM EST

Re: Is the Democratic Party Pro-War? (none / 0)

Whatever Hillary and the other candidates thought of Iraq is now in the past, she and all these candidates have a position on Iran that is practically identical to that of Bush on Iran and on Iraq.

All these candidates will jump through hoops to adopt the policy that AIPAC takes. Unless enough of us speak out in every forum possible to make it clear that we think that these candidate's policy should reflect what we think, and not that of AIPAC, it will continue

If we can Stop Iran War we should try:

please consider visiting http://www.stopiranwar.com and participating in
their Action-Alert Petition


by dearreader on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 07:00:27 PM EST

Re: Is the Democratic Party Pro-War? (none / 0)

If we can Stop Iran War we should try:

http://www.stopiranwar.com

EXCERPTS:

Wes Clark: Silence. That is what worries me.

With every passing day that the administration won't talk to Iran, we come closer to an Iranian nuclear weapon, and the time at which the decision must be made whether or not the administration will use its military option.

All Americans want to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons and interfering on the ground inside Iraq. Yet President Bush's saber rattling gives the US little additional leverage to engage and dissuade Iran, and, more than likely, simply accelerates a dangerous slide into war. The United States can do better than this.

Whatever the pace of Iran's nuclear efforts, in the give and take of the Administration's rhetoric and accusations, we are approaching the last moments to head off looming conflict.

Cannot the world's most powerful nation deign speak to the resentful and scheming regional power that is Iran? Can we not speak of the interests of others, work to establish a sustained dialog, and seek to benefit the people of Iran and the region?

Could not such a dialog, properly conducted, begin a process that could, over time, help realign hardened attitudes and polarizing views within the region? And isn't't it easier to undertake such a dialog now, before more die, and more martyrs are created to feed extremist passions?



by dearreader on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 07:09:39 PM EST

Re: Is the Democratic Party Pro-War? (none / 0)

We not only can......We (Democrats and good Republicans)will.


by Marshall Adame on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 02:29:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

anybody but Bush (none / 0)

I don't think we will get a very different policy no matter who is the next Democratic president.  There are limited options right now because Bush is refusing to do ANYTHING that would make it easier to get out of Iraq.  Bush is doing none of the political negotiating, not talking to Iran or Syria, not convening a regional meeting and showing zero leadership.  

Whatever Democrat wins in 2008, he/she will have to seek military advice from the same set of commanders.  There will have to be political negotiations and a plan developed for pulling our troops and equipment out.  Withdrawal can be a dangerous military maneuver and requires careful planning to avoid massive casualties in the processs.  Even if they started on day one, it would take AT LEAST 9 months to get everyone out.


by bakho on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 07:29:40 PM EST

Re: anybody but Bush (none / 0)

Anybody but ?, is how we we got Bush.

Rethink your position.


by Marshall Adame on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 02:30:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Democratic Party Pro-War? (none / 0)

The Democratic rank and file is antiwar -- and Hilary Clinton is pro-imperial power, meaning, in the situation Bush has created, she'd be smarter, but essentially no different than Bush. Plus she'd have all the additional perks of the Imperial Presidency as claimed by GWB.

If she is the nominee, folks will have to ask themselves whether having a smarter monarch is enough of an improvement to justify legitimating the process by participating. It will be a close call.

Democracy is dead -- killed not by the criminality of these individuals, but by the needs of global capitalism.

And yeah, I'll probably come around and work on the campaign, but I don't expect much from it.


Can It Happen Here?
by janinsanfran on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 07:37:54 PM EST

Re: Is the Democratic Party Pro-War? (none / 0)

Yes, Hillary is that pro war because she supports the corporations even if they only exist to make war.  "What is going on with us Democrats?  Are we really that stupid? "  Yes, we keep letting the Democrats take us for granted, over and over and over.  They say "where the hell else you gonna go?"  We say yeah, we are stuck.   This is why I have drawn my own line in the sand this election cycle.  If its Hillary, I'm not voting for her.  I'd rather have a Republican WH and stalemate in Washington than having elected Democrats being forced, or not, to kiss HRCs ass.  She will roll the Party, and we will have 8 more freaking years of Ronald Reagan.


by dkmich on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 08:10:30 PM EST

Re: Is the Democratic Party Pro-War? (none / 0)

Senator Clinton probably noticed that Lieberman got back in the Senate by BSing his position on Iraq.  Maybe she thinks it will work for her.


by Stuart Shaffer on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 08:19:17 PM EST

Re: Is the Democratic Party Pro-War? (none / 0)

What's going on with us Democrats?  Well, what's going on with a lot of the commentary on Hillary Clinton is old-fashioned sexist piggery.  Period.  As in double standard.  The hysteria over her failure to apologize (just Hillary, not all war-voting Democrats) should be sufficient evidence that the Hillary-hating on the progessive blogs was about more than foreign policy and national security. That kind of hate comes from the gut, not the brain.

Clinton says that she will end the war.  She says that we still have "interests" to protect.  She says she will deploy American troops out of combat and into support and standby roles.  This is all mainstream stuff, and none of it contradictory.  After 10 years or so we still have troops in Kosovo.  Are we at war in Kosovo?  Doesn't it make sense that we could put an end to bloody combat in sectarian warfare, and still have troops stationed there? Iraq is in a volatile area of the world.  It probably will require policing and peacekeeping for the foreseeable future.  Accepting that likelihood is just realistic, not demonic.    

