Are all Democrats who don't support immediate withdrawal from Iraq

[Guaranteed]

Bush collaborators?

Not looking for a flamewar, here, please. I'm wanting to figure out how many DUers believe this.

[kliljedahl]

1. It's Powell's "Pottery Barn Rule"

Lieberman is for sure, but I'm willing to cut a little slack for most of the others.


Keith’s Barbeque Central

[bvar22]

2. Didn't respond to the poll.

There are many other options/explainations for the Democratic Support of the bush* War including being Wellstoned or anthraxed.

Pottery Barn Rule does NOT apply to Iraq.

The Hole Rule applies in Iraq:
When you find yourself in a hole, STOP DIGGING!!!

[atreides1]

3. I would like to think not

But to keep troops in harms way, because of the possibility of a civil war in Iraq isn't, at least to me, an acceptable excuse
to use against immediate withdrawal.

Whether we stay or leave there is still the chance of a civil war, and I don't see how allowing more US troops to die is going to stop that from happening.

The mentality of "we broke it, we should fix it" is also BS, we broke Vietnam and it wasn't until a few years ago that we even started trade with them, and we still haven't offered to "fix" what we broke.

Personally I believe in a controlled withdrawal, pulling units out a little at a time, but to be accomplished within 6 to 12 months.

Those that are against an immediate withdrawal, cannot rant and rave about how they won't let their children enlist, if they are willing to see US troops continue to die or to be wounded, then I would expect them to set the example by encouraging their children to enlist also.

I guess that some who are against immediate withdrawal do have a loved one in the service, and those men and women might be in Iraq.
To them, I salute you, you have principles and integrity. Knowing that your loved one is in harms way, and can become a casualty or a fatlity, to still insist on a slow withdrawal shows your convictions.

[Stinky The Clown]

4. I think we're all smart enough to know this is not a yes/no question

The immediate withdrawal is at one end of the continuum and the pottery barn thing is toward the other end. There are pros and cons to both ..... and surely to every shade of nuanced difference in between.

I think I could make a case for either end of the spectrum. But in the end, I find myself pretty close to where Dean, Kerry, Clark, probably Edwards, and others are.

That said, I am certain of one opinion .... my own ..... but I suspect those mentioned above, among others, hold pretty much the same view .... to leave now would create incredible instability, not only in Iraq, but in the entire Middle East. To think some other 'peacekeeping force' will suddenly march in and protect everyone is folly. No one wants to touch this shitstorm. No one (unless their motives are as nefarious as bushco's).

And I most certainly do NOT see this view as being in any way, shape, or form as being pro Bush.

Here's the simple fact:

Bush wants to expand the battlefield and perpetuate the war. Most Democrats want to reduce the battlefield as quickly as possible, make the country stable, and get the hell out. The differences on our side are about the 'how' .... and that's always debatable.

But to think that, on the face of it, this is a yes or no question .... you're either a Dem or a Bush supporter ... is just plain wrong.

[Guaranteed]

5. Sounds like you're saying it's an unfair statement to make. nt

[Pharaoh]

6. they are there for the oil

and to control the gulf oil they will have to take out Iran.That is why they are building all these bases in Iraq.
:party:

[Stinky The Clown]

9. Who are 'they'? n/t

[Pharaoh]

13. the neocon nazi nutjobs!

[Stinky The Clown]

8. You asked for opinions ... and that's mine

I'm not arguing at all with your sentiment. In fact, I share it. My post was as much for others to read as it was an answer to your question (knowing who else might be inclined to read a post with a title such as this one).

So back to the real core of my post ... it isn't a yes/no issue.

[janx]

45. Right, H2S! It's the logical fallacy of false dilemma,

one of the oldest and most popular tricks in the political cards. It is not an either/or situation, but it is presented as such to corner people.

A false dilemma is constructed as an either/or situation when there are many other options to consider.

This is a classic example.

[Eloriel]

37. Ah, YOU are not only smart enough but intellectually honest enough

to actually lay it out:

The immediate withdrawal is at one end of the continuum and the pottery barn thing is toward the other end. There are pros and cons to both ..... and surely to every shade of nuanced difference in between.

I think I could make a case for either end of the spectrum. But in the end, I find myself pretty close to where Dean, Kerry, Clark, probably Edwards, and others are.

But you see there are people here at DU who will use anything they can, including a disingenuous, forced choice, stupid and illogical argument like the one posed as a poll to attack Dean. Makes you wonder about them, doesn't it, when the truth (as you so nicely lay out) is so clear, so easily detected, so obvious, so rational and logical, etc.

