It is unrealistic to expect Democrats to be "unanimous" on a plan for Iraq

[kentuck]

It is not possible to come up with a coherent plan for an incoherent policy. If the Republicans wish to march lockstep behind George Bush, let them. We are a Party that permits diversity of opinion. If some Democrats think we should stay and fight this ill-conceived war of George Bush, let them vote with the Republicans. They can answer at the next election. The people will decide if they agree or disagree, just as with every other Democrat.

If other Democrats think we should get the hell out ASAP, then they have a right to their plan also. However, we cannot force one plan or another on the Democratic Party. We will maintain viability no matter how the Iraq debacle turns out. We will have a large number of Democrats that have a plan. Our plan is to prevent the slaughter of more American lives. Yes, George Bush made a mess of it. And we have no responsibility to continue making a bigger mess.

We, on the left, should let every Democrat decide where they stand. We will then decide in the next election if they deserve to receive our continued support. But we will not force them to vote one way or the other. We are not Republicans.

[pdxmom]

1. You've voiced exactly how I feel. It's the Repugs and the MSM

that want to force the Dems into speaking with one voice and to march in lockstep.

Personally, Iraq is such a freakin' mess that it seems to me that the more possible ideas that are put out there, the better chance we have of actually coming up with a solution.

[tx_dem41]

2. Yes it is. And, I don't believe all Republicans are unanimous either..

at least on the details. But, I acknowledge that our spectrum of stances are wider spread.

[kentuck]

3. I don't think Hagel supports the war?

And a couple of others. But I don't think we should expect unanimity on this issue. It's just too incoherent...

[Clarkie1]

4. Chess, anyone?

Posted by Wes Clark on December 7, 2005 - 3:19pm.
Thanks. But remember, no one is ever right all the time. This is like playing chess and trying to be several moves ahead. You soak up the facts, use your intuition, and pray.

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/2934#comment

How many politicians ever have the courage to say something like that?

[welshTerrier2]

5. i agree but ...

i think this misses the point ... i agree with you that the Democratic Party should not "demand" adherence to any single view ... there's room for differing opinions if we are not able to come out with a unified plan ...

HOWEVER, this does not mean that we shouldn't try to implement a process that allows ALL Democrats, not just elected Democrats, to voice their ideas and to truly be heard by those in power ... there are no guarantees that we will be able to achieve unity on the issue within the Party ... but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try ...

the concern I have is that elected Democrats, especially in the Senate, are too distant from their constituents ... issues like war, especially unpopular wars, need to get the fullest possible airing on a regular basis ... elected Democrats need to meet with their constituents to share their views and their information with us; and they need to hear from their constituents so that they are exposed to "the little people" ...

even the politics are at risk ... as you said, we get to decide who does or does not receive our support ... but we don't have to wait for the election to find out ... it seems like with improved communication and more democracy, the Party might be able to avoid any election day surprises ...

[kentuck]

6. I agree that we should try...

But "war" is an issue that unites Republicans and divides Democrats. It has been that way at least since Vietnam, perhaps before. Knowing that, we should perhaps offer a little more room to those that think different from you and I. Perhaps?

[welshTerrier2]

7. i think we're in agreement here ...

i have no problem "offering a little more room" as long as it's understood i will not be voting for, working for or paying for those who are calling for more war ... i'm willing to compromise to a degree but i am not willing to just go along with anyone who does not represent, at least in part, my views on the most critical issues ...

one of the problems i see, and i think this is often an effective approach to help bridge "gaps", is that we focus too much on the final policy without negotiating the millions of little pieces that lead to a final approach ... so, for example, if we ask "do you think we have to 'win' in Iraq or should we just get out?", there's not much wiggle room left ... but if you ask whether you believe progress can be made while bush is in office, you might find more common ground ... if you ask someone who thinks we have to "win" in Iraq about whether the war is killing recruiting efforts and putting our military in real jeopardy, you might find that you can get them to balance that priority with their views on the war ...

i'm very concerned that not enough effort is made to get the Party to speak with one voice ... i think there's plenty of room for diversity but, if the Party sends mixed signals to the American people, we become less politically effective ... we can't go into the next election with a slogan that says "the Dems have lots of ideas but we can't seem to agree on them" ...