Democrats...their dirty little secret

[BillUCF]

The real reason the Democrats are opposing the Iraq war is not on any idealogical basis, it is a matter of personal and political power. If John Kerry or Al Gore were president we would be in the same situation and the Republicans would be the ones complaining. It is all about power and who goes down in the histry books as being a successful leader. If you could sit down and have a few drinks with Kerry or Gore in a private conversation they would admit this. The consequence of this is sad, because their priority is for their own political gain and not a better world to live in. The only democrat I trust is Joe Leiberman. He has control of his political ego and understands what is at stake.

[BCPVP]

Please, Cola! Please develop some sort of * rule!

[theweatherman]

[ QUOTE ]
Please, Cola! Please develop some sort of * rule!

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not only dems that are against the war by most independents and many republicans. Many people I know who voted for Bush now regret it, including staunch republican family members.

I cant speak for how other people think and neither can you. What are you, a mind reader?

I am against the war because it is a poor allocation of our resources and because of the history of foreign occupation in Iraq. Is it worth $500 billion and a generation of soldiers with war-related injuries and mental illnesses? Bush's family values involve taking fathers and husbands away from their families and communities for 2-3 years.

What exactly do you think is at stake with this illegal war and costly occupation? FREEDOM? DEMOCRACY? Try to articulate your answer in concrete rather than abstract terms.

Learn to use paragraphs.

[BillUCF]

Since this is primarily a poker site. Yes I have become a successful poker player by reading other people.

In WWII the minority Republican congress complained bitterly about how the war was handled. My argument is not a Democrat vs. Republican issue. It is an issue of who is in power and who is not. Those not in power in this country want to be in power and will stop at nothing to "monday morning quarterback" every decision the sitting president makes. Both parties are guilty of this. Just look at how the Republicans attacked Clinton for 8 years.

As for the "illegal war" comment. This term was also incorrectly applied in Vietnam. If the war was illegal then congress needs to step up and make a decisive vote. Congress has been weak since the end of WWII. They havent made a decisive vote for or against any military action since WWII. Sure they have their votes of confidence and issue their displeasure, but they always fall short of being decisive. Both parties in congress are more concerned with continuing their political career than making a stand for or aginst the Iraqi war.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
My argument is not a Democrat vs. Republican issue. It is an issue of who is in power and who is not. Those not in power in this country want to be in power and will stop at nothing to "monday morning quarterback" every decision the sitting president makes. Both parties are guilty of this. Just look at how the Republicans attacked Clinton for 8 years.

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually agree with the general point that there's a lot of politically motivated second-guessing in Washington - I guess that's not really news to anyone. But I disagree with your argument that Democrats are only speaking out against the war because they want to be in power. I think they are speaking out against it because their constituents are letting them know, in no uncertain terms, that they demand some sort of plan (beyond "stay the course") for ending the quagmire in Iraq. They would not be doing their jobs if they didn't loudly and persistently demand to hear an exit strategy from the President. Because the American people want to hear how this war is supposed to end before another 2,000 U.S. soldiers get blown up.

[JackWhite]

I don't know if that applies to this war, Bill, but I am in agreement with you on your general point. When Bill Clinton avoided military service, Republicans made a big deal out of it, while Democrats said it was irrelevant. When GWB came on the scene, his lack of service was an issue for Democrats, while Republicans said it was irrelevant.

There are of course a hundred other such instances. It is one reason I so dislike party politics. Principle ranks a distant second to parroting the party line. That is why I admire any politician who will stand on principle, especially if he disagrees with the majority of his party in the process.

[BillUCF]

Thanks. This is why I really like Joe Leiberman. He gets it.

[BluffTHIS!]

Excellent post. Another part of their "dirty little secret", is that the democratic party leadership and most democrats, have a much more liberal agenda across every issue which they wish to foist upon the unsuspecting middle of American voters. But to do this, they have to both claim a more centrist position than they really believe in, and as you said, to use any convenient hypocritcal distortion and criticism of republican policies to damage republican office holders. The Clintons are masters of this.

[andyfox]

Excellent post. Another part of the Republicans' "dirty little secret", is that the Republican party leadership and most Republicans, have a much more conservative agenda across every issue which they wish to foist upon the unsuspecting middle of American voters. But to do this, they have to both claim a more centrist position than they really believe in, and as you said, to use any convenient hypocritcal distortion and criticism of Democratic policies to damage Democratic office holders. The Bush administration is a master of this.