:shrug:

Just makes you wonder, doesn't it?

[Guaranteed]

51. You'll notice that the poll is a reflection of the tactic being

used against Dean.

Also notice the results.

[Radical Activist]

7. Just the ones who publicly sat they hope Bush's Iraq policy is successful.

Like Lieberman and Dean, for example.

[Sparkly]

10. Successful in creating peace and stability and bringing troops home.

That's how it seems to me.

That doesn't mean success for the Chimp -- if everything turned rosey overnight, he's still responsible for a huge, costly, and terribly tragic failure.

[Radical Activist]

11. And yet, that isn't what Dean said.

I hope he means what you just wrote, but why won't he put it that way instead? Dean expressed support for Bush's policy, which includes permanent military bases and control of their oil and extablishing a puppet government. Democrats should speak out against those things.

[Sparkly]

16. Do you have a link?

I need to see it in the full context.

[Radical Activist]

17. There are six locked threads with the text.

Go for it.

[Sparkly]

20. I see Eloriel's and yours.

Hers doesn't say what you're referring to, and yours doesn't have a link or a quote. I'll keep looking. :shrug:

[Radical Activist]

22. Here you go.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1765202&mesg_id=1765253&page=

[Sparkly]

26. Thanks.

The link didn't give a complete transcript, but the article did say this:

"Now that we're there, we're there and we can't get out," he told an audience of nearly 1,000 at the Minneapolis Convention Center. "The president has created an enormous security problem for the United States where none existed before. But I hope the president is incredibly successful with his policy now that he's there."

An American pullout could endanger the United States in any of three ways, Dean said: by leaving a Shiite theocracy worse than that in Iran, which he called a more serious threat than Iraq ever was; by creating an independent Kurdistan in the north, with destabilizing effects on neighboring Kurdish regions of Turkey, Iran and Syria, and by making the Sunni Triangle a magnet for Islamic terrorists similar to the former Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. "That's where Al Qaida will set up," he said.

That's more than a case solely about endangering America -- that's about an entire region that could affect the world. I think he's right there.

I also think Democrats need to guard against the notion that we want the effort in Iraq to fail, that we hated the elections, that we cheer deaths. It's crazy, but people like Scarborough are selling that constantly. For that reason, I think it's important for Dean to reaffirm that we hope for success. But the way he said it, as I read it, was close to "Bush got us into a quagmire, and I sure hope he gets us out. Good luck with that." I don't see it as "Go Bush, hurray!"

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

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

[LittleClarkie]

24. Regardless, EVERYTHING Dean has said about the Iraq war

must be taken into consideration.

I feel very strongly about defending Dean in this, as he is being attacked in the same damn way Kerry has been attacked on this same issue. Neither man has any love for Bush or his policies. Neither man thinks the buildup to the war was honest. Neither would have gone to Iraq had they been president. But think that now that we are there, we have to succeed, because failure would be letting down the Iraqi people. In the case of Dean and Kerry, success would have come with pulling ourselves out and substituting UN forces to get our face off the war.

Their plans would have been best. But neither man is president now. The man with the power and the plan is Bush now, whether we like it or not. So any plan to stay or go will belong to the Bush administration, whether we like it or not.

Problem is, they're still think you can win a war, or the peace, on the cheap. There still isn't enough equipment or enough men. So we're getting slowly hacked to peaces instead of being able to defend the people who would rebuild the country.

I don't know if I completely agree with Dean or Kerry. But damn it! They are not trying to support Bush.

[Sparkly]

28. I understand.

I don't disagree with you.

[LittleClarkie]

30. My response probably should have gone under a different post

Oops. Sorry about that.

[Guaranteed]

23. So you're saying that Dean wants Bush's oil buddies

to make billions of dollars exploiting the Iraqi people and their resources?

[Radical Activist]

25. I'm not saying it. Dean did.

Perhaps he should clarify and stop wishing Bush the greatest of success in his plans for Iraq. I would be thrilled if Dean started talking about Bush's oil buddies again.

[Guaranteed]

27. We'll leave that one to the jury. nt

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

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

[eridani]

33. That is not Bush "success"

Bush success is permanent conquest. That is the reason, and the only reason, for the invasion.

[LittleClarkie]

12. It's not Bush's policy we hope is successful

we just hope SOMETHING is successful, for the sake of the Iraqi people.

[Radical Activist]

19. I agree with you, but again, that isn't what Dean said.

Perhaps he should say it differently and criticize what Bush is doing in Iraq.

