Just Sayin'...

[alcibiades_mystery]

2004 Democratic Platform for America

Focus on Afghanistan to avoid renewing terrorist haven
Preventing Afghanistan and other nations from becoming terrorist havens. Nowhere is the need for collective endeavor greater than in Afghanistan. The Bush Administration has badly mishandled the war's aftermath. Two years ago, President Bush promised a Marshall Plan to rebuild that country. Instead, he has all but turned away from Afghanistan, allowing it to become again a potential haven for terrorists. We must expand NATO forces outside Kabul. We must accelerate training for the Afghan army and police. The program to disarm and reintegrate warlord militias into society must be expedited and expanded into a mainstream strategy. We will attack the exploding opium trade ignored by the Bush Administration by doubling our counter-narcotics assistance to the Karzai Government and reinvigorating the regional drug control program. Beyond Afghanistan, failed and failing states or countries with large areas of limited government control need international help to close down terrorist havens.

Source: http://www.ontheissues.org/dem_platform_2004.htm

2008 Democratic Platform

Win in Afghanistan
Our troops are performing heroically in Afghanistan, but as countless military commanders and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff acknowledge, we lack the resources to finish the job because of our commitment to Iraq. We will finally make the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban the top priority that it should be.

We will send at least two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan, and use this commitment to seek greater contributions–with fewer restrictions–from our NATO allies. We will focus on building up our special forces and intelligence capacity, training, equipping and advising Afghan security forces, building Afghan governmental capacity, and promoting the rule of law. We will bolster our State Department’s Provincial Reconstruction Teams and our other government agencies helping the Afghan people. We will help Afghans educate their children, including their girls, provide basic human services to their population, and grow their economy from the bottom up, with an additional $1 billion in non-military assistance each year–including investments in alternative livelihoods to poppy-growing for Afghan farmers–just as we crack down on trafficking and corruption. Afghanistan must not be lost to a future of narco-terrorism–or become again a haven for terrorists.

SOURCE: http://www.democrats.org/a/party/platform.html

[dmallind]

1. ...b...b.bb.but

the party faithful elected by the party faithful to vote on the platform aren't REAL Democrats! They even put in a bit about supporting the right to own guns for self defense so we KNOW they are obviously just DINO corporatist shills for the DLC right-wingers - every last one of them forced into the platform committee against the wishes of the vast majority of REAL Democrats like the DU echo chamber!

[AllentownJake]

2. Can I hold the President to the other Platform items?

Or is this a special one that has priority of being upheld.

[alcibiades_mystery]

3. That's up to you

I'm certainly not suggesting that anyone should hold Mr. Obama to anything. The platform for the Party is the platform that the Party put forward. It seems to have been pretty consistent on this point for at least the past five years.

Like I said, just sayin'...

[bigjohn16]

4. And in 2009 Karzai stole the election and is now nothing more than a US backed strongman.

Things change. Just sayin'.

[alcibiades_mystery]

5. LOL

You think Karzai was a legitimately elected leader when he was installed by the Bush regime? You think he had the support of the Afghan people when the platform committee of the Democratic Party crafted the 2004 language, and then the 2008 language? You're joking, right? What's next? You're going to tell me that Hosni Mubarek is the George Washington of Egypt?

:rofl:

[bigjohn16]

6. I'm saying it's 2009 and that platform language is out of date. nt

[alcibiades_mystery]

10. But the evidence you gave for its datedness is unpersuasive

Surely, the change that would make the platform language obsolete is not Karzai's illegitimacy, which has been the case pretty much since his initial installation! That's the only evidence you gave, and I rebutted it, and now you're just repeating your claim. Just sayin'...

[bigjohn16]

13. Oh you gave facts I must have missed that. Sorry

I gave no evidence I gave my reading of the situation. I guess I'll say it plainly, the Democratic Party Platform is wrong in my opinion. We shouldn't be nation building.