I wish that Hillary Clinton was a product of a truly democratic system built on grassroots institutions.  She is not.  There was no such system when she entered public life, so she adapted to the world as it was then and is now.  She is what she is, and she is one of the best representatives of that political tendency. This is why she is basically liked by the public, even after two decades of demonization by the right wing, and now the lefties as well.

Hillary Clinton functions now and has functioned in a political culture that is seriously flawed, but she has been and continues to be - in that context - a change agent.  She should be credited with having made small amounts of lemonade from the mountain of lemons before her.  Failure of otherwise smart commentators to understand and accept this is a particular kind of blindness called SEXISM.


by Lois2001 on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 08:22:35 PM EST

Re: Is the Democratic Party Pro-War? (none / 0)

I've actuallly defended Hillary a bit as well, but why exactly are you calling criticism of her positions sexist?  She's received more attention than the other candidates who voted for the war b/c she's stuck to that position long after others have apologized.  Moreover, she's the FRONTRUNNER.  When you are in that role, you get both more exposure and criticism from the media.  That doesn't have anything to do with being a woman; just ask Howard Dean.

Look, sexism is certainly real.  And I agree that it's amazing and exciting that Hillary has risen to a position where she's a very serious contender for the Democratic nominatino.  But none of that makes criticising her when she's wrong out of bounds.  And the reality is that she was DEAD WRONG on the most important issue of the day.  


by HSTruman on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 09:14:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Democratic Party Pro-War? (none / 0)

Even Russ Feingold and John Murtha have always pointed out that there would need to be some residual troop presence in Iraq or redeployed to its peripheries.  


by AustenNYC on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 08:40:04 PM EST

Re: Is the Democratic Party Pro-War? (none / 0)

>>>What is going on with us Democrats?  Are we really that stupid?<<<

Apparently so.


by Marq on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 09:24:17 PM EST

Re: Is the Democratic Party Pro-War? (none / 0)

It's also funny to note that based on how Vilsack described his own qualities (as a governor etc.), Clinton doesn't fit his own criteria for what makes a good President.

Given his association with the DLC, Vilsack was never as anti-war as he portrayed himself to be while he was running, so aligning himself with Clinton isn't a huge deal.

It's obvious he's gunning for the VP nomination.


Check out my blog, Capital Viewpoint
by whogotthegravy on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 09:27:57 PM EST

Re: Is the Democratic Party Pro-War? (none / 0)

Chris Matthews noted, on Hardball just 4 hours before your post, how Clinton didn't fit Vilsack's criteria for what makes a good president.

He also noted that Vilsack was running for VP.

Guess you saw the show, too.


by fschmitz on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 12:49:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Real Issues Here...Awaiting Real Answers (none / 0)

Matt, your diary is spot on.  

There are real issues here about what our country should do in Iraq, and it is my expectation that Hillary Clinton, Obama, and Edwards will give Democratic voters some choices here.  In theory, the candidate who demonstrates the best plan for getting us out of Iraq, as soon as possible, will receive the Democratic nomination.  

It is early yet...but do we have some distinctions to point to so far?  Further, what distinctions should we be looking for in the future?

Well for starters, here is a distinction that already appears to be fixed in stone:  

(1) Was the vote to authorize the war in Iraq a mistake?  Barack Obama says-yes.  John Edwards says-yes.  Hillary Clinton says-no.  (FYI approximately 80% of Democratic voters polled recently said...drum roll please...yes.)

Here are some additional distinctions that may arise:

(2) Do you believe we should make it clear to the world that we will have NO permanent bases in Iraq?  Edwards has said yes. Obama has said yes.  Hillary Clinton has said .......?

(3) When American troops are redeployed, will they remain in Iraq to conduct six missions, or three?  Hillary has already described the need to conduct six different missions.  Obama, in synch with the Senate bill, has mentioned only three missions.  Edwards has also mentioned only three missions. Needless to say, the more missions needed, the more soldiers that will be required.  So far, it appears that Hillary Clinton's six missions will require at least 75,000 troops to occupy Iraq during her presidency.

(4) When American troops are redeployed, will you redeploy them OUT of Iraq, into neighboring Kuwait, or keep them IN Iraq?  Hillary Clinton has said she will definitely keep them IN Iraq, and keep them there indefinitely in order to accomplish her six missions.  Edwards has suggested (but not committed explicitly to) redeploying to Kuwait.  Obama is not too clear on this.  (For those Democratic voters who believe that our continued occupation of Iraq will forever drive more violence in Iraq, Hillary's position here will be VERY significant.  They will not support a candidate who promises indefinite occupation of Iraq with a large number of troops.  Are they all going to vote for Kucinich?)  

(5) How will you handle Al Qaeda having terrorists operating in Baghdad?  Hillary Clinton has stated that US forces will do nothing to stop an Al Qaeda presence in Baghdad, but instead, rely exclusively upon Iraqi forces, including the Mahdi army.  I do not believe Edwards or Obama have said anything on this question.

(6) How will you handle Al Qaeda infiltration into Al Anbar province? Hillary Clinton has stated that US forces occupying Iraq during her presidency, including possibly occupying Al Anbar province itself, will be fighting in Al Anbar province indefinitely.  I do not believe Edwards or Obama have said anything on this.

(7) If Shiites and Sunnis continue killing each other in Iraq during your presidency, as they are doing right now in huge numbers, will American forces intervene to stop any of this killing?  All three have said no: it is solely the responsibility of Iraqis to stop this.  (Good luck Iraqis.)