[Guaranteed]

21. Yes. That is the simplest, most mature and straight-to-the-point

way of putting it.

[eridani]

34. Then why aren't we defining our own version of success--

--and consistently pointing out that the Bush project is permanent military presence?

[Guaranteed]

35. We should be.

The whole "Out now!" and tearing down Dean things aren't going to help that, though. Either of them.

I understand what you're saying. Dean could be harder on the Bush administration. There's a lot of dirt there- he should be digging through it. I've always thought that the best way to get to these guys is to show the people their MOTIVES. We have to CHARACTERIZE them if we're going to beat them on this politically.

But that's the political angle. The fact is that people want the Iraqis to at least get something out of this. They, even us Democrats, don't want this to be all for nothing. We want to see something good come out of it.

How you're attacking Dean is just really inappropriate. You could have said that you want Dean to hit ChimpCo harder (and it sounds like that's what you're wanting) in a MUCH more constructive way, and people would have agreed with you. A Bush COLLABORATOR? He didn't want this to happen. He didn't support the invasion. It's totally unfair.

Hell- just tell Dean your thoughts. I've had some problems with his approaches to things, and that's what I did. I'm not sure it changed anything, but he really is open to this stuff. It's a good idea, let him hear it.

[eridani]

38. Can't people tell Dean their thoughts in public?

And since when is criticizing a statement he made an attack? Do we have the power or not?

Naturally people don't want the invasion to be for nothing. And I'm sure they'd prefer that a bunch of people weren't wiped out by a tsunami too. But facts are facts. The purpose of the invasion was conquest, and there is no ethical way to dress that fact up in a fluffy pink bunny suit. (Or, as Kerry once put it "How do you ask someone to be the last man to die for a mistake?")

The first thing we must do, therefore, is quit obfuscating that fact, and the second, at least advocate loudly and at all times, changing the policy to withdrawal.

Out now is just one withdrawal option, and debate on how best to do that should not obscure the basic fact that we must leave, and that we can't really control the outcome. We can guess at how we might cause the least damage, but we can never know in advance. The real fact on the ground is that hiring a bunch of Kurds to help level Sunni Fallujah promotes civil war instead of preventing it. American troops riding around in Humvees bashing coke bottles on the heads of passing Iraqis means instability, not stability. (And this is unavoidable if you send people over there with zero training in peacekeeping and zero knowledge of the language and culture and expose them to constant random attacks.)

My criticism of Dean's statement stands. Wishing Bush "tremendous success" continues the obfuscation and does not define what we might mean by success instead. And the guy isn't built from Ming porcelain either, so he can probably take it.

[Guaranteed]

40. Yes, I said that you should have, but in a more constructive way.

You're just calling him a Bush collaborator and trying to tie his name to Bush as best you can. It's a pretty dishonest tactic, and, really, totally ineffective. Apparently you're distorting Dean's position in order to make some kind of broader point. Apparently.

If you have a point that you're trying to make, make it. In public. Or to Dean. Whatever. Just stop spinning. Stop trying to use Dean.

[eridani]

43. No I am not

I am saying that he should not be wishing Bush "tremendous success."

[Guaranteed]

52. In his outward policy- democracy in Iraq. Not his intention. nt

[eridani]

54. He should be DEBUNKING the Shrub's outward policy!!!

Dean knows goddamn well that the Iraqis voted overwhelmingly for withdrawal, that no conceivable democratically elected government would advocate being a permanent US military outpost, and also that Bush wants permanent military occupation. He should say that.

[Guaranteed]

59. Yes. I addressed this

in post #35.

[Sparkly]

55. He can't say "I hope it continues to be a bloody disaster."

Of course Democrats want "success" in the sense of peace and stability. Republicans have been pushing the idea that we hate successes there, hated the Iraqi elections, cheer suicide bombers, etc. They would *love* to have Dean help them along with that meme. So I think it's smart for him to say both that the Chimp's policies have been disastrous and that he hopes they prove successful.

[eridani]

64. Dean did not challenge that meme at all

As long as we refuse to tag Bush with the meme of unjustified and unprovoked conquest and the goal of permanent presence, we lose. We DO NOT WANT a permanent military outpost to be successful. We DO WANT to implement the policy that the Iraqis democratically voted for, namely phased withdrawal.

[tjdee]

14. I don't support immediate withdrawal, and I think Bush is a punk ass.

Now that we've stirred shit up, we can't just be like "Have a nice life, suckas! Sorry for killin' ya and stuff...maybe you can have a bake sale to build some new buildings?"

