Houston Democrats

Howard Dean and Deaniacs: where are you on the Iraq issue ? This was your defining, in your face issue in '04.
Your primary candidate, whom we Kucinichites supported for DNC Chair because we believed he had the courage to lead, is loving this occupation. Seems like he has capitulated to the the Democrats in Congress who have adopted the Bush lie as their own. You were not there at the Halliburton street protest on May 18, experiencing the full power of the Bill White police state trampling the people of Houston with horses to protect the asphalt driveway of the Four Seasons Hotel. Just where are you, Deaniacs?

Dean has been in the Pottery Barn camp since the invasion. Dean's defining issue was opposition to starting this war, and the lies that were told to sell it. If there was an option of getting UN troops in to change the occupation into a peacekeeping mission, Dean would be all for it. That ain't happening now, and sending John Fucking Bolton to represent us at the UN ain't going to make it any more likely. If we pull out leaving a vacuum, there will be civil war and Iran will likely take advantage and invade. The two countries do have a history. The result will be a much higher death toll. Not wanting that outcome is hardly loving the occupation. How is going down the path of less peace and more death a populist position?

As for a Halliburton protest, the first I heard of it was your posting today on this blog. If you want turnout, get the word out. The actions by the police sound reprehensible.

Ralph, does it occur to you that what we have is a civil war already in progress? And, the presence of our troops without a withdrawl agenda on the table with the people of Iraq is a causation factor in the current conflict, Iraq citizen against Iraq citizen (last time I checked, that is the very definition of a civil war). The resistance there wants us out. The new government is on record stating they want us out. It would appear only Bush and Dean want us in, wouldn't it? The majority of the American people want us out. Whose left to want us to remain? Bush and Dean.Ove and out.

Please write up a strategy for withdrawal that does not allow the civil war to escalate and subject Iraq to Iranian invasion and send it on to Dean. I'm sure he'll come around.

The Strategy already exists, Ralph; authored in bill form by Kucinich, written and proposed extensively by Tom Hayden and also proposed by the Progressive Democrats of America, the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Progressive Caucus. That isn't enough?

Ralph, don't listen to this old armchair commander; read what the Generals on the ground in Iraq have to say. If it walks like a civil war, talks like a civil war, kills like a civil war and quacks like a civil war, it is a civil war.

Generals Offer Sober Outlook on Iraqi War

* Sign In to E-Mail This
* Printer-Friendly
* Single-Page
* Reprints

By JOHN F. BURNS and ERIC SCHMITT
Published: May 19, 2005

BAGHDAD, Iraq, May 18 - American military commanders in Baghdad and Washington gave a sobering new assessment on Wednesday of the war in Iraq, adding to the mood of anxiety that prompted Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to come to Baghdad last weekend to consult with the new government.
Enlarge This Image
Mohammed Adnan/Associated Press

In Baquba, northeast of Baghdad, wreckage marked a car-bomb attack on a police convoy Wednesday. Such attacks are more numerous this year.
The Reach of War
Go to Complete Coverage
Readers
Forum: The Transition in Iraq

In interviews and briefings this week, some of the generals pulled back from recent suggestions, some by the same officers, that positive trends in Iraq could allow a major drawdown in the 138,000 American troops late this year or early in 2006. One officer suggested Wednesday that American military involvement could last "many years."

Gen. John P. Abizaid, the top American officer in the Middle East, said in a briefing in Washington that one problem was the disappointing progress in developing Iraqi police units cohesive enough to mount an effective challenge to insurgents and allow American forces to begin stepping back from the fighting. General Abizaid, who speaks with President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld regularly, was in Washington this week for a meeting of regional commanders.

In Baghdad, a senior officer said Wednesday in a background briefing that the 21 car bombings in Baghdad so far this month almost matched the total of 25 in all of last year.

Against this, he said, there has been a lull in insurgents' activity in Baghdad in recent days after months of some of the bloodiest attacks, a trend that suggested that American pressure, including the capture of important bomb makers, had left the insurgents incapable of mounting protracted offensives. But the officer said that despite Americans' recent successes in disrupting insurgent cells, which have resulted in the arrest of 1,100 suspects in Baghdad alone in the past 80 days, the success of American goals in Iraq was not assured.

"I think that this could still fail," the officer said at the briefing, referring to the American enterprise in Iraq. "It's much more likely to succeed, but it could still fail."