Politically, my sense is that Hillary Clinton is, and will continue to be, the Democratic candidate MOST committed to continuing the occupation of Iraq with substantial numbers of American troops.  Politically, on a scale of one to ten, with a ten being a substantial, permanent occupation of Iraq, McCain would be a 10, Clinton would be an 8, Obama a 6, and Edwards perhaps a 5.  And Democrat's should be clear about this:  Hillary Clinton apparently feels a "political need" to be seen as more hawkish than Obama and Edwards on Iraq.  That is her game plan.    

So yes, the Democratic voters should have some choices on Iraq with the big three contenders.  Do you want the most hawkish candidate of the three, and an indefinite occupation of Iraq?  Or, do you think it is time to put the occupation of Iraq fully behind us, as soon as possible, including actually leaving the country (OMG!), and concentrate on other national and international priorities?   It should be interesting.  


by Demo37 on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 09:58:07 PM EST

Re: Is the Democratic Party Pro-War? (none / 0)

No ...the Democratic Party is not Pro-war. I feel we have become the..
"Trying to validate a bad decision Party"..

There are a couple of real tragedys here. One is the Human Tagedy which, if truly reported, would stagger the average American and make him/her ask how we allowed ourselves to fall into this without counting the costs. We are all too aware of the Human toll regarding American military and civilians. We are aware, to a lessor extent, the cost of this war to the Iraqi people who's daily existance has become a living hell.

The intellectual, aloof and unrealistic approach taken by Hillery is not only disingeneous, it is eletist and very surprizing, considering who she is married to. Electing Hillery to the Presidency could prove as terrible and costly as the election of George Bush.

the only real leader who will extracate us from Iraq and negociate a solution to the delimma and chaos WE have caused there is John Edwards.

A careful reading of some of the articles I have written regarding Iraq will, I hope, enlighten you to parts of the problem rarely discussed and, to this day, not being addressed by the US or Iraqi governments.

Hillery is not Pro-War, she is decision, leadership and vision challanged.

The Democratic Party is not Pro-War. It is Pro-Politic, Pro-incumbant, Pro-fringe and most importantly,Leadership and vision defecient.

We Democrats need to wake up earlier, work longer, stay focused, challange the conventional wisdom. In doing so, we will end the war, create a more responsive government of the people and honor the dedication, example, sacrifice and love of country our fore-fathers left to us.

No....today we are not Pro-war.....We do not know what we are. That is worse.


by Marshall Adame on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 07:35:02 AM EST

Re: Is the Democratic Party Pro-War? (none / 0)

In the meantime, the new terrorist strategy is to blow up children to affect public opinion in the West. Will diplomacy ever have an effect on a group of people who would sacrifice themselves and their children to appease their God?

The latest video of the young girl training to follow her young mother in jihad sactioned death is a real inconvenient truth. The question asked "Is the Democratic Party Pro-War?" is based on a false premise. In the eyes of a resurgent and hegemonic Islam, Democrats are first, and foremost, apostates, non-believers, and infidels marked for death or dhimmitude.

That is a distinction we all share regardless of our political affiliation.


by vet66 on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 11:34:50 AM EST

Re: Is the Democratic Party Pro-War? (none / 0)

You are not correct in my view. The resurgense you mention has peaked. For the most part (it will never be ALL gone)we have stopped the universal movement as an effective tool.
The real resurgence is in Afghanistan where we abandoned our efforts in effort to increase our presence in Iraq.
the politics of fear as propounded by our President has won you over.

We will always have bank-robbers, kidnappers and terrorist in our world. Don't be fooled into thinking they have more might than you and all of the rest of the civilized world.

We must deal with them, catch them, bring them to civilized justice faster than they can multiply their craft.

When they cause us to live our lives in reaction and fear, we are doing what they have designed for us.

We ARE winning this ...Don't be fooled, don't live in fear, don't let them rule your heart or mind.

The Republican Party and it members are banking on your fear of the world and what is in it.

America itself is the result of overcoming the fear of the unknown and the "evil" of the known.


by Marshall Adame on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 02:51:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Democratic Party Pro-War? (none / 0)

"why there isn't more of a profound concern about how dangerous she really is."

You perceive her as dangerous; I don't, and I don't believe most Democrats do either.

I don't believe most Democrats think it's important whether Hillary "apologizes" for her vote on the war resolution or not.

It is important that we not be caught in the middle of someone else's civil war, and she will end that involvement if elected.

The war is an important issue, but it's not the only or, perhaps for many of us, the most important issue we face.

If it were, Democrats would all line up with Hagel, Smith, or Coleman.

Of course Matt, should she get the nomination, you can vote for Nader and probably assure four years of a President McCain.

That'll show just how important you believe the war is.


by fschmitz on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 12:30:09 PM EST

Re: Is the Democratic Party Pro-War? (none / 0)

Getting out is important.

Articulating "how" is important.

Executing the Combat troop redeployment is important.

Articulating the "What now" strategy after withdrawal is important.

Repairing International relationships is important.

Addressing Poverty and Elementry education in America is Important.

Tackeling the problems of poverty in America is important.

Re-establishing the "civil" and cooperative relationships that once existed between the Republican and Democrats, who lead us, is important.

I think you may have misunderstood.