[alcibiades_mystery]

15. Like I said, just sayin'...

You think the Party platform for two straight cycles is incorrect. That's fine. I was just noting that the platform has been pretty consistent on this point. Wouldn't you agree?

[bigjohn16]

16. I agree. nt

[martymar64]

45. It's consistently morally wrong

Our party is just as much under the stranglehold of the MIC as the GOP, we just lie about it better.

Definitely nothing for us to cheer about, and not saying that you are.




Edited for spelling

[WonderGrunion]

17. Karzai is nothing more than Mayor McCheese of Kabul

That's been true since he was installed and hasn't changed yet. Nothing has changed in Afghanistan.

[bigjohn16]

18. Something will change on Tuesday. nt

[Robb]

7. Look how they define "finish the job."

We will focus on building up our special forces and intelligence capacity, training, equipping and advising Afghan security forces, building Afghan governmental capacity, and promoting the rule of law. We will bolster our State Department’s Provincial Reconstruction Teams and our other government agencies helping the Afghan people. We will help Afghans educate their children, including their girls, provide basic human services to their population, and grow their economy from the bottom up, with an additional $1 billion in non-military assistance each year–including investments in alternative livelihoods to poppy-growing for Afghan farmers–just as we crack down on trafficking and corruption. Afghanistan must not be lost to a future of narco-terrorism–or become again a haven for terrorists.

I don't see where "wipe them all out" is even ON the list, contrary to DUers who suggest the false dichotomy of "leave now or we'll be there forever killing everyone."

[alcibiades_mystery]

8. I don't see where "Wipe them all out" is one of the options

today.

[Robb]

11. You aren't reading the same board, then.

Everyone's assuming we're going to send a zillion troops to hunt down and kill a few hundred known terrorists, since that's all troops do.

Despite the fact that this sounds like an incredibly stupid plan, people figure that's the plan we're going to hear from Obama.

I can't for the life of me imagine why.

[alcibiades_mystery]

12. Maybe

I don't read this board a lot since it became Ground Zero for every lunatic pretending to be practicing so-called "dissent."

[HughMoran]

40. Where?

Can you point to several threads where this is the predominate theme? I haven't seen it...

[bigjohn16]

9. It's still nation building however you want to define it. nt

[bvar22]

14. It was DUMB when Kerry said it.

It was DUMBER when Obama repeated it.

Voted for Obama anyway.

I still OPPOSE any escalation in the Middle East.

I still SUPPORT the immediate withdrawal of ALL US Troops and Mercenaries from Iraq and Afghanistan.

I still SUPPORT the immediate REDUCTION of Military Spending by at least 50%.

I an still a Democrat.

I WILL voice my opinion.


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[alcibiades_mystery]

19. Good for you, playa

I agree on most of that. It has been the Party's position for two cycles at least, though. That's clear enough. Nobody should be acting surprised that the clear statement of the Party's position seems to be moving toward implementation.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

35. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[martymar64]

48. At least it should cause many to rethink the wisdom of remaining a Democrat.

[dflprincess]

77. The party platform says a lot of things

including that we have a right to health care (not just insurance) and that the Democratic party supports women's right "to choose a safe, legal abortion regardless of ability to pay and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right."

Strange how any part of the platform that deals with economic and social justice issues within the United States get ignored - often because we can't afford them, but escalating a war - no problem. I suppose some campaign contributor stands to make money off Afghanistan.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

20. It would do alot of people on DU some good if

they read your Paul Wellstone quote.

[ProSense]

22. It was not dumb.

In 2004, the NATO forces were holding steady in Afghanistan despite Bush's neglect. An increase in NATO forces would have made a big difference then, at a time when U.S. casualties were 52 for all of 2004. It would have been better to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq, which a Kerry administration would have undertaken, and send about 5,000 specialized forces to Afghanistan.

[bvar22]

26. ANY attempt ....

...at a conventional military occupation/domination of the tribal region know as Afghanistan is DUMB.