It just sucks that a)We're just making it worse because the people "in charge" are incompetent, and b)think of all the AMERICAN PEOPLE we could have helped while pumping money into this bullshit misadventure, not to mention the AMERICAN PEOPLE we could have left...alive.

[LittleClarkie]

15. I think it's safe to say

that if Dean hates Republicans and everything they stand for, he probably thinks Bush is a punk ass chump as well.

Welcome to "Nuanceland."

I agree with you on the "Um, sorry about your country. See ya, bye" aspect. Like breaking a window with a baseball and thinking you won't have to pay for it.

Now if the contractor would stop trying to overcharge us for the new pane...

[Pharaoh]

18. way to go tjdee

sorry for killin ya and stuff.......
rofl

[hippiechick]

29. Exactly.

Thank you.

[Patchuli]

48. I vote for immediate impeachment!

and gradual withdrawal from Iraq! ;)

[Adelante]

31. This is encouraging

I was by and voted early on and left. I guess I didn't give DUers enough credit for mature and thoughtful judgment. I'm glad I was proved wrong.

Thanks so much for doing this, BGL. It helps.

[eridani]

32. No, but all Dems who don't support withdrawal are

I have no problem with disagreeing on timelines, only with Dems who back the Bush project of permanent conquest. Actually, the problem is more Dems who refuse to honestly look at what the Bush project really is, and endorse it indirectly thereby.

[Stinky The Clown]

36. I respectfully disagree

I am completely unaware of any Dem who's backing Bush's 'plan' (assuming he actually *has* a plan .... and I suspect if he does, its all about oil and bux)

While I hear various positions on a timetable for withdrawal (for 'right now' to something that could run into a year or three) I don't even see where Lieberman calling for a more or less permanent occuption of Iraq.

Could you please tell me, specifically, which Dem has espoused the 'Bush plan".

Also, I find it incomprehensible that any elected Dem is unaware of what bushco's up to, let alone has even indirectly endorsed it .... assuming no one will confuse support of a more protracted exit timeline with 'support'.

[eridani]

42. The problem is that the public does not know the real Bush plan

And one reason is that the Dems refuse to stand up in public and spell it out, with exceptions such as Kucinich, McKinney, McDermott, Conyers, et al. A refusal to be clear about this and on the offensive is an indirect endorsement. No Dem is calling directly for permanent occupation--they are just failing to call Bush on his obvious plan for permanent occupation. Even Bush likes to pretend that we might leave under the right circumstances, but this is bullshit and Dems need to stand up and expose it.

They all know what Bush is up to, but most are afraid of being called soft to do anything about it.

And no, I don't want to argue timelines. Reasonable people can surely disagree here.

[WilliamPitt]

39. Withdrawal as soon as possible

Step one: Get everyone in the Dem leadership to agree that out as soon as possible is the only wise course;

Step two: Come up with a workable plan;

Step three: Attack attack attack Bush & Co. with it.

[Guaranteed]

41. But are Dems who aren't for immediate withdrawal Bush collaborators? nt

[eridani]

44. No

The point is to be for some kind of withdrawal (never mind the timeline) and absolutely against permanent military bases.

[Patchuli]

49. But they're building the permanent bases

and I don't want anyone I love drafted to 'man' them!

[eridani]

56. And Dems need to be speaking out against that n/t

[eridani]

46. Why wait on attacking Bush?

His plan was and is permanent military conquest, and we should be all over him for that even if we have disagreements about a withdrawal plan.

[WilliamPitt]

58. We are all over him for that

and it hasn't gotten us very far. We need help. It doesn't do us much good to whale away on Bush to no effect, and it sure doesn't do good for the people who are dying. Makes us feel good to do it, yes, but it sure hasn't gotten us anywhere.

We need help.

[Guaranteed]

60. Ask him to help.

I can't say for sure, but I don't know why he wouldn't do it.

[janx]

63. He does it all the time.

This is political posturing, BGL. Ignore them. The most important thing right now is the reorganization at the state and local levels.

[eridani]

66. Of course reorganization is important

But most of us are up to multitasking, no? We can still ask all high profile Dems to debunk the Bush permanent occupation plan, especially by naming it for what it is, as often as possible.

[Guaranteed]

67. They want attention.

They need to get it the proper way, though.

You don't behave like this and then expect people to listen to you. Totally unconstructive.

[WilliamPitt]

69. Who are you talking about?

[Guaranteed]

71. The people yelling about Dean being a Bush collaborator. nt

[WilliamPitt]

75. Ah. Yes, that's total nonsense.

[WilliamPitt]

70. Political posturing?

Man.