I believe that what he was saying is that she is not qualified. If you put a very qualified mechanic in the pilot's seat he will be dangerous, irregardless of his skill as a pilot.

The Pilot America needs in the Oval Office is John Edwards.

Hillery, God bless her, will bring more devisiveness and division. She will not to it intentionally, but nomatter, the reult will be four more years of a divided country.

America and Americans must come first, not politics. John edwards will unite America.

MARSHALL


by Marshall Adame on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 12:51:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Democratic Party Pro-War? (none / 0)

There is just no way that she can say that she will end the war and that she will continue a military mission in Iraq to contain extremists and ward off Iran.  Those are mutually exclusive.

No, they're not. Though I'm wary of the source and of her history of hawkishness, there isn't much I can find to disagree with in the quoted statements. I think this entry and thread reveals that we on the left had better have a good long debate about just what "ending the war" actually means, and about what we think our role/responsibility militarily and otherwise in the Middle East should be going forward.

Withdrawal is not going to magically make all of these messes go away. I had assumed "ending the war" meant something along the lines of "a phased withdrawal from the contested areas of Iraq over six months to a year, with non-negligible forces remaining in Kuwait and possibly Kurdistan for some years afterward to keep a lid on things, provide security guarantees to our regional allies, and keep an eye on any incipient Al Qaeda activity in Anbar or elsewhere." This also seems to me to be the basic position of most of the Party, including the non-Kucinich presidential candidates. If that's "pro war," then so be it. I don't think it's very controversial or at all wrong. There are tough questions we should be asking... getting pledges for no permanent bases, no escalation to Iran or elsewhere, asking for a real idea of what they think we should do going forward regionally and globally, etc, but litmus tests this strict and confining are not the way to get those other things on the table.


by jddunn on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 06:05:44 PM EST

Re: Is the Democratic Party Pro-War? (none / 0)

