When patriotism means never asking why.

[hedgetrimmer]

~SNIP~
``Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.'' So George Bush declared on Sept. 20, 2001. But what was he saying? Surely he didn't mean that everyone was obliged to support all of his policies, that if you opposed him on anything you were aiding terrorists.

Now we know that he meant just that.

A year ago, President Bush, who had a global mandate to pursue the terrorists responsible for 9/11, went after someone else instead. Most Americans, I suspect, still don't realize how badly this apparent exploitation of the world's good will — and the subsequent failure to find weapons of mass destruction — damaged our credibility. They imagine that only the dastardly French, and now maybe the cowardly Spaniards, doubt our word. But yesterday, according to Agence France-Presse, the president of Poland — which has roughly 2,500 soldiers in Iraq — had this to say: ``That they deceived us about the weapons of mass destruction, that's true. We were taken for a ride.''

This is the context for last weekend's election upset in Spain, where the Aznar government had taken the country into Iraq against the wishes of 90 per cent of the public. Spanish voters weren't intimidated by the terrorist bombings — they turned on a ruling party they didn't trust. When the government rushed to blame the wrong people for the attack, tried to suppress growing evidence to the contrary and used its control over state television and radio both to push its false accusation and to play down anti-government protests, it reminded people of the broader lies about the war.

... more ...

link: http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1079783481645&call_pageid=1038394944805&col=1038394944443
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The comments about being with us or against us lead me to the idealogy of those who want the "anti-war lefties" (a new brand of Democrat, in stores this fall) to vote Kerry or they are voting for Bush i.e. with us or against us... from the words of George Bush to the keyboards of DU'ers... Will the real Democrat please stand up, please stand up, please stand up.

[blondeatlast]

1. I'm a DK supporter and I remember thinking 3 1/2 years ago:

I got through Reagan; I can certainly tolerate a Bush presidency.

I WAS DEAD WRONG. I can't take 4 more years of this. I'll vote for a compost heap if I thought it could defeat the BFEE.

No one is demanding that we fall in line at risk of life or limb. Suggesting, cajoling, calling us fools if we don't (I would tend to agree), yes, but there is no force.

But we ARE on a Dem message board, I'm a Dem, and there is an evil empire to topple. Don't expect lots of sympathy for an ABKerry position. You just aren't going to get it on DU, and you shouldn't expect it, realistically.

The enemy is GEORGE BUSH and the BFEE. When did we all forget that???

[LWolf]

2. I've seen that.

The mirror image of bush doctrine among democrats is scary.

I'm against *, period. That means Kerry will have my vote. It doesn't mean I'm "with" anyone. I just don't march in line. Sorry.

It means I'm here, I'm not going anywhere, and I'm going to continue to work for the issues I value.

Get used to it.

[blondeatlast]

3. "Mirror image of bush doctrine???"

I'm a DK supporter, but also realistic--my man hasn't a snowball's chance. And I don't think voting for Kerry is repugnant in the least.

IF I WANTED BUSH, I WOULD VOTE FOR BUSH. But I wouldn't slog the Dem presumptive nominee or his supporters on a DEMOCRATIC message board if I was going to do so.

What part of that escapes you?

Don't "fall in line," fine. But don't expect everyone to come rallying to your cause.

What do you want the Kerry supporting DU members to do? Stand up and salute you? Not gonna happen.

Offer up something CONSTRUCTIVE, instead of slogging the nominee at every turn.

[LWolf]

4. To quote Dennis:

"Hellooo."

1. Read the context. The mirror image is the doctrine of "you are with us or you are against us." Not anything else.

2. I have not "slogged" anyone. If I understand what it means to "slog." Expressing disagreement with an idea, an issue, a plan, is not only allowed; the debate is vital to the health of the party and the nation.

3. I have not said, at any point in my lifetime, that I "wanted Bush." Or that I would "vote for him." And I have not and will not base what I say or do on what you, or anyone else, would do in that circumstance.

4. I have never, not once, ever, in any context in my 44 year lifetime expected another homo sapien anywhere on the entire blessed planet to "come rallying to my cause." Any cause, political or personal. I've never asked for it; I've always known it wasn't a possible scenario, and never would be.

5. I want the Kerry supporting DUers and democrats to work with Kerry to strengthen the man's weaknesses, and to make sure that he embraces the whole democratic party. I would say that for whoever was nominated, including DK.

6. I'm offering up everything that I've got that's constructive. I'm supporting the candidate who has the most constructive platform. One of the most constructive things I can think of, at this stage of the game, is to work for the issues. Not the nominee; the issues he will need to address and the manner in which he will address them. And after the convention, when the current work is done, I will join DK in supporting John Kerry, come hell or high water.

[blondeatlast]

6. I owe you an apology. Your post was far more reasonable

than many of the warrantless, often RW generated, criticisms of Kerry.

I've just seen too many who are willing to sacrifice the nation for their pet issues, rather than seeing the big picture, and it's getting way under my skin. They barely operate within the boundaries of DU's rules and I overreacted to your post, thinking it was the same sort of stuff. It clearly isn't.

I would love to see some of DK's issues represented in the platform, and while I hope for that, I must support John Kerry. Clearly you see it from the same perspective.

I realized I had misread your post too late to edit mine (I could now, but that would be cheating, IMHO).

My mistake, and I send a sincere apology.

[LWolf]

7. Apology accepted.

:hug: :hug:

As graciously as it was given.

It's easy to let frustration and fear of 4 more years of destruction get under our skins.

We can all do with taking a deep breath, stepping back, and putting our eyes on the goals. One, to get some issues represented in the platform. Two, to evict the Bush admin in November.

I'm there for both of those things!

[hedgetrimmer]

8. A real Democrat has stood up, Thank you. n/t

[Hav]

5. .

Look, I don't agree with threads like "Who have the anti-war leftists betrayed" but about your comment, sadly sometimes it's simply like that. When you don't vote Dem, then you aren't helping our cause to get rid of Bush. After all, that is what this board was mainly about.

Personally, I'd rather want you feeling like and being a part of the Democratic Party. I would want the so called "anti-war leftist" be a part of the Democratic Party.
But if you choose not to vote Dem, then you yourself made the decision that you don't want to be a part of the Dem party and therefore you didn't want to be "with us".
It's your decision.