The officer said much depended on the new government's success in bolstering public confidence among Iraqis. He said recent polls conducted by Baghdad University had shown confidence flagging sharply, to 45 percent, down from an 85 percent rating immediately after the election. "For the insurgency to be successful, people have to believe the government can't survive," he said. "When you're in the middle of a conflict, you're trying to find pillars of strength to lean on." Another problem cited by the senior officer in Baghdad was the new government's ban on raids on mosques, announced on Monday, which the American officer said he expected to be revised after high-level discussions on Wednesday between American commanders and Iraqi officials.

The officer said the ban appeared to have been announced by the new defense minister, Sadoun al-Dulaimi, without wider government approval, and would be replaced by a "more moderate" policy. To raise the level of public confidence, the officer said, the new government would need success in cutting insurgent attacks and meeting popular impatience for improvements in public services like electricity that are worse, for many Iraqis, than they were last year. But he emphasized the need for caution - and the time it may take to complete the American mission here - notes that recur often in the private conversations of American officers in Iraq.

"I think it's going to succeed in the long run, even if it takes years, many years," he said. On a personal note, he added that he, like many American soldiers, had spent long periods of duty related to Iraq, and he said: "We believe in the mission that we've got. We believe in it because we're in it, and if we let go of the insurgency and take our foot off its throat, then this country could fail and go back into civil war and chaos."

Only weeks ago, in the aftermath of the elections, American generals offered a more upbeat view, one that was tied to a surge of Iraqi confidence that one commander in Baghdad now describes as euphoria. But this week, five high-ranking officers, speaking separately at the Pentagon and in Baghdad, and through an e-mail exchange from Baghdad with a reporter in Washington, ranged with unusual candor and detail over problems confronting the war effort.

John F. Burns reported from Baghdad for this article and Eric Schmitt from Washington. Richard A. Oppel Jr. contributed reporting from Baghdad.
The New York Times Online Edition Special Offer:

As I wrote, "If there was an option of getting UN troops in to change the occupation into a peacekeeping mission, Dean would be all for it. That ain't happening now, and sending John Fucking Bolton to represent us at the UN ain't going to make it any more likely."

Write up a strategy that actually reflects political reality. If Bush hadn't been reelected, any Democratic candidate save Lieberman would be well down the road on that, or similar strategy.

Regarding the American troops "deposing and imprisoning" Saddam Hussein, I thought it was the Kurds who actually captured him, and then gave him up to the American forces so they could get their "photo op" pulling him out of his so called "spider hole". It was my impression that Hussein was hiding out in a farmhouse or something and was armed, and he was subsequently captured by the Kurds and turned over to the Americans. I may be incorrect on that, however, I distinctly recall reading that somewhere. If anyone has the same recollection please let me know.

As far as pulling our troops out of Iraq and working with other international groups and the U.N. to begin the rebuilding process and forging of an international peacekeeping group, I'm all for it 100%. The U.S. presence in Iraq is only exacerbating an already volatile situation. I will say once again one cannot spread democracy at the point of a gun! Besides, spreading democracy was NEVER the intention of the Bush administration. With U.S. and world oil supplies depleting, the Bush administration knew it had to have control of Middle Eastern oil and natural gas supplies since many countries have quietly been negotiating with China and India for oil and natural gas contracts. This invasion of Iraq was to set the precedent for subsequent invasions of other Middle Eastern countries. What this stupid administration didn't anticipate, however, was the level of resistance it would get from Iraqi citizens who don't want the United States occupying their country. I seem to recall one of the neo-con pinheads saying the war would be a cakewalk or something along those lines and Iraqis would greet American soldiers with candy and flowers. How ludicrous!! These so called insurgents as the Bush administration likes to call them are nothing more than pissed off Iraqi citizens who want U.S. troops out of their country. Wouldn't we in the United States do the same things these "insurgents" are doing if another country sent troops to one of our states to occupy it and terrorize its citizens? Come on, people! We would do the exact same thing the Iraqis are doing! We'd fight like hell to the death if need be to protect our families and our way of life. Good grief!

I can't believe Howard Dean would advocate remaining in Iraq to clean up the mess we caused! I can't believe ANY DEMOCRATIC member of Congress would vote to keep our troops in Iraq and vote to keep funneling money into the "war" effort!

This country is sliding faster and faster into fascism, and its citizens, as well as some Democratic members of Congress, seem willing to let it happen!

I have thought from the beginning that Howard Dean was not a progressive, however, I felt he would be a vocal leader of the DNC and work for positive change within the Democratic Party due to the fact he was so outspoken about not supporting the Chimp's rush to war with Iraq. I would have preferred it if a truly progressive person had stepped forward to run for DNC chair, but that didn't happen. One can only hope that Dean will rethink his position on the Iraq situation and not cave in to Republican lite, centrist Democrats who are attempting to yank his chain.

It states above in the Kucinich/Abercrombie letter that the "troops have done their job". I suppose since the troops were lied to about their reason for being in Iraq and they were sent to Iraq to destroy the country's infrastructure and kill and maim its people, then I guess they have "done their jobs and done them quite well". It sickens me really to think of all the death and destruction on both sides of the fence. It will take decades for this country to recover its good name and decades more for Iraqis to try and forgive us for what we've allowed to happen.

By the way, Ralph, re: you concern that Iran might invade the vulnerable Iraq? My response is twofold:
l. So what? 2. The l980-88 Iraq-Iran war started when SADDAM AND IRAQ INVADED IRAN........... So, you're worried that Iran might invade Iraq, when there is no historic prescedence for that?

It was no-win situation from the start. If we stay in Iraq, American blood and American money gets wasted far into the indefinite future. If we pull out, Iran is free to create a puppet state that's an enemy of the United States for decades to come. What an excellent win-win situation for the Iranian state! Folks who worship Bush for his "tough no-compromise" stand will one day wonder what he was thinking when he gave one of our enemies everything they could've hoped for.

Read Rep. Kucinich's letter to Howard Dean on exiting Iraq.
An Open Letter to Howard Dean
May 3, 2005 4:25 pm ET

Speaking before an ACLU crowd last week in Minnesota, the home state of Paul Wellstone, you were quoted as saying, "Now that we're there [in Iraq], we're there and we can't get out.... I hope the President is incredibly successful with his policy now." Did these words really come from the same man who claimed to represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party, and who had recently campaigned on the antiwar theme? What's changed?

Perhaps you now believe that an electoral victory for Democrats in 2006 and beyond requires sweeping this war under the rug. If so, you are only the latest in a long line of recent Democratic leaders who chose a strategy of letting "no light show" between Democrats and the President on the war. Emphasize the economy, instead, they advised, in 2002 and again in 2004.

Following this advice has kept us in the minority. During the 2002 election cycle, when Democrats felt they had historical precedent on their side (the President's party always loses seats in the midterm election), the Democratic leadership in Congress cut a deal with the President to bring the war resolution to a vote, and appeared with him in a Rose Garden ceremony. The "no light" strategy yielded a historic result: For the first time since Franklin Roosevelt, a President increased his majorities in both houses of Congress during a recession.

The President went into the 2004 election with tremendous vulnerability on the war, which the Democratic Party again sacrificed: by avoiding the issue of withdrawal from Iraq in the party platform, omitting it from campaign speeches and deleting it from the national convention.

Why does failure surely follow from sweeping the war and occupation under the rug? Because the war is one of the most potent political scandals of all time, and it has energized grassroots activity like few others.

President Bush led the country into war based on false information, falsified threats and a fictitious estimate of the consequences. His war and the continuing occupation transformed Iraq into a training ground for jihadists who want to hunt Americans, and a cause célèbre for stoking resentment in the Muslim world. His war and occupation squandered the abundant good will felt by the world for America after our losses of September 11. He enriched his cronies at Halliburton and other private interests through the occupation. And he diverted our attention and abilities away from apprehending the masterminds of the September 11 attack; instead, we are mired in occupation. The President's war and occupation in Iraq has already cost $125 billion, nearly 1,600 American lives, more than 11,000 American casualties and the lives of tens of thousands of Iraqis. The occupation has been more costly in this regard than the war.

There is no end in sight for the occupation of Iraq. The President says we will stay until we're finished. A recent report by the Congressional Research Service concluded that the United States is probably building permanent military bases in Iraq. The President refuses to consider an exit strategy. The Republican Congress gives the President whatever he asks for.

We can draw no clearer distinction with the President than over this war. He cannot right a wrong (unjustified war) by perpetuating a military occupation. Military victory there is not possible. General Tommy Franks concedes that. The war will end when we say it's over. The Democratic leadership should be pressing for quick withdrawal of all troops from Iraq.

That's what most Democrats want, too. Your performance in the early stages of the primary, and your recent chairmanship of the party, were made possible by many, many progressive and liberal Democrats. It was their hope and expectation that you would prevent the party from repeating its past drift to the Republican-lite center. They hoped that this time the party would not abandon them or its core beliefs again.