It is DUMB historically.

It is DUMB logistically.

It is DUMB culturally.

It is DUMB financially.

It is DUMB (and immoral) for Humanitarian reasons.

It is DUMB to think that a predominantly white, Western, "Christian" Superpower can "successfully" occupy an ancient, Muslim, desert, landlocked, Asian region.

It was DUMB to start it.

It is DUMB to continue it.

It is DUMB to escalate it.

It is DUMB to think you can "WIN" it.

*International Law Enforcement focused on denying funding to Al Qaeda through Saudi Arabia and "offshore banks" is VERY SMART.

*International Cooperation at tracking, surveillance, and interdiction of Al Qaeda teams is SMART.

*Stand-Off Observation and Surveillance of suspect "training camps" from satellites and unmanned drones is SMART.

*On the ground Human Intelligence is SMART (Bribes to locals).

*Containment and denying FUNDING is SMART.
When Al Qaeda can no longer pay their rent, the Taliban will kill them for us.

I cringed in embarrassment when Kerry marched out on the stage at the Democratic Convention and "reported for duty" with a salute and a promise to "WIN the WAR". The attempt to out War Monger Bush was pathetic.

The ONLY people who benefit of our efforts there are the War Profiteers, Wall Street, and the MIC.

I'm not surprised that someone who believes that paying the Health Insurance Industry a $Trillion Dollars to stop killing us is a "good thing", also supports the escalation of the Occupation of Afghanistan.

[ProSense]

27. Then you obviously have no idea what Kerry ran on.

He never advocated a conventional occupation of Afghanistan. Never. In fact, his entire 2004 campaign was about moving away from using the military to deal with terrorism. The specialized forces were suggested to do just that: shift away from the so-called war on terror to dealing with terrorism through international crime fighting measures.

[bvar22]

28. Whatever......

:eyes:

[ProSense]

29. Whatever?

What this thread proves is that people don't pay attention to what candidates are campaigning on or that the feign ignorance after the fact to suit their desired spin.

[ProSense]

30. It's like your Wellstone quote at comment 14.

He's right that a lot of Democrats try to sound like Republicans, but he also voted for one of the most Republican concepts out there: DOMA.

[alcibiades_mystery]

34. Paul Wellstone voted for the Defense of Marriage Act that Bill Clinton happily signed

a month and a half before his re-election?

O, the betrayal!

[dsc]

39. yeah it was

but you conveniently leave out the part where he stated, before his last campaign that it was a mistake and he would try to repeal it. funny how you leave that out, I wonder why.

[alcibiades_mystery]

42. This is all news to me

The previous poster didn't mention that. Thanks for filling me in though. Not sure I get your point about the convenience, though.

Did Bill Clinton apologize too?

:shrug:

[dsc]

60. much later and when a private citizen which is not even remotely the same

Wellstone appologized while running for reelection in a very tight race. Clearly it would have been nice if Wellstone had been inerrant as a politician but I will take right the vast majority of the time. Here is a link to the Progressive where he mentioned his sorrow for having cast that vote. I admit it is less clear cut than I remember.

"What troubles me is that I may not have cast the right vote on DOMA," he writes. "I might have rationalized my vote by making myself believe that my honest position was opposition. This vote was an obvious trap for a senator like me, who was up for reelection. Did I convince myself that I could gleefully deny Republicans this opportunity? . . . When Sheila and I attended a Minnesota memorial service for Mathew Shepard, I thought to myself, 'Have I taken a position that contributed to a climate of hatred?' . . . I still wonder if I did the right thing."


http://www.progressive.org/?q=node/1439

[alcibiades_mystery]

61. Seems a little mealy-mouthed

Wellstone was a good, smart guy.

In twenty years, the very notion that anyone voted for that shit legislation will be considered a jaw-dropping wonder to young people. Very obviously, that timeframe is not particularly helpful now, but I have no doubt that's where we'll be.

