The Chicken Doves

[kristopher]

The Chicken Doves
Elected to end the war, Democrats have surrendered to Bush on Iraq and betrayed the peace movement for their own political ends

by MATT TAIBBI (Rolling Stone)

Quietly, while Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have been inspiring Democrats everywhere with their rolling bitchfest, congressional superduo Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have completed one of the most awesome political collapses since Neville Chamberlain. At long last, the Democratic leaders of Congress have publicly surrendered on the Iraq War, just one year after being swept into power with a firm mandate to end it.

Solidifying his reputation as one of the biggest pussies in U.S. political history, Reid explained his decision to refocus his party's energies on topics other than ending the war by saying he just couldn't fit Iraq into his busy schedule. "We have the presidential election," Reid said recently. "Our time is really squeezed."

There was much public shedding of tears among the Democratic leadership, as Reid, Pelosi and other congressional heavyweights expressed deep sadness that their valiant charge up the hill of change had been thwarted by circumstances beyond their control — that, as much as they would love to continue trying to end the catastrophic Iraq deal, they would now have to wait until, oh, 2009 to try again. "We'll have a new president," said Pelosi. "And I do think at that time we'll take a fresh look at it."

Pelosi seemed especially broken up about...

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/18349197/the_chicken_doves

[jgraz]

1. An absolute must-read. Taibbi nails Pelosi and Reid to the wall.

K&R.

[Brigid]

2. I love that last line:

"Even Americans can't be fooled forever." The Democratic leadership in the House and Senate should have been devoting itself, from the beginning, to making Bush's "lame duck" period as miserable as possible, and opposinghim in every way they can. it's just soooo frustrating! :banghead:

K & R, BTW. :kick:

[jgraz]

3. Oh, and welcome to DU

:hi:

I hope you're ready for all the shit the party apologists are going to fling at you for posting this article...

[kristopher]

4. Thanks for the welcome. I'm ready.

Tiabi sometimes goes off half cocked, but I agree, this time he nailed it.

[fenriswolf]

5. they should treat every fucking day as a financial mishap

each day as a fresh new crime against humanity

each day as a fresh new state sponsord forerign terrorist act (blackwater)

each day as a fresh new corrupted corporation raking in the dough

each day is one more day americas soul is corrupted

[Elspeth]

6. The co-opting of the anti-war movement is really problematic

"What the Post and the Times failed to note is that much of the anti-war group's leadership hails from a consulting firm called Hildebrand Tewes — whose partