Anti-War Dems? Where?

Having completed a little tome about the gallons of blood guzzled by Democrats over numerous decades, I was stopped by an AP headline this morning that read, "Anti-war Democrats ponder next step."

Hmm. Must be about Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel anticipating more shit storms on the American horizon -- not that they can do much more than hunker down and weather the falling body parts as best they can, but it's the thought that counts, and style points are always considered. In the end, it's like having a mime plant an imaginary daisy in the mouth of a M1A2 Abrams tank's 120mm M256 smoothbore gun, under a midday desert sun, death metal blasting from within, the lock-and-load kids cruising to Suffocation and Nile. Tank treads in the greasepaint. The rapid beat rips on.

Instead, the names listed are Harry Reid, who voted for war, Nancy Pelosi, utterly worthless, and Russ Feingold, who at least has made a few attempts to highlight statist corruption and war-lust, though when nudged, Feingold will hump the flag to show that his "opposition" comes from a patriotic place. Because don't ya know, peace is so very patriotic, and the Democrats are nothing if not solid patriots.

Where's a veteran muleskinner when you need one?

The AP piece portrays the Dems as naturally antiwar, which naturally they aren't, and quotes the standard mouthpieces and apologists like MoveOn, devoted primarily to electing Democrats, regardless of actual social effectiveness. The current strategy, proposing moving troops around here and there, taking some out, redeploying others, is the typical Beltway shell game, a lot of action that signifies essentially nothing. The Democrats are not going to withdrawal from Iraq, much less Afghanistan; and should Saint Obama become President Saint, there is no way in hell the U.S. leaves. The last thing a newly-minted imperial manager does is undermine, much less destroy, the imperial project. Streamline it? Sure. Re-brand it for domestic consumption? Of course. Trash it? Go back to your meth pipe.

The Democrats are simply looking for election angles, and will be helped mightily by John McCain's utter refusal, or perhaps inability, to improvise around shifting tactics. The veteran butcher of Vietnamese is a godsend to the Dems, that is, if they play it delicately with steady attention to detail. Because in America, you never know when the radioactive winds will turn, and the Democrats have proven time and again that they're not the best storm-chasers around, especially when they're celebrating victory a hundred miles from the finish line. The skies continue to rumble.

Comments

[DebbieKat]

You hit the nail right on the head. She only takes action to represent us when it's close to election time and her latest "accomplishment" is fresh on our minds. I want impeachment on the table. Start those hearings NOW.

And I totally agree with this article. The "front runners" and our leadership in congress is not Anti-War at all. The only dems who are anti-war are the ones being ignored and marginalized. Kucinich, Gravel and maybe Richardson. Gravel is the ONLY candidate running aside from Ron Paul who I believe would pull us out of Iraq IMMEDIATELY. Gravel is the ONLY one who has proven himself and has DONE IT BEFORE. He was responsible for stopping the draft with a one-man filibuster in 71. He released the Pentagon Papers that showed how our govt. lied to get us into Vietnam (sound familiar?).

He's been so marginalized in the press and made to look like a loony. In keeping with what the media usually does to messengers of Peace. They did the same to Kucinich...

If you want to be out of Iraq, choose Gravel.

[WorkingClass]

Democrats are the new Republicans. They work their ass off to discredit Nader even though he cant hurt them in the election. Why? Because they don't want him going all over the country telling the truth. The economy will end the war. Remember how quickly the old Soviet Union collapsed when it went broke? The same thing will happen here.

[Nonamnesiac]

The Dems and their Nader-baiting sycophants think all progressives are just too stupid to realize that both Clinton and Obama want to continue the war. It is for that reason that Nader will have traction, draw a substantial number of truly anti-war progressives from continue-the-war Hillary or continue-the-war Obama and the Dems will lose. They simply want us to have blood on our hands and to vote to continue the act of national cowardice they both have funded even though it means our family members in the military will continue being killed and maimed and have to continue to kill and maim Iraqis. The Dem sycophants think we should be happy if our family members are killed and maimed so long as the leader of their being killed and maimed has a "D" label instead of an "R" label.

None of us have missed the bi-partisan support for the war and the fact the Dem frontrunners support continuing the war, no matter what their rhetoric is.

[Doofus]

Just a suggestion, but Ralph needs to get on a

ticket with Ron Paul, so that all the anti-war

Repos can join up with the anti-War Demos.

There will be such overwhelming support, it will

totally blow your mind, fer sure. There won't

be anyone left to vote for the Demo candidate,

hardly.

[DrPaulProteus]

I've thought this for a long time... the libertarian right (such as Ron Paul and the Libertarian Party) and libertarian left (of which Nader and Kucinich are prime examples) should unite to form a sort of centrist libertarian party.