Yet you say that you hope the President succeeds. With no pressure exerted from the leadership of the Democratic Party, the past threatens to repeat itself in 2006. We may not leave Iraq or our minority status in Washington for a long time to come.

Dennis J. Kucinich

It will stop only when we take the white house back. And I don't mean in 2008.

This country is heading to civil unrest.

Bin Laden must be proud of Bush Bin Lyin.

John, I wish it were true that this country is heading to civil unrest. But look at this blog? No outrage from Democrats about either the "Downing Street Memo", comment on Galloway's visit to the Senate to shut down the absurd Sen. Coleman with the truth, precious little comment about the brutal treatment of Haliburton protesters I observed and experience first hand on May 18 and the reports herein. I see passive, zoned out, unengaged Democrats. I wish I saw outrage. It isn't there. I see a herd of sheep peacefully grazing and the fascist state forms around them. Reminiscent of Germany 1930's.

Anyone who suggests that Howard Dean wants American troops in Iraq is either a damn fool or just a plain vanilla trouble-maker. The only person who can get us out of Iraq is Karl Rove in the guise of his puppet earphone carrier George Bush--the same person who got us in. Even Dennis Kucinich, who is, after all, a member of Congress, has more power to write and enter bills to be voted on than Howard Dean does. You want Dean to stand up and scream at the American people to get their attention? Last time he did that, Stan, did you stand up to defend him? Or did you, like the vaunted intrepid American press, make fun of him for getting carried away like someone who, for God's sake and God forbid, HAD FEELINGS?
Dean can't carry the Democratic party all by himself. He can't have all the ideas while the rest of us sit around on our royal asses trying to think of the easiest way to get some Dems elected next time around. There is no easy way for us. We're going to have to come up with some ideas and GO TO WORK. ALL OF US. And it's not going to help a damn bit to sit around and snipe at each other. We've done that ever since Bill Clinton and look what it's got us--that stupid Greasy Hair Perry and his band of crooks and the stupidest man in the House of Representatives, John Cornyn. And DeLay, DeLay, DeLay. We haven't got rid of a single one of those criminals; we haven't even got one to admit he did something wrong. So stop blaming Howard Dean. You might as well blame John Kerry and the people who voted for him.Or, better still, blame the Repugs and the Neo-Cons who lied us into this war. Tell them they're not going to get one more American son or daughter until we see the exit blueprint with a date certain stamped on it. Tell them all that since they didn't have the opportunity to go to Nam, we'd like to make it possible for them to go to beautiful downtown Baghdad--the sooner, the better. That includes Yellowbelly Bush. Let's not deny him his chance to test the Humvee armor.

Muriel, my good friend, you seem to be arguing that you want us grassroots Dems to take on Bush, Rove and Company. You'll get no disagreement from me on that and I believe that is what I am doing in both words and deed. But, you are then arguing that I and others should NOT urge our elected national Party leader to do that as well? I don't get it, Muriel? We should be leaderless in our criticism of Bush's continued massacre of the Iraqi people and continuing exposure of fine young Americans to harm from the Iraq resistance? Help me follow your logic. I want Dean to assemble an entourage of State Party Chairs, especially the half dozen or so whose State Parties have recently taken a stand to get a plan on the table (like Kucinich's or Tom Hayden's, or the Progressive Democrats of America) to exit Iraq. I
Think also your shot at me about Dean's primary, primal-scream melt-down is misguided. While I was a Kucinich supporter all the way to Boston, you and others who know me heard me express sympathy for Dean in that melt-down, both ideologically and personally. I never made fun of him. I wanted him to win Iowa and take the anti-war movement forward in the Party, if my candidate could not prevail there. I led my statewide Caucus to endorse Dean as DNC Chair. Why? Because I thought he had the fortitude to continue leading this Party to a righteous position as the Party advocating getting the hell out of Iraq with the proper, orderly process to do so. Instead, he joins Bush in saying in a public address to Democrats that we must remain there indefinitely, giving credence to Bush's absurd and dishonest position. How then, Muriel, from your opening sentence, am I or others to devine the Dean really wants us out, when he says otherwise? Love your feisty rejoinder ! Stan

I think we all should watch Meet the Press on Sunday. I am fairly certain this question will come up, and then we will have a better idea where Dean stands at the moment on withdrawing from Iraq.