what is the point of defending the Iraq invasion?

[ulysses]

The whole escapade, aside from costing 900+ American lives, has been a failure. Bush pushed it - why can't we, as a party, with all the evidence against our regime's rationale, push back?

Is the public not completely in sync? That never stopped the GOP.

[DrWeird]

1. Don't know. No backbone I guess.

It's the 800lb gorilla in the middle of the room, and they can be pretty intimidating.

The DLC isn't exactly known for it's gonads.

[lottie244]

44. I think he wants to win the election. I think that's the only reason.

He has to appeal to many, many misguided dittoheads out there.

[SunDrop23]

69. That's not a bad point.

[Skip Intro]

2. Wonder the same thing everytime I hear the question - -

"Do you think we were misled as far as Iraq, and wmds, links to aq, links to 9*11?"

I hear supposed journalists ask this now and then of a guest.

What effn planet are they on?

OF COURSE WE WERE MISLED. BY BUSH.

Its not a matter of opinion.

[ikojo]

3. They are trying to out Bush-Bush

after all they have been told by their handlers that the American people are WARRIORS and those "swing" voters who are too busy watching MTV, Big Brother or Survivor have yet to make up their mind regarding who to support for president.

They realize this is a "winning" message...after all look how well it worked for the House and Senate Dems in 2002....OH WAIT! The REPUBLICANS took control of all three branches of government then!

Hmmm.....what is it they say about fool me once?

[ulysses]

6. heh - no shit.

:)

[kiahzero]

4. Who's defending the invasion?

I've seen defenses of continuing the occupation, but no defenses of the invasion.

[Bluebear]

5. A lot of people still believe Iraq = 9/11

:shrug:

[ulysses]

9. maybe that's because

no one is telling them differently.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

7. The point is, Bush will lose doing it.

We don't even have to attack him over it. He did it, and the entire electorate knows that he did it. And most of them will vote for or against him depending on whether they think he made a mistake.

[ulysses]

11. will he?

Seems like an awfully dangerous strategy to me, to wait for your opponent to self-destruct.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

19. We aren't waiting, we are watching it happen.

The point now is how big of a gain we can make in Congress so that we can actually get something done.

[ulysses]

22. I hope you're right

but I doubt that you are.

[Bush was AWOL]

8. Because Kerry and Edwards both voted for it

If they stand behind it the flip flop/weak on National security talking point goes away.

Do you guys not realize how important it is that we win?

They are trying to win. They can't pander to everyone. This is what the political advisors think they need to do to win. Bush needs to GO! Whatever it takes to make that happen I support.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

13. Why are you pretending Kerry is defending the invasion.

It's not true. I challenge you to document one instance of Kerry saying the invasion was the right choice. Name one time that Kerry said that Bush did the right thing in invading.

[ulysses]

21. sorry - he voted to give Bush the authorization.

Not-saying that the invasion was the right choice is not a sufficient response to 900 American, and thousands of Iraqi, dead.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

24. In other words, your question is misleading and false

A classic strawman.

[ulysses]

28. no.

Given the stakes in human lives, failing to roundly condemn the failed invasion of Iraq is not worthy of my party.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

32. You just said it was,

you may think dishonesty and deception on your part is justified by some 'greater good' but you are wrong.

[ulysses]

35. excuse me?

I just said what was what?

[GreenArrow]

26. in one of the debates (Wisconsin)

he said the war was the right thing to do, but done the wrong way.

on edit: here's the applicable quote/s and link:

http://www.wisconsindebate.com/transcript.asp

"There was a right way to do this and there was a wrong way to do it. And the president chose the wrong way because he turned his back on his own pledge to build a legitimate international coalition, to exhaust the remedies of the United Nations in the inspections and to go to war as a matter of last resort."

and

"He didn't do it. My regret is not the vote. It was appropriate to stand up to Saddam Hussein. There was a right way to do it, a wrong way to do it.

My regret is this president chose the wrong way, rushed to war, is now spending billions of American taxpayers' dollars that we didn't need to spend this way had he built a legitimate coalition, and has put our troops at greater risk. "

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GreenArrow]

80. distinctions

Guess what. User name notwithstanding, I am a registered Democrat. I don't like the direction the party is headed. That's probably as much a reflection of the country as a whole, as the party. I am not a robot. I don't walk in lockstep. I don't subscribe to the philosophy of "with us or against us." I am going to criticize party leaders when I believe they are wrong. I expect the party's actions to keep pace with it's rhetoric.

Yes, Kerry said it was right to push for inspections, diplomacy etc, to deal with Sadamm. Assuming that had been done, Kerry would have had no problem with carrying out the invasion, because under those circumstances, we would have had international support for it.

Did Kerry support the invasion as prosecuted by Bush? No. Did Kerry support the invasion under certain conditions? Absolutely.

Understand: If things had been done in what Kerry called the "right way" he would have supported the invasion--even though all the justifications for it were bullshit. He was not against it per se.

Though interestingly, tonight in his speech, (which was really quite good, overall) he mentioned that he would not let any international bodies interefere with defending America (paraphrasing here), which is really quite curious.

[ulysses]

16. yes, I do understand

how important it is that we win. I also understand how important it is that things happen in the real world.

If they stand behind it the flip flop/weak on National security talking point goes away.

I wouldn't bet the bank on that, unless politics suddenly jettisons Rove's rules for yours.

[Pastiche423]

10. Sensible Liberals defend the Iraq invasion

Get it?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

14. Who? when?

[ulysses]

18. damn! I keep forgetting that!

[kiahzero]

20. Which "Sensible Liberals?"

Oh, that's right.. the straw man ones you made up. Otherwise, you would have answered the question the first couple of times it was asked.

[Pastiche423]

31. I wish I could take credit for Sensible Liberals

But, alas, I can't. The term came from one much more talented than I.

I'm sorry. If some one has asked me before about Sensible Liberals, I missed it. I am unable to be here 24/7.

[kiahzero]

33. No, specifically:

Who are you talking about defending the war? Someone from the Democratic Party? Someone in a thread here on DU?

I've seen the cartoon you were referring to - I was asking how it applied to this thread.

[Pastiche423]

37. Uly asked, "What is the point in defending the Iraq invasion"

My answer to him was, the Sensible Liberals believe in order to win, they must defend the Iraq invasion.

And that's exactly what the Sensible Liberals have been all during the DLC convention.

Understand now?

[kiahzero]

39. I assume you have proof

Oh, wait... asking for proof? How dare I ask you to substantiate your bullshit?

[ulysses]

40. if they don't believe such

then don't we come back to the original question?

[kiahzero]

41. Huh?

Pastiche claimed that the DLC was supporting the invasion. I asked for proof.

[Pastiche423]

45. No, I din't

I said the Sensible Liberals were supporting the Iraq invasion.

[kiahzero]

47. OK, I misread your sentence

Which "Sensible Liberals" at the DNC were defending the invasion?

[Pastiche423]

51. Every single one of them that did not denounce

the Iraq invasion during the DLC convention.

[kiahzero]

54. Did the DLC have a gathering this week?

Where was it? Who spoke? Do you have transcripts?

Furthermore, how does not specifically attacking it defend it? If I give a speech on health care, and I don't talk about Iraq, am I defending the invasion?

[GreenArrow]

81. you give them proof

they call you a liar. "either you are with us or against us."

[Pastiche423]

42. Proof of what?

[kiahzero]

48. Quotes

Prove that these "Sensible Liberals" have been defending the invasion of Iraq at the DNC.

[gasperc]

12. the occupation is such a total and complete cluster fuck

gee, I don't know delusions of grandeur

[GreenArrow]

15. can't appear weak

god damnit! Can't appear weak!

[G_j]

23. don't be a girlie-boy n/t

[GreenArrow]

27. America will never be a girlie boy

Having ICBMS, Daisy Cutters and tactical nukes means never having to say you're sorry.

[greatauntoftriplets]

17. The point of that whole fiasco -- if there IS one...

totally escapes me. I am on record -- here at this site many, many times -- saying numbnuts would open Pandora's Box with his hellbent "gotta get Saddam" bloodlust.

It almost scares me to know what I foresaw would come true -- and so quickly. Men and women still are being asked to die for a mistake. When will that change?

[ulysses]

25. not that you don't know this

but it won't change until we can field a viable challenge to the structure that feeds on this mistake.

[greatauntoftriplets]

30. That is why I keep my "Regime Change Begins at Home"

bumpersticker in a car window. The word "change" being the operative one. I feel like I am reliving the 1960s, only this time as an SDS member.

[latebloomer]

34. The powers that be need the oil wars

and Mr. Kerry has sold his soul to the powers that be.

[EstimatedProphet]

43. IMO it isn't about defending the invasion

it's about not leaving Iraq destroyed after we destroyed it. We did this, we invaded, even if some of us disagreed. We have to make amends now.

[ulysses]

46. nice sentiment

but that's not what they're talking about.

[kiahzero]

49. WHO?

Who the hell are we talking about? Why can't you answer such a simple question?

[ulysses]

50. who what?

Who is defending the invasion?

[kiahzero]

52. Yes. I've asked how many times, now?

The closest I've gotten so far is a straw man term derived from a cartoon.

[ulysses]

53. never mind

response to follow

[Pastiche423]

55. I have answered you

It just wasn't the answer you wanted.

[kiahzero]

56. What are their names?

When did they speak? What did they say?

Why can you not answer the most basic questions about your assertion? Is it because you don't have a clue?

[Pastiche423]

58. See post #51

What part of every single one of them that did not denounce the Iraq invasion do you not understand?

[kiahzero]

60. So, in other words

You're saying the same thing that Ulysses is. You changed the terms of debate when you started to lose. All of a sudden, instead of talking about "defending the invasion," we're talking about not attacking the invasion.

In other words: you got caught in your lie, and you're trying to weasel your way out of it by changing the terms.

[ulysses]

57. have we had a denunciation of the invasion?

Has anyone had the stones to stand up to the Patriotism meme?

Sorry, but in our America, what we don't condemn, we condone.

[kiahzero]

59. Equivocation is a logical fallacy

Now we're not talking about "defending the invasion," we're talking about not attacking the invastion. Those are not disjoint, but nor are they mutually exclusive.

[ulysses]

61. you are mistaken.

Given the deaths of innocents that is unavoidable, war is not an issue about which one is granted the luxury of equivocation. The invasion of Iraq was either wrong or right, and the party needs to declare where it stands.

[kiahzero]

62. Then why are you equivocating?

Why are you changing the meaning of your words, in the middle of your argument?

The Democratic Party has declared where it stands... hell, Kerry is doing it right now: The invasion was WRONG. If you were paying attention, you would know that it's been Kerry's position the whole time.

[ulysses]

63. I'm not.

From the get-go, my position has been that the invasion of Iraq was wrong. It remains so.

If the party has declared it wrong, I've missed it and would love to see a quote.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ulysses]

65. yadda yadda yadda.

Sorry, but it's the same discussion. I heard the speech. I never heard him say that the invasion of Iraq was wrong and, given the state of things and the deaths, that omission is the same, morally, as a defense of the invasion.

[kiahzero]

66. He did, in that very quote.

So, I guess I was right. Short of him going to the podium and screaming "IRAQ BAD!" you will continue to believe Kerry is defending the invasion.

[Pastiche423]

67. No he din't

He did not mention the Iraq invasion in that quote.

[kiahzero]

68. Does everything have to be spelled out for you?

Or just this?

[Pastiche423]

71. Did he or did he not mention the Iraq invasion in his speech?

[kiahzero]

73. Not directly.

But one does not need to specifically say the word "Iraq" for everyone to know what you are talking about.

If Kerry isn't talking about Iraq in that quote, what is he talking about?

[Pastiche423]

74. He was referring to the future

Not the present.

[ulysses]

70. well, no.

Or perhaps you'd like to spell it out.

[kiahzero]

72. Fine.

And as president, I will bring back this nation's time-honored tradition, the United States of America never goes to war because we want to. We only go to war because we have to. That is the standard of our nation...

We went into Iraq because we wanted to, not because we had to.

Before you go to battle, you have to be able to look a parent in the eye and truthfully say I tried everything possible to avoid sending your son or daughter into harm's way, but we had no choice.

We didn't do everything we should have before we resorted to war.

We have to protect the American people, fundamental American values, against a threat was real and imminent.

There was no need to go to war in Iraq.

So, lesson number one, this is the only justification for going to war.

Since the war in Iraq didn't meet this conditions, it was unjustified.

It's positive negativism: attacking Bush without being so blunt as Bush has been. It's a good way of campaigning - it drives down support for Bush without running into the problems that occur when one goes negative in a campaign.

On Edit: My brother just explained it quite aptly: "Here's what I would do (and it just so happens that it's exactly the opposite of what the current admin is doing, but you all know that, and I don't have to say it that way)." - It was attacking the Bush record by putting forth his own message, not attacking Bush just to attack Bush.

[ulysses]

75. do you even see it?

We didn't do everything we should have before we resorted to war.


Do you really not see it? The needlessness of the deaths that can be called "bipartisan" because of votes like Kerry's? The pure and dangerous arrogance of Bush's that so desperately needs the kind of direct rebuke that we're, evidently, unable to give?

Is it so difficult for Kerry to say, in the face of the quagmire, "this is wrong"?

[kiahzero]

76. People calling it "bipartisan" are lying

One shouldn't lie just to prevent other liars from doing what they do best.

In other words: never argue with an idiot, they'll drag you down to their level, and beat you with experience.

The Iraq War was wrong, and we didn't do everything we should have before we resorted to war. Why are you attacking Kerry for telling the truth?

[ulysses]

77. christ on a springboard - what truth?

In all honesty. What truth have I missed?

[kiahzero]

78. That Bush didn't do what needed to be done

You appear to be attacking Kerry for saying that.

[ulysses]

79. OF COURSE BUSH DIDN'T DO WHAT NEEDED TO BE DONE

Did anyone in their right mind expect Bush to do what he said he would??? Jesus, why in the hell is it that our actions are justified on the trust of the neocons? Who in blue hell truly thought that Bush was going to go through proper channels in order to invade Iraq?

No, really - who? Who in the flaming fuck thought that George W. Bush was going to bother with diplomatic niceties regarding the preemptive invasion of Iraq, especially once he got "bipartisan" support in the Congress?

[JVS]

82. Does that apply when someone says...

"A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush"?