http://blog.france2.fr/niklopemo/index.p hp/2007/05/10/52329-neuf http://blog.france2.fr/niklopemo/index.p hp/2007/05/10/52330-reportages http://blog.france2.fr/niklopemo/index.p hp/2007/05/10/52331-journee http://blog.france2.fr/niklopemo/index.p hp/2007/05/10/52332-nature http://blog.france2.fr/niklopemo/index.p hp/2007/05/10/52333-bloggers http://blog.france2.fr/niklopemo/index.p hp/2007/05/10/52334-avancee http://blog.france2.fr/niklopemo/index.p hp/2007/05/10/52335-suis-libre http://defandil.myblogvoice.com/ http://defandil.myblogvoice.com/?bondage -12582 http://defandil.myblogvoice.com/?bite-12 573 http://defandil.myblogvoice.com/?beurett e-12569 http://defandil.myblogvoice.com/?baise-1 2559 http://defandil.myblogvoice.com/?antivir us-gratuit-12545 http://defandil.myblogvoice.com/?amateur -12538 http://defandil.myblogvoice.com/?adulte- 12536 http://defandil.myblogvoice.com/?astuce- 12553 http://defandil.myblogvoice.com/?bikini- 12570 http://defandil.myblogvoice.com/?5-2007- ARCHIVES http://misremie.myblogvoice.com/ http://misremie.myblogvoice.com/?emule-g ratuit-12643 http://misremie.myblogvoice.com/?ecrans- de-veille-12638 http://misremie.myblogvoice.com/?divx-gr atuit-12632 http://misremie.myblogvoice.com/?diapora ma-12625 http://misremie.myblogvoice.com/?coquin- 12616 http://misremie.myblogvoice.com/?clitori s-12609 http://misremie.myblogvoice.com/?chanson -gratuit-12604 http://misremie.myblogvoice.com/?carte-1 2595 http://misremie.myblogvoice.com/?5-2007- ARCHIVES http://espanimol.myblogvoice.com/ http://espanimol.myblogvoice.com/?gratui t-12696 http://espanimol.myblogvoice.com/?girl-1 2692 http://espanimol.myblogvoice.com/?fonds- d-ecran-12684 http://espanimol.myblogvoice.com/?firefo x-12678 http://espanimol.myblogvoice.com/?film-g ratuit-12674 http://espanimol.myblogvoice.com/?femme- 12664 http://espanimol.myblogvoice.com/?fesse- 12666 http://espanimol.myblogvoice.com/?famili ale-12658 http://espanimol.myblogvoice.com/?etudia nte-12652 http://espanimol.myblogvoice.com/?erotiq ues-12649 http://espanimol.myblogvoice.com/?5-2007 -ARCHIVES http://navegams.myblogvoice.com/?logicie l-gratuit-12747 http://navegams.myblogvoice.com/?lesbien ne-12742 http://navegams.myblogvoice.com/?kazaa-g ratuit-12737 http://navegams.myblogvoice.com/?japanes e-12728 http://navegams.myblogvoice.com/?image-h umour-12725 http://navegams.myblogvoice.com/?humour- 12718 http://navegams.myblogvoice.com/?homosex uel-12712 http://navegams.myblogvoice.com/?hairy-1 2706 http://navegams.myblogvoice.com/?gratuit e-12700 http://navegams.myblogvoice.com/ http://navegams.myblogvoice.com/?5-2007- ARCHIVES http://chicalop.myblogvoice.com/?paroles -gratuit-12795 http://chicalop.myblogvoice.com/?outdoor -12792 http://chicalop.myblogvoice.com/?nudiste -12786 http://chicalop.myblogvoice.com/?nero-gr atuit-12781 http://chicalop.myblogvoice.com/?music-g ratuite-12774 http://chicalop.myblogvoice.com/?msn-gra tuit-12772 http://chicalop.myblogvoice.com/?mp3-gra tuit-12769 http://chicalop.myblogvoice.com/?messeng er-gratuit-12760 http://chicalop.myblogvoice.com/?massage -12755 http://chicalop.myblogvoice.com/?logicie ls-gratuit-12750 http://chicalop.myblogvoice.com/?logicie ls-12748 http://chicalop.myblogvoice.com/?5-2007- ARCHIVES http://blog.iespana.es/palidromas/post/3 04524-extrait-de-video-gratuite-xxxt http://blog.iespana.es/palidromas/post/3 04508-france-xxx-girls-t http://blog.iespana.es/palidromas/post/3 04498-video-sex-pornot http://blog.iespana.es/palidromas/post/3 04490-image-hard-sexet http://blog.iespana.es/palidromas/post/3 04475-xxx-filmt http://blog.iespana.es/palidromas/post/3 04462-galerie-sexe-ancient-granniest http://blog.iespana.es/mario990/post/304 607-extrait-video-sexe-jour-gratuitt http://blog.iespana.es/mario990/post/304 590-porno-photo-gratist http://blog.iespana.es/mario990/post/304 580-pause-porno-extraitt http://blog.iespana.es/mario990/post/304 565-dvd-porno-lesbiennet http://blog.iespana.es/mario990/post/304 549-etudiante-extrait-video-sexe-fellati ont http://blog.iespana.es/mario990/post/304 540-amateur-street-pornot http://blog.iespana.es/brianweber55/post /304636-jeu-societe-pornot http://blog.iespana.es/brianweber55/post /304632-clara-morgane-pornot http://blog.iespana.es/brianweber55/post /304628-photo-et-video-porno-gratuitet http://blog.iespana.es/brianweber55/post /304623-histoire-sexe-gayt http://blog.iespana.es/brianweber55/post /304619-photo-de-charme-sexet http://blog.iespana.es/brianweber55/post /304615-sexe-and-pour-and-femmet http://blog.iespana.es/partituras88/post /305830-sexyloo-annuaire-de-sexe-gratuit t http://blog.iespana.es/partituras88/post /305825-clara-morgane-actrice-pornot http://blog.iespana.es/partituras88/post /305807-xxx-cartoont http://blog.iespana.es/partituras88/post /304664-film-sexe-grosse-femmet http://blog.iespana.es/partituras88/post /304658-xxx-britney-spearst http://blog.iespana.es/partituras88/post /304643-blog-video-gratuite-sexet http://blog.iespana.es/german2000/post/3 05901-savannah-samson-photo-xxxt http://blog.iespana.es/german2000/post/3 05893-film-amateur-sexet http://blog.iespana.es/german2000/post/3 05880-video-gratuite-porno-amateurt http://blog.iespana.es/german2000/post/3 05866-xxx-simpsonst http://blog.iespana.es/german2000/post/3 05856-xxx-image-sexe-gratuit-fellationt http://blog.iespana.es/german2000/post/3 05845-porno-dvd-showt http://blog.ifrance.com/dartelli/post/30 5963-xxx-video-of-paris-hilton http://blog.ifrance.com/dartelli/post/30 5955-film-porno-amateur-thierry-boucher- paris http://blog.ifrance.com/dartelli/post/30 5946-chat-and-sexe http://blog.ifrance.com/dartelli/post/30 5933-extrait-xxx-porno http://blog.ifrance.com/dartelli/post/30 5917--video-porno-gratuite-sans-abonneme nt-sur-antilles http://blog.ifrance.com/dartelli/post/30 5909-sexe-poilu http://blog.ifrance.com/kevinrichard09/p ost/306026-film-porno-grosse http://blog.ifrance.com/kevinrichard09/p ost/306018-xxx-jeu http://blog.ifrance.com/kevinrichard09/p ost/306010-annuaire-video-amateur-sexe http://blog.ifrance.com/kevinrichard09/p ost/305987-video-amatrice-cul-xxx http://blog.ifrance.com/kevinrichard09/p ost/305979-dvd-porno-adulte http://blog.ifrance.com/kevinrichard09/p ost/305968-porno-avec-pied-asiatique http://blog.iespana.es/morgan00/post/306 089-sexe-gratuit-poilu http://blog.iespana.es/morgan00/post/306 080-sexe-image-gratuit http://blog.iespana.es/morgan00/post/306 074-photo-gratuite-de-sexe-feminin http://blog.iespana.es/morgan00/post/306 065-jeune-et-vieille-sexe http://blog.iespana.es/morgan00/post/306 061-voir-clip-xxx-gratuit http://blog.iespana.es/morgan00/post/306 054-image-porno-clara http://blog.iespana.es/boligrafo21/post/ 306132-free-preview-porno http://blog.iespana.es/boligrafo21/post/ 306122-arabe-sexe-video http://blog.iespana.es/boligrafo21/post/ 306111-x-brazil-porno http://blog.iespana.es/boligrafo21/post/ 306101-image-sexe-adulte http://blog.iespana.es/boligrafo21/post/ 306098-sex-sex-xxx http://blog.iespana.es/boligrafo21/post/ 306095-amateure-gay-gratuit http://blog.iespana.es/germanuri8/post/3 06184-extrait-video-sexe http://blog.iespana.es/germanuri8/post/3 06173-sex-xxx-young-hard-core http://blog.iespana.es/germanuri8/post/3 06166-rencontre-chat-sexe http://blog.iespana.es/germanuri8/post/3 06164-rencontre-sexe-caen http://blog.iespana.es/germanuri8/post/3 06158-password-gold-xxx http://blog.iespana.es/germanuri8/post/3 06149-libre-sexe-xxx http://blog.iespana.es/feernaann88/post/ 306225-casting-film-porno http://blog.iespana.es/feernaann88/post/ 306217-photo-volee-sexe-shop http://blog.iespana.es/feernaann88/post/ 306210-clip-hard-xxx http://blog.iespana.es/feernaann88/post/ 306202-amsterdam-annuaire-site-sexe#view _comment http://blog.iespana.es/feernaann88/post/ 306195-video--porno http://blog.iespana.es/feernaann88/post/ 306192-blog-sexe-webcam http://blog.iespana.es/maletas88/post/30 6257-logiciel-pour-lire-les-video http://blog.iespana.es/maletas88/post/30 6250-logiciel-retouche-photo-professionn el#view_comment http://blog.iespana.es/maletas88/post/30 6245-logiciel-faire-montage-video http://blog.iespana.es/maletas88/post/30 6243-logiciel-protection-antivirus-firew all-comparaison http://blog.iespana.es/maletas88/post/30 6240-logiciel-gps-nokia-6680 http://blog.iespana.es/maletas88/post/30 6237-logiciel-and-tv http://blog.iespana.es/prados22/post/306 283-download-azureus http://blog.iespana.es/prados22/post/306 280-download-avast http://blog.iespana.es/prados22/post/306 276-download-anime http://blog.iespana.es/prados22/post/306 270-download-adobe http://blog.iespana.es/prados22/post/306 267-download-accelerator-plus http://blog.iespana.es/prados22/post/306 263-debian-download http://blog.iespana.es/junco200/post/306 323-download-gta http://blog.iespana.es/junco200/post/306 319-download-games http://blog.iespana.es/junco200/post/306 311-download-fonts http://blog.iespana.es/junco200/post/306 307-download-films http://blog.iespana.es/junco200/post/306 303-download-fedora http://blog.iespana.es/junco200/post/306 297-download-driver http://camil.myblogvoice.com/?photo-and- porno-and-gratuit-12279 http://camil.myblogvoice.com/?jeune-amat rice-gratuit-sexe-12307 http://camil.myblogvoice.com/?xxx-sex-gr atuit-photo-12310 http://camil.myblogvoice.com/?free-porno -amateur-12286 http://www.co-voiturage.fr/modules.php?n ame=Forums&file=viewforum&f=56&a mp;sid=02c9f00dfdf2e0ea972ff41f1d01bace http://www.co-voiturage.fr/annonce-du-fo rum,de-co-voiturage,35155.html http://www.co-voiturage.fr/annonce-du-fo rum,de-co-voiturage,35146.html http://www.co-voiturage.fr/annonce-du-fo rum,de-co-voiturage,35128.html http://www.co-voiturage.fr/annonce-du-fo rum,de-co-voiturage,35145.html http://www.co-voiturage.fr/annonce-du-fo rum,de-co-voiturage,35140.html http://www.co-voiturage.fr/annonce-du-fo rum,de-co-voiturage,35141.html