"Democrats are united but have concealed the cause that unites them"

[G_j]

article does a fair job of discribing the strange scitzophrnenic feeling many have been experiencing..


http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0730-14.htm

The Kerry Mandate: Strong and Wrong
by Jonathan Schell

<snip>
Military courage in war is honored; civil courage in opposing a disastrous war is not honored. Even thirty years later, it cannot be mentioned by a former President who himself opposed the Vietnam War. The political rule, as Clinton once put it in one of the few pithy things he has ever said, "We have got to be strong.... When people feel uncertain, they'd rather have somebody who's strong and wrong than somebody who's weak and right."

And now the United States is engaged in a war fully as wrong as the one in Vietnam. The boiling core of American politics today is the war in Iraq and all its horrors: the continuing air strikes on populated cities; the dogs loosed by American guards on naked, bound Iraqi prisoners; the kidnappings and the beheadings; the American casualties nearing a thousand; the 10,000 or more Iraqi casualties; the occupation hidden behind the mask of an entirely fictitious Iraqi "sovereignty"; the growing scrapheap of discredited justifications for the war. But little of that is mentioned these days by the Democrats. The great majority of Democratic voters, according to polls, ardently oppose the war, yet by embracing the candidacy of John Kerry, who voted for the Congressional resolution authorizing the war and now wants to increase the number of American troops in Iraq, the party has made what appears to be a tactical decision to hide its faith.
(** my note: Kerry has now said he won't send more troops to Iraq)

The strong and wrong position won out in the Democratic Party when its voters chose Kerry over Howard Dean in the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary. An antiwar party rallied around a prowar candidate. The result has been one of the most peculiar political atmospheres within a party in recent memory. The Democrats are united but have concealed the cause that unites them. The party champions free speech that it does not practice. As a Dennis Kucinich delegate at the convention said to Amy Goodman on Democracy Now!, "Peace" is "off-message." A haze of vagueness and generality hangs over party pronouncements. In his convention speech, President Carter, who is on record opposing the war, spoke against "pre-emptive war" but did not specify which pre-emptive war he had in mind. Al Gore, who has been wonderfully eloquent in his opposition to the war, was tame for the occasion. "Regardless of your opinion at the beginning of this war," he said, "isn't it now abundantly obvious that the way this war has been managed by the Administration has gotten us into very serious trouble?"

What of the antiwar sentiment that is still in truth at the heart of most Democrats' anger? It has been displaced downward and outward, into the outlying precincts of American politics. The political class as a whole has proved incapable of taking responsibility for the future of the nation, and the education of the American public has been left to those without hope of office. Like a balloon that squeezed at the top expands at the base, opposition to the war increases the farther you get from John Kerry. Carter and Gore can express a little more of it. Howard Dean, who infused the party with its now-muffled antiwar passion, can express more still. Representative Kucinich, a full-throated peace candidate, has endorsed Kerry and has kind words to say about him but holds fast to his antiwar position. On the Internet, Tomdispatch.com, AlterNet.org, CommonDreams.org, antiwar.com, MoveOn.org and many others are buzzing and bubbling with honest and inspired reporting and commentary. Michael Moore is packing audiences into 2,000 theaters to see Fahrenheit 9/11.

..more..

[noahmijo]

1. I'm getting tired of hearing Kerry being referred to as "Pro-War"

This is a great move by the right to make us fight amongst ourselves...press the lie that Kerry supported Bush and supported full invasion of Iraq.



What part of this says "I support you George W. Bush and your war"

Read the rest of his statement here:

http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html

[CaTeacher]

3. Well--Kerry is certainly not in sync with

the peace movement. I think that should be plain as day to anyone who paid any attention whatsoever to the convention.

As a peace activist, I want to see the troops brought home NOW. I want to see our military dismantled (to the extent that we possibly can). I do not want to see the US acting imperialistically and ruining other countries--no not EVER for ANY reason.

Those are generally some of the things that peace activists believe. There are many of us in the Democratic party. Over 90% of the Democratic delegates that attended the convention want PEACE not war. So--yes--speaking on behalf of those that want peace, we do find Kerry to be more "pro-war" than we would like.

[noahmijo]

4. You would like to see our military dismantled?

How about we just create a bill or something that imprisons any President that uses our military for anything other than to protect our nation?

Seriously no military? that's a little extreme....

[CaTeacher]

5. I said "to the extent that is possible"

of course we would retain some military force--but why do we need enough to invade or occupy any other country? Why do we need to have more forces than our neighbor to the north (Canada)?

Why not take this money and spend it on something more useful?

[noahmijo]

6. Ahh ahh you are right you are right I agree totally

I am sorry I jumped the gun on you...I agree entirely a military that is sufficient enough to protect the nation not own the world be a good idea.

Incidently though I think Canada has a much smaller military because they know we got their backs.

[G_j]

7. I've read it in full many times

and we've been over it here a thousand times. Some people think he should have known better, some think he did not have enough information.
We are not dupes of the right. Most of us think for ourselves and
people have a right to come to their own conclusions/opinions on the matter.

The point of this article is more about the general avoidance of a straight up anti-war message by the Democratic party.

[sangh0]

14. And the point made is untrue, like many of the far left's anti-war points

The majority of Dems do not support a "straight up anti-war message", which probably explains why the author asserts that the majority supports the anti-war position (whatever it is at this point) but provides absolutely NO EVIDENCE to support that ridiculous claim.

[G_j]

23. "far left "

I suspect it is a meant as a back handed insult, but it just sounds so silly, old and tired too. zzzz

[Feanorcurufinwe]

8. It's a lie - and I'm tired of hearing it repeated here as well.

Of course, I've been fighting this false meme for over a year, so perhaps I am a little battle-weary.