[dsc]

62. I will admit I remembered a less mealy mouthed version but can't find it

I am more willing to forgive a symbolic vote (we lost by a way more than a veto proof margin) in an otherwise great politican than repeated errors by a less than stellar one. I do think that in more like 40 years such a vote will be considered unthinkable.

[LWolf]

25. +1

[polichick]

23. Isn't that the same platform that touts choice for women?? Change happens...

...and it ain't always good. But in the case of the war changing our collective mind would be good.

To look at the war the same way now as when the platform was written is DUMB.

[alcibiades_mystery]

31. MMMMkay

Just sayin'...

That was the consistent position of the Party for five plus years.

[Warren Stupidity]

24. Wrong in 2004, even more wrong in 2008. nt.

[avaistheone1]

32. Unfortunately these national platforms do not come from rank and file Democrats.

If the platforms did come from average Joe Democrat they would address our exit from Afghanistan not an investment in nation-building there - while our own country falls apart.

[alcibiades_mystery]

33. Oh, jeez

Alright. That makes sense, then. I guess everyone involved in the Party apparatus has some explaining to do to the rank and file, then. It's a wonder that people continue to vote that way.

[avaistheone1]

36. It's a fact the Colorado Democratic Party as well as many other states

Democratic Parties have voted against war and war escalation and it all falls on deaf hears of the Democratic National Party because they are pretty much controlled by the DLC.

I was a delegate to the my state's Democratic Party and that is how things worked.

[alcibiades_mystery]

37. That's terrible

So the Democratic Party elite needs to be reconstituted, huh?

[avaistheone1]

38. The DLC has far too much influence over the Democratic National Party

and our party platform.

Essentially the DLC is funded by major corporations so the platform is carved out in their self interest.

[bvar22]

64. !

The DLC New Team
Republican Lite ONLY!
Liberal Democrats Need NOT Apply

(Screen Capped from the DLC Website)

"I am a New Democrat!---Barack Obama
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=254931&kaid=85&subid=900184

[Oregone]

41. Pro-Afghan talking points were merely genius political posturing

It allowed the democrats to position themselves as against the Iraq war, but not anti-war softies. In other words, it was strategic rhetoric. The only problem is that people were elected into office on it, and cannot admit they were wrong or lying now (so the war marches on).


You would have to be an idiot American political observer not to pick up on these trends

[alcibiades_mystery]

43. Oh wow

Yes, you would have to be an idiot not to see the official party platform as rhetorical positioning with no actual policy implications. It would seem that you'd also have to be an idiot to vote for any Democrat whatsoever under such conditions.

[Oregone]

44. "you'd also have to be an idiot to vote for any Democrat whatsoever under such conditions"

Not at all, if you understand and recognize the rhetoric.

Politics isn't Sesame Street. You learn that in Politics 101 even. Politicians aren't talking to children to help them understand something. They are talking to children who can't understand at all.

[alcibiades_mystery]

46. What other parts of the platform are fairy tales that only children would take seriously?

:rofl:

I think this is an instructive rhetorical exercise indeed! While we're dispensing with this particular platform point, we might scuttle some others and destroy as childish the arguments of those carping for follow-through on those as well. Please fill in the blanks so that the uninitiated may be properly schooled.

[Oregone]

47. More and more, it would seem Universal Health Care would be on that list

[alcibiades_mystery]

49. Oh, and many others, I'd guess!

All the little wise children, voting because they understand that the entire substantive platform is merely rhetoric for the imbeciles of the world!

[Oregone]

50. I wouldn't call all the children wise

But to each their own. Some peope don't get fooled so easily

[alcibiades_mystery]

53. Oh, that's right

The grown ups know it's all a sham, and vote anyway, knowing that the platform bears no resemblance to the policy. And usually, the grown-ups are pretty happy about telling all the children that they're foolish little imps, while the grown ups know all about what's going on.

:rofl:

[Oregone]

54. Spot on

[alcibiades_mystery]

56. A more

juvenile bit of self-aggrandizement would be hard to imagine.