http://www.co-voiturage.fr/annonce-du-fo rum,de-co-voiturage,35142.html http://www.co-voiturage.fr/annonce-du-fo rum,de-co-voiturage,35158.html http://blog.ifrance.com/pentakis/post/30 0451-sexe-feminin#view_comment http://blog.ifrance.com/pentakis/post/30 0422-film-sexe#view_comment http://blog.ifrance.com/pentakis/post/30 0406-sexe-femme#view_comment http://blog.ifrance.com/pentakis/post/30 0395-video-sexe#view_comment http://www.blogg.org/blog-58405-billet-p hoto_porno_de_vieille_femme___video_sexe _gay_gratuite___string_sexe_webcam___sex e_extrait_gratuit_film___video_porno_bla ck_enceinte_gratuite___galerie_photo_sex e_partouze___sexe_shop_lyon___image_sexe _porno_gratuit-535848.html http://www.blogg.org/blog-58405-billet-f ucking_hard_xxx___galerie_video_porno___ video_lesbienne_sexe_gratuit___gay_sexe_ video_gratuit___video_longue_sexe_gratui te___gay_sexe_antilles-535847.html http://www.blogg.org/blog-58405-billet-r ee_sexe_anal_shemale_big_tits___clip_por no_monica_somma___pornographie_image_sur _sexe___sexe_gratuit_sexe_porno_x_sexy_x xx___anal_sexe_gratuit___porno_star_xxx_ __video_photo_porno_gratuit-535846.html http://www.blogg.org/blog-58406.html http://www.blogg.org/blog-58406-billet-p orno_black_gay_hard___clip_porno_gratuit _a_telecharger___actrice_porno_catherine _ringer___porno_sex_gay___porno_asiatiqu e_gratuit___porno_couple_mature___jeune_ amatrice_gratuit_sexe-535851.html http://www.blogg.org/blog-58406-billet-s exe_humour___sexe_amateur_free___clip_gr atos_de_sexe___couple_amateur_sexe_photo ___video_sexe_bizarre___femme_mure_sexy_ xxx___image_sexe_telephone_portable___no mi_actrice_porno-535850.html http://www.blogg.org/blog-58406-billet-f emme_blacks_xxx___mature_jeune_sexe___se xe_xxx_montreal___film_porno_amateur_jeu ne_vierge___sexe_sadique_torture_forum__ _annuaire_blog_sexe___porno_shemals_and_ girls-535849.html http://www.blogg.org/blog-58432-billet-s exe_hard___clip_sexe_rousse_gratuite___s exe_pied_asiatique_gratuit_pied___couple _sexe_camera_cachee___image_drole_sexe__ _sexe_video_clip___sexe_video_gratuit___ film_amateur_xxx_sexe-535921.html http://www.blogg.org/blog-58432-billet-p orno_gratuit___porno_film_maroc___photo_ de_porno___black_porno_gratuit___sexe_fe mme_obese___sexe_ultime_pop_up___movies_ porno_x_trailers___blog_video_amateur_se xe___annuaire_sexe_photo-535920.html http://www.blogg.org/blog-58432-billet-v ideo_hot_gratuit_porno___film_xxx_avec_i nfirmiere_qui_baise___sexe_hard_webcam__ _dessin_anime_video_porno_mangas_tv___ga y_pic_cock_xxx___sexe_xxx_gratuit_video_ __gay_hentai_xxx-535919.html http://www.blogg.org/blog-58432.html http://www.blogg.org/blog-58414.html http://www.blogg.org/blog-58414-billet-g ratuit_film_video_porno___porno_gay_fran cais___hard_xxx_in_seychelles___sexe_har dcore_gratuit_extrait___image_and_de_and _sexe___lesbienne_sexe_webcam___casting_ gratuit_porno___free_mature_xxx-535854.h tml http://www.blogg.org/blog-58414-billet-g alerie_porno_mature___photo_de_sexe_tres _hot___jeu_mangas_porno_gratuit___forum_ divx_xxx___black_xxx_free___sexe_extreme _sexe_com___extrait_video_porno_gratuit_ semaine___sexe_gratuit_hentai_asiatique- 535853.html http://www.blogg.org/blog-58415.html http://www.blogg.org/blog-58415-billet-v ideo_porno___sexe_and_and_femme___gratui t_extrait_sexe___film_gratuit_porno___st ring_sexe_lesbienne___hakan_acteur_porno ___video_super_hot_sexe___histoire_rally e_xxx-535857.html http://www.blogg.org/blog-58415-billet-f ilm_de_sexe_gratuis___archive_extrait_fi lm_porno_gratuit___clip_porno_visionner_ gratuitement___video_gratuite_xxx___imag e_sexe_feminin_echographie___sexe_homme_ gay___photo_porno_x_gratuit-535856.html http://www.blogg.org/blog-58415-billet-v ideo_porno_gay___gay_boy_xxx___film_trai t_amateur_porno___photo_asiat_porno_amat eur___flim_porno_xxx___beurette_zoo_sexe ___gay_gratuit_blog_photo_sexe___photo_p orno_mature_gratuite-535855.html http://www.blogg.org/blog-58416.html http://www.blogg.org/blog-58416-billet-s exe___photo_sexe_webcam___photo_gratuit_ sexe___film_porno___annuaire_suisse_sexe ___free_porno_picture___explosionanale_l s_la_anal_sexe_blonde_pd___sex_xxx_bonne _photo_image_anal_cul-535862.html http://www.blogg.org/blog-58416-billet-f ree_sexe_live_cam___porno_reelle_amateur _gratuit___sex_gratuit_xxx_cul___sexe_ma ngas_dragon_ball___bite_geantes_porno_vi deo_gratuit___star_xxx_pictures___xxx_se x_xxx-535861.html http://www.blogg.org/blog-58416-billet-p hoto_sexe_gratuis___lire_video_porno_emu le___star_sexe_gratuit___sexe_homo_black ___photo_sexe_black_gratuite___gay_porno _fotos_gratis___sexe_gratos___sexe_vieux _et_jeune___photo_gratuite_sexe_amateur- 535860.html http://www.blogg.org/blog-58417.html http://www.blogg.org/blog-58417-billet-v ideo_porno___porno_hard_gratuit_telechar gement_video___amateur_porno_specia_gros se___star_xxx___gros_plan_sexe_feminin__ _arabe_beurette_sexe___xxx_bd___sexe_xxx _blonde_anal_pute-535866.html http://www.blogg.org/blog-58417-billet-x xx___video_and_porno_and_amateur___porno _gay_video_gratuit___photo_sexe_femme_co rse_gratuite___extrait_porno_video_gratu ite___mangas_xxx_hentai___film_porno_gay ___volcanic_sex_xxx-535865.html http://www.blogg.org/blog-58417-billet-v ideo_sexe___clip_porno_sans_telechargeme nt___porno_x_gratuit___casting_sexe_porn o___sexe_pps_gratuit___cinema_xxx_porno_ hard___image_gratuit_sexe___porno_sexe_p hoto_gratuit_mega_cul-535864.html http://www.blogg.org/blog-58419.html http://www.blogg.org/blog-58419-billet-s exe_xxx___video_sein_xxx_gratuit___orgas me_feminin_et_sexe___porno_ultra_hard___ photo_xxx_groups___francais_porno_gratui t___porno_des_sud_africain___liste_blog_ sexe___videi_xxx_amateur-535870.html http://www.blogg.org/blog-58419-billet-a dulte_porno___gay_porno_photo_free___sta r_xxx_blonde___sexe_org_porno___grande_p orno_free_movies___dessin_porno_gay___ch at_sexe_rencontre___image_du_film_xxx___ cleopatra_private_xxx___sexe_feminin-535 869.html http://www.blogg.org/blog-58419-billet-s exe_beurette_gratuit___actrice_porno_mar ocaine___porno_hard_amateur___video_xxx_ gratuit_a_regarder___cum_porno_star___dv d_and_film_porno_and_extrait_and_telecha rger_and_sexe_hard_and_sexe_gratuit-5358 68.html http://www.blogg.org/blog-58419-billet-t elecharger_gratuitement___photo_vieille_ femme_nu_sexe___jeu_erotique_porno_sexy_ __photo_de_lesbienne_sexe___free_xxx_vid eo_trailers___sexe_gratuit_poilu___hard_ gay_xxx_site___free_xxx_pics-535867.html http://www.blogg.org/blog-58420.html http://www.blogg.org/blog-58420-billet-p orno_amateur___dragon_ball_xxx_and_sexe_ __humour_video_sexe_insolite___sample_mo vies_porno_black___sexe_gratuit_amateur_ sexe_com___galerie_photo_porno_gratuite_ __producteur_film_xxx-535875.html http://www.blogg.org/blog-58420-billet-p orno_site___porno_adult_free___homme_ave c_un_gros_sexe___tgp_xxx_sexe_gratuit_po rno___sexe_porno_film_gratuit___divx_xxx _allopass___sexe_star_thumb___xxx_beuret te___porno_gratuit_galerie-535874.html http://www.blogg.org/blog-58420-billet-s exe___histoire_sexe_scato___video_free_s exe___sexe_et_vieille_femme___foto_porno _gratis___telechargement_gratuit_sexe_po rno___sexe_gay_gratuit_video___gros_sexe _gay_black___photo_sexe_femme_mure-53587 3.html http://www.blogg.org/blog-58420-billet-s exe_bizarre___demo_sexe_xxx___extrait_gr atuit_video_porno_hard___mangas_and_porn o___video_porno_gratuit_clara_morgane___ black_porno_girls___video_xxx_totalemen_ gratuite___amatrice_sexe_jef-535872.html http://www.blogg.org/blog-58421.html http://www.blogg.org/blog-58421-billet-d vd_porno___blog_xxx_porno___sexe_video_p orno_xxx___retro_vintage_porno_gratuit__ _porno_extrait_gratuit_video___extrait_v ideo_porno_gratui___and_porno_and_org___ film_porno_tout_gratuit_pandora-535879.h tml http://www.blogg.org/blog-58421-billet-s exe_hard___annuaire_sexe_about_php_addsi te_php___porno_gratuit_photo___video_sex y_xxx___webcam_en_privee_sexe___xxx_sexy ___photo_de_star_du_porno_gratuite___sex e_and_en_and-535878.html http://www.blogg.org/blog-58421-billet-s exe_filmes_live___sexe_shop_fr___amateur _and_xxx___extrait_film_video_porno_grat uit___film_sex_porno___beurette_hard_por no___sexe_mangas___black_galerie_porno__ _galerie_sexe_gratuit_amateur-535877.htm l http://www.blogg.org/blog-58422.html http://www.blogg.org/blog-58422-billet-s exe_tres_extreme___telecharge_film_sexe_ __photo_salope_xxx___festival_cinema_por no___galerie_photo_sexe_amateur_libertin _exhib___porno_gay_gratis___sexe_gratui_ vida_o_extrait___bd_porno_gratuit-535884 .html http://www.blogg.org/blog-58422-billet-f ree_porno_pictures_and_fuking_hot_black_ __film_xxx_blonde_salope___galerie_amate ur_sexe_gratuit___danseuse_arabe_sexe___ telechargement_gratuit_porno___porno_sex e_gratuit_amateur_lesbienne_video-535883 .html http://www.blogg.org/blog-58422-billet-p hoto_bizarre_sexe___video_porno_femme_no ire___video_porno_sex___live_show_sexe_g ratuit___annuaire_porno_anal_gratuit___h istoire_porno_extreme___voir_galerie_pho to_porno_gratuite___photo_and_hot-535881 .html http://www.blogg.org/blog-58423.html http://www.blogg.org/blog-58423-billet-w omen_xxx___grosse_arabe_sexe_galerie___v id_o_porno_gratuite___porno_arabe_gradui t___paris_hilton_xxx_gratuit___and_gaulo is_and_sexe___sexe_asiatique_gratuit___v ideo_porno_femme_mure-535887.html http://www.blogg.org/blog-58423-billet-s exe_feminin___jeu_xxx_porno___femme_xxx_ geneve___arabe_hot_xxx___free_porno___po rno_anal_hard___porno_and_x___arabe_porn o___porno_arabe_fotos_algerie___video_bl og_porno_intime_gratuit-535886.html http://www.blogg.org/blog-58423-billet-f ilm_xxx_gratuite___clip_porno_gratuite__ _sexe_asiatique_video___porno_extrait_vi deo_gratruit___sexe_gratuit_amatrice_web cam___video_porno_gratuite_de_gay___skyb log_meuf_porno___xxx_sexe_porno-535885.h tml
by miren1980 on Fri May 11, 2007 at 06:51:35 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.