Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Anti-war protesters were right. Iraq invasion has led to chaos. [View all]madfloridian
(88,117 posts)3. "Blair Democrats, Ready for Battle" by Will Marshall PPI/DLC
The WP link is dead, but I found a post here about the topic. The reference is of course to our partner in crime in Iraq, Tony Blair.
[link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1938851|"Blair Democrats": Pro-War Contingent and the 'Anti-War Left']
The Washington Post | Editorial | May 1, 2003
The Blair Democrats: Ready for Battle
By Will Marshall
The U.S.-led coalition's stunning success in liberating Iraq is undoubtedly a triumph for President Bush. But Karl Rove shouldn't get too giddy, because it may be a boon for some Democrats, too.
After all, four of the leading Democratic presidential contenders -- Rep. Dick Gephardt and Sens. Joseph Lieberman, John Kerry and John Edwards -- not only voted to support the war but also joined British Prime Minister Tony Blair in demanding that Bush challenge the United Nations to live up to its responsibilities to disarm Iraq. This position put these "Blair Democrats" in sync with the vast majority of Americans who said they would much rather attack Saddam Hussein's regime with United Nations backing than without it. And it puts them at odds with what Kerry called the "blustery unilateralism" of the president, which combined with French obstructionism to rupture not only the United Nations but the Atlantic alliance as well.
Like Bush, these Democrats did not shrink from the use of force to end Hussein's reign of terror. Like Blair, they saw the Iraq crisis as a test of Western resolve and the United Nations' credibility as an effective instrument of collective security. Their "yes-but" position on Iraq irked the antiwar left and some political commentators, who prefer the parties to take starkly opposing stands on every issue, no matter how complicated. But the Blair Democrats faithfully reflected Americans' instinctive internationalism. While neoconservatives may yearn for a new Augustan age based on unfettered U.S. power, most Americans still see strategic advantages in international cooperation.
Just as the swift liberation of Iraq has strengthened the Blair Democrats, it has weakened the party's antiwar contingent, whose worst fears failed to materialize. The outcome deals a near-fatal blow to the presidential prospects of Howard Dean, whose staunch opposition to the war thrilled Iowa's left-leaning activists but is out of step with rank-and-file Democrats, about two-thirds of whom approve of the war. Moreover, because 75 percent of all voters back the war, the odds that Democrats will make Bush's day by serving up an antiwar nominee as his opponent in 2004 seem long indeed.
I think Will Marshall tooted his own horn way too soon.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
105 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
What was most to Halliburton's advantage? Two different options at two two different times.
maddiemom
Sep 2015
#61
"the cost has been too great" < I don't think the costs have even started yet. There is a big
jtuck004
Sep 2015
#4
Dem Establishment in 2016 puts up a candidate who voted to authorize the travesty
Dems to Win
Sep 2015
#8
I can't forget that video of Wes Clark telling about the 7 countries we would invade.
madfloridian
Sep 2015
#36
Also it does not help when your occupying force leaves behind guns, ammo, armored vehicles
Rex
Sep 2015
#70
"Call Congress right fucking now!" has become a reality instead of a tag line!
CTyankee
Sep 2015
#31
The same crew, Third Way Dems and repubs, will do it all again when the war drums
Zorra
Sep 2015
#54
Project for a New American Century should be all the evidence anyone needs to convict Cheney
Rex
Sep 2015
#74
Said it then, I'll say it again, "You can start a war, but you can't just stop it."
L. Coyote
Sep 2015
#79
It was supposed to be, in their crackpot plans, a quick and dirty conquest. The $$$$$ would be in
WinkyDink
Sep 2015
#91
Well, yes, that too, however, cheney*/bush* knew (well cheney*knew, bush* muddled through it...
Raster
Sep 2015
#92
I still beg to differ. They built the US's largest embasssy ever in Iraq. I think they wanted an
WinkyDink
Sep 2015
#95
I don't think we differ that much. Yes, we built the world's largest, most hardened embassy in Iraq
Raster
Sep 2015
#96
Heh---Your allusion to Puerto Rico got me thinking of "West Side Story." "I like to be in the
WinkyDink
Sep 2015
#103
Iraq seems to be a major cause, especially regarding Kurds and Iran ...
JustABozoOnThisBus
Sep 2015
#89
Yet another "N S, S" moment for the media to take note of, too little, too late.
WinkyDink
Sep 2015
#90
I remember how anthropologists who understood the region tried to be heard...
polichick
Sep 2015
#101