But rock on!

[bvar22]

51. Apparently,

*Renegotiation of NAFTA....Fairy tale.

*Support for Organized LABOR...Fairy tale.

*Regulation of Wall Street.....Fairy tale.

*Accountability and Protections for Taxpayers for Tarp....Fairy Tale.

*Civil Rights and Equal Protections for everybody.....Fairy Tale.


I could go on.

View the following clip from the campaign (October 1, 2008), and see if YOU can count the Fairy Tales.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZG8Zq8V54k

[alcibiades_mystery]

52. So, if they're all fairy tales

Then Oregone's point about grown-ups seeing through the rhetoric to the substance would seem to be wrong. There is no substance, and you shouldn't vote for Democrats, right? That's the only possible conclusion to draw if the majority of the platform is just a fairy tale to fool children, and has no actual policy implications! Oregone says "No, you still vote for the Democrat, because you know the policy points are all just rhetoric." Well, now. That doesn't seem to be YOUR position. You're not going to vote for a Democrat again, are you, with these results? So does that make you a grown up or a child? I'm losing track...

:shrug:

[Oregone]

55. LOL. NAFTA renegotiations...

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/03/05/canada-obama.html


Referring to that debate and the aftermath, who was lying now? Harper, Obama, the leak? :)


Triangulation at its best.

[Cha]

57. Thanks for the Platforms, alcibiades.

[alcibiades_mystery]

58. Never mind the explicit statements of policy intent

They're all fairy tales, apparently, but the Wise Ones were never fooled by any of this!

O, Wise Ones! If only you were able to garner more than 6% of the vote in any election, we might actually get someplace. Given your expert knowledge of the art of rhetoric, it's shocking that you are so unable to convince more of the people that your position is worthwhile!

:rofl:

[Cha]

59. Precisely,

Ollie:D

[ZombieHorde]

63. Unrec for use of the phrase, "Just Sayin'." nt

[alcibiades_mystery]

65. Luckily

I don't give a fuck about recs or unrecs, unlike some crybabies on this board.

:-)

[ZombieHorde]

67. I have a feeling luck has little to do with your lack of fuck offerings* to recs and unrecs.

*fuck offering = give a fuck

[alcibiades_mystery]

68. You have a what now?

[ZombieHorde]

70. I have fun with the word "fuck," and silly semantics. nt

[alcibiades_mystery]

71. Cheers, Zombie

[ZombieHorde]

72. Cheers!

:toast:

[Orsino]

66. Staying true to a bad idea is not a virtue.

Staying true to a dangerously, ludicrously bad idea is something worse.

Just sayin'.

[alcibiades_mystery]

69. Nobody said it was

Just sayin'...

[Orsino]

73. No, I don't think you were "just sayin'," any more than I was.

I believe that you were justifying continued military operations--or even escalation--in Afghanistan on the grounds that the Democratic Party already planned such.

There may be a case for either of these things, and if this is the way it's gotta be, I would love to learn of something that I can support. If there is something concrete to be won, could you just say it?

If you haven't made up your mind yet, I won't hate on you. Lord knows plenty of people are still on the fence, whether they realize it or not.

But coyness is unbecoming.

[alcibiades_mystery]

74. I really was just sayin'

:shrug:

If there's a point apart from that, it's not this 'justifying' blah blah blah that you've conjured up, but a statement on the feigned surprise of many here about what's been the consistent position of the Democratic Party for five years or more, and the explicit policy statement that made up the platform for the Party in the previous two elections.

If I make an argument for or against more troops, you'll damn well know it, and won't have to imagine it, as here.

[Orsino]

75. Then it comes to nothing.

The feigned surprise that irritates you is insignificant next to the horrors of war.

[alcibiades_mystery]

76. Meh

[Aramchek]

78. it's a surprise to the Naderites because they don't give a damn about the Democratic Party

or its Platform