I find it deeply ironic that the Dean brigades came on to the scene looking to 'shake up' the party. Now that Dean is in the chair, however, some members of the brigades are counseling calm, quiet and shut the fuck up. That has to be one of the most epic reversals I've ever seen.

I am personally offended that you consider my work to be nothing more than political posturing. The hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people I represent via truthout and PDA would likewise find it insulting. The mothers of dead soldiers I speak to every week would find it insulting.

It's just gross.

[eridani]

65. Sure, the grassroots is--

--I presume you mean we need more help from high-profile Dems. No disagreement there.

[WilliamPitt]

68. That's exactly what I mean

[Patchuli]

47. I vote no but we need to start pulling out

because we're never going to win a guerrilla war, just like we couldn't 'win' in 'Nam. Maybe our government could make Halliburton stop milking the system and actually get things in working order for the people and let them take over. It's what the Iraqis want. THEY WANT US OUT. How about thinking of the other guy from his POV occasionally?

And what I want is for this horrible government not to try to draft my younguns for their miserable failures on the other side of the planet.

[eridani]

50. Actually we can win on Bush's terms

It would require extermination of at least a third of the population of Iraq and an permanent occupation army of probably 400,000. Unfortunately that would make us into one of history's premiere monster nations and put Bush up there with Hitler and Stalin. We could have "won" in Vietnam with a similar plan, but were not able to become sufficiently psychopathic. I hope that hasn't changed, but I listen to some Republicans and really wonder about that.

[unkachuck]

53. no, just not suicidal....

....IMO any party or politician that stands between the American people and the gas pump (and this war will be spun between the American people and the gas pump) will get blamed for any unpatriotic shortages, price-hikes, negative economic effects and deaths....

....if Gore had become president we could have sat down with the world and created an oil-allocation-formula....but that didn't happen and we now have to live with the neocon oil-grab war/policy (and America not being trusted any longer)....

....and yes, I want to see us out of Iraq TOMORROW, but how does a politician/party advocate that without committing potential suicide?....

....now, if you can produce a strong, meaningful anti-war movement and/or convince the American people to the contrary, when our opposition blames us for all oil related problems, then yes....

[eridani]

57. Good point.

It's a real bitch to get people to consider voting their long-term interests. Instead of conquering the last of a diminishing resource, we should be throwing all those resources into inventing the post-oil economy. And we either get to a post-oil economy or there is going to be a really massive human die-off.

[Q]

72. This looks more like a 'push poll'...

...than a legitimate question about consensus and mandate.

Certainly you must know that a majority of those calling for a withdrawal from Iraq understand that it would take time and require an actual PLAN.

Perhaps a better question would be: why is neither party demanding an exit strategy...a plan for eventual withdrawal?

[CWebster]

73. Yes, the language is deliberate

For the first time in a long time I watched just a brief--less than 2 minutes--of the network evening news last night. In that short time I heard a bold faced lie--the announcement that Britian's election was focused, like the US election, on the Iraq war. Then I watched the blown-up clown lips of the newswoman take on this mock tragedy, as she reported about those terrorist insurgents, and I said, "watch, they are going to now show us a PR visual cue of a US soldier sheltering an Iraqi child" Sure enough. Meanwhile every case of torture and every other shameful action, like US cops beating up Afro-Americans, is quietly pushed out of view.

There is no accountability because both sides are complicit--so yeah, they are Bush enablers. Without question, and it is a disgrace.

[bklyncowgirl]

74. The problem with this issue is--there are no good options.

The analogy I see is not so much the US withdrawal from Vietnam but the Soviet withdrawal from Afganistan.

The Russians pulled out. The US who had backed the Mujahadeen took absolutely no interest in the fate of Afganistan once the Soviets were gone. Civil war ensued and the most radical factions of the Mujahadeen, all very well trained by the CIA, took charge, eventually provided a safe haven for Osama Bin Laden and Al Queda.

The obvious thing to do would be for a combination of international peacekeeping forces, and Iraqi sequrity forces, to replace US troops who would gradually be phased out. Unfortunately, Bush has alienated the international community who do believe in the Pottery Barn rule even if Americans don't. They ain't coming to our rescue anytime soon.

Actually, I think that Bush is hoping that things will settle down to a manageable level of chaos so that he can declare victory and move on to other conquests just like he did in Afganistan. As horrible as Iraq is, do you really think this administration will stop there?