They'd have my vote in a second over the authoritarian Republicrat party.

[Doofus]

I've thought about it also (obviously).

The resulting 'neo-Liberaltarian' party

would at least be no weirder, in terms

of breadth/scope of belief than the

current two 'major' parties. Stranger

things have happened.

See also...

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_12/010334.php

[roncraw]

Correct me if I"m wrong. In the debate when Obama was asked what would he do when after he withdrew from Iraq AlQuada moved in .He said he would go back into Iraq.In other words reinvade.Is that a judgemnt call.Hillary tryed to call him on it but they went to break .

[biglover]

You are wrong!!! He never said he would reinvade - he said he would do whatever he had to do to protect our interests.

[JohnFromCensornati]

Iraq is wrecking our economy.
Iraq has already wrecked our moral standing.
Iraq is destroying our civil liberties.
Iraq is a RepubliCon dream come true.
Why do the Dems fund it?
To improve their chances in this election.
They are NOT anti-war.
Obama will need a better, quicker exit plan to get my vote.

[Doofus]

At the moment, the most appropriate strategy for the Demos, which actually seems to be the one they're using, is to keep hitting the point that the War was a hugely wasteful, totally inappropriate & irresponsible response to the problem of 'International Terrorism'. And leave it at that, for now.

Getting our people out of Iraq is not going to be easy, but a way will be found to do it, if the Demo candidate is elected in November. If the Repo Man gets back in, we will indeed be there for another hundred years. Take your pick, people.

[LittleBrother]

I concur with Dennis.

Now that the campaign rutting season is well underway, it's not surprising that Accentuate the Positive Mode kicks in, and that Obama resonates best in this atmosphere. In short, he's emerging as the most attractive candidate. Even as one who doesn't care for bandwagon rides, I believe that Obama has the spiffiest bandwagon.

But I agree that he's not especially anti-war, and it's not just because of the usual tired strategy/process clichés from the true believers, e.g. "Oh, he's got to campaign to the 'right', but once he gets IN, he'll govern from the 'left'!" (Or worse yet-- in response to the insight that "left/right" dichotomy doesn't fit the chaotic territory the way it used to-- is the belief that he'll TRANSCEND the left/right spectrum AND duopolistic partisanship, and embark on a historic "Third Way" approach to governing.

Yeah, like Bill Clinton.

I expect that President Obama will carefully pay homage to our fine military, our patriotic corporations, and reassure the thoroughly manipulated and hapless yahoos that he will remain Strong in the face of Global Terror. He may tone down the ultra-jingoism and dumbed-down wingnut propaganda, and avoid terms like "Islamofascist", but if you watch his hands instead of his mouth, I believe you'll see very little evidence that he's truly dedicated to deconstructing the vast malignant tumor of the government elites' exceptionalist, imperialist corporate (media)/military nexus.

For well over a century, the US has been spellbound by a circular political logic that insists on requiring presidents (and other political leaders) to prove their warlord bona fides by barking at the world that the president will pop a War Boner to protect its citizens OR intervene in non-US aggression or oppression by promptly exercising just and sufficient military force.

Given all of the above, and given the usual misreading of public will and the fear that even APPEARING truly "anti-war"-- even "anti-Iraq quagmire"-- no Democratic Party candidate will come anywhere close to standing up, much less standing tall, to condemn US imperialist atrocities.

[desmirl]

Cynical attitudes breed nothing but more cynicism. Certainly, the entrenched Warmongers of the Pentagon, the Congress, and the White House have bogged us down in what seems an endless opera of death and violence, but to say that no matter what happens in November, we won't make progress toward getting out of Iraq? With that attitude, why have elections? Just nominate Bush for Dictator for Life, and move on, nothing to see here...

[davidly]

Okay, so hope is never dead; that's the nature of hope. But this analysis is one of the extremely rare moments of reality check you'll find from a so-called reasonable voice. It's healthy cynicism reminding people like me, for one, that I'm not crazy or alone, and reminding those who would represent us that we are still here, longing for representation. Maintaining the belief that one of the current Dems is going to stop the business of bloodshed is so naive as to make a mockery of hope.

[Researchguy66]

Thanks for the article. That is the next shoe to drop, and it will happen sometime after Obama clinches the nomination.

We're already being instructed by the MSM that Iraq doesn't matter as much as the economy. I find it sick and disgusting that Democrats are more concerned about being able to fill up the SUV and motor the kids to the mall than about supporting OR withdrawing our troops in Iraq. Pick one, please, either one, but don't leave them hanging.