[G_j]

12. not pro-war or anti-war either?

perhaps it's that vague territory that people have a hard time getting a grasp on that becomes a problem for some.
This article also points out that Carter and Gore were also fuzzy about this in their convention speeches.
There is no question that many people are intensely passionate about their opposition to the Iraq occupation and want to see that reflected with more clarity.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. "If he fails to do so, I will be the first to speak out." Still waiting.

And, Kerry still isn't speaking out.

[izzie]

2. What can one say. I am anti-war and I do not like Kerry's stand.

I say do as Ike did. Say I will bring the men home, now.I think a lot of this goes back to the dream of victory for our army and we have not seen that in many years, It really has not happened since WW2 and most Americans like to think we can win wars.Even in WW2 we fought as a unit with many other countries but to hear people you would think we won it all our selfs. No one even likes to say that the win was with Russia's help. Hell more people in the USSR were killed than any place else. England was fighting long before we even got in. All this seems to rub people the wrong way, in this country, so they just for get it. Taking a gun to people seems to feel better to Am. than sitting down and talking. Maybe Europe have got ahead of us and figured out talking was better.

[Dover]

9. I think Kerry's decisions with regards to support for Israel may be more

telling of what his stance is on the Iraq situation than mere rhetoric. He vowed strong support for Israel in his speech. I think one big reason we are in Iraq is in support of Israel.
There are varying opinions about our policies toward Israel, both here and in Israel itself, and I'd like to hear exactly where Kerry stands. Whether anyone is willing to talk about it or not, Israel has become one of the main catalysts for instability in the ME which promises to only get bloodier. So this issue is key for this country in outlining foreign policy.

[nomaco-10]

10. Now G_j.....

You know we're not supposed to talk about Kerry's stand on the war around here. It get's people all riled up and then they start remembering they have a conscience, then people start insulting each other, then people run over to ATA and drive Skinner crazy about disruptors in their midst. Kerry's gonna figure it all out as soon as he gets elected and then maybe he'll tell us.

[OneBlueSky]

11. ya know, I really don't care . . .

the only thing I care about is getting BushCo out of power and someone in the White House who, at minimum . . .

- doesn't base foreign policy on the apocalyptic prophesies of ancient texts;

- has a curiosity about the world;

- reads;

- appreciates nuance and complexity in human affairs; and

- isn't going to attack Iran, Syria, North Korea, China, or anywhere else without a damned good reason.

Kerry's position on Iraq may not be one I agree with, but at least I know that he's someone who will listen to opposing opinions and has the ability to (horrors!) change that position in light of changing circumstances and new evidence . . . he's not bound by the extreme positions of the PNAC or any other ideological movement, and thus has the capability of seeing things anew over time and in light of new developments . . . at least I, and otheres like me, will have a place at the table to make our case, which is something we don't (and never will) have with BushCo . . .

[G_j]

13. people campaigning for Kerry

need to be able to address this issue because that is what a lot of people want to talk about.

[sangh0]

15. More bad advice from the "anti-war" left

who also told us that a Dem could not become the nominee if they had voted for IWR. The group who has never elected a president thinks it can tell the Democrats what they *need* to do.

[G_j]

19. I don't see the problem

with saying there is a need to address (discuss) an issue because people want to talk about it. Did I tell anyone WHAT to say?
Is your solution NOT to discuss issues?

I always like to say, deal with the shit when its up. You don't build healthy relationships by brushing discussion aside.
This article is intelligently written and it contains observations worthy of discussion. Many many people want to discuss the war (its still going on btw)

[nomaco-10]

20. There's a "pro" Iraqi War left? Do they make up the bulk.....

of the "new" dem party now? I'd really like to know, because I would definately have to consider a change to a third party if that's the case. Somebody please tell me this ain't so.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. Kerry should stop pussyfooting and come out against the occupation

The majority in the country is now anti-war and want out. Kerry can use that to his advantage by speaking out strongly against the illegal war and occupation and admit he was wrong in voting for the war.

[blm]

18. This article is HORSESH!T! Dems are united to PRESERVE DEMOCRACY ITSELF.

The iraq war is and Bush's refusal to implement the IWR honestly are just ONE PART OF THE MOTIVATION.

Anyone want to weigh in that Bush's fascism is LESS of a motivation?

That Bush's judicial appointments are any LESS of a motivation?

That the removal of theocrats from governmental power is a LESSER motivation?

Puhleeze...the list is almost endless. Those who are naive enough to believe Iraq is the sole unifying force are also gullible enough to vote for Nader.

[nomaco-10]

21. This article is not BS!!! It's relevant to a great....

many people in the dem party that think the Iraq war is what's BS. If we are continuously minimized by our stand on the war and told it is a back burner and a wedge issue by people in our own party, we will lose a great many votes in November. You can no longer deny that the issue of the war is not important to a great many dems.

I'm a DEMOCRAT and I'm getting tired of being accused of being an "uber lefty" or a Naderite by my own party because I oppose this war and those that support it.

[G_j]

22. the article never said

Democrats were not unified. It observed that Dems are united but many are putting the issue they feel the most passionately about aside for the sake of unity. The author thinks that was a mistake, but never says people are not unified. They are unified for the sake of ejsecting Bush and are going with Kerry because they know he is not an all out warmonger/criminal like Bush. If you take under consideration that many think that war crimes were and are being committed, you might further grasp the intensity of feelings on the part of many. It is has been the anger over the war that has been at least the most visible force moving Dems to Unity in the first place.