That should be our highest priority, but instead it's become one more backdrop for increasingly cynical political theater.

[wcfar]

The nail on the head! Pelosi and the rest of them, the saviours of November...horrible, worthless, gutless disappointments. Keep on tellin' it dude.

[BJMS]

Wow...what a stupid assessment...Obama may not be a saint, but I trust him completely!

[itmaybetoolate]

Why? What leadership has he shown on the censure or impeachment of bushie? What leadership has he shown on stopping the funding of the war? What leadership has he shown on the FISA bill? What leadership has he shown on the issue of torture? None - so what is there to trust about him? He is a Constitutional scholar and he ignores bushie's behavior? He either does not think that bushie has acted in an unconstitutional manner, or he doesn't have the courage to stand up against it. Why would you trust ANYone who craves such power completely?

[Semper]

The liberal movement has stopped. And we only have screaming sissys. Obama was born in another time. He represents the young. And he is from a different generation. Dennis your thinking is very aged. He means what he says. We are coming out. The is too much at stake if he does not. War is not the answer(Marvin Gaye).

[Semper]

Dennis its wishful thinking on your part. That we stay in Iraq. Obama has reason to have America pull out of Iraq. But I won't tell you. Trust me, we come out.

[SolarPowerGuy]

"Trust me" has been the line that Democrats have used since 1992. Are you willing to fall for it again?

We stay in Iraq, no matter who wins.

[stsparky]

I agree. Pelosi is spineless and worthless. Put Impeachment back on the table!!!

[Marlyn]

"Pelosi is spineless and worthless." ???

and yet recently Pelosi has been strong, standing against GW Bush's push to give telecoms immunity.

[CaptainObvious]

Yeah. She's up for re-election.

[Spiriteddona]

Well, don't faint, but this is a Democrat who is very unhappy our national guard is abroad. i misread your title. i thought you were saying dems should just be bolder about the war. it's not my fault. i have encouraged on my democratic blog hillary, to be as bold as mccain. mccain puled ahead for being bold. just not the way i prayed.

[alkamm]

For years, fanatics told Bob Dylan he was a prophet and he responded that he was a song-writer, not a prophet. After doing an album that mentioned Biblical leitmotifs, some of the same sorts angrily told Bob Dylan he was not a prophet.

Obama is up against this same sort of inaccurate characterization. He is a sublime politician, standing out as if in bas relief in comparison to the others.

To call Obama "St. Obama," is a petty, mean-spirited mischaracterization that has nothing to do with Obama's character or political energies. These sorts of gross attacks are generated by pundits too clever by half. As with the Bush brothers there's the dim and the half wit, Jeb being the half, W being the dim.

Unlike Obama, Perrin uses the prophetic voice to limp effect, insisting that Obama will keep us in Iraq until it or hell freezes over. In a more normal time, such pessimism pays off because of the inertia built into the political system. Obama, however, represents a force welling up from what we call the grassroots that knows it's often harder to end a war than to begin one, but that the withdrawal can be done with expeditious dispatch.

[jeffhas]

The reference to 'Saint Obama' is to the speed with which his supporters just seem to move to him... knowing that a decision as important as this presidential election requires a thoughtfulness of mind that it would seem to most to require some amount of time... maybe years or at least extended months... but certainly not weeks or days.

The preacherman cadence, the rockstar like crowds, the fainting and fawning... that's all just a side bonus that makes one wonder.

Three months ago this guy was 30 points behind... and in 90 days MILLIONS of voters did the time enduring process of staking out where Obama stands and how his career has built the need for him to be the best person for the Presidency (OK, to be fair, Claire McCaskill - among MANY others - actually decided to support Obama because her kids told her to).

Thrilling political theatre for sure.... but it looks a little unnerving to say the least.

[Marlyn]

Who is Obama? Ask Barack. Read his book "Dreams from my Father".

[LizM]

Wow. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that most Americans don't understand the first thing about (1) what the Iraq Resolution (2002) authorizing the use of US military force in Iraq was all about or anything about the context within which that vote took place (2) how to end the civil war in Iraq (3) anything complicated.

I would respectfully suggest that you might want to start paying very close attention to Senator Biden if you want to understand anything about Iraq.

[Lis]

Goodness, Dennis. You are an angry man.

I like that. When it comes to Iraq, we all SHOULD be angry.

Much as the MSM says that it's all about the economy, stupid...again....I believe that it's all about Iraq.

So when McCain and Obama go head to head in the presidential debates this fall, I know that the main topic is, indeed, going to be the main topic.

And I didn't switch from Republican to Democrat last year for nothing.

~Obama 2008~
~Change We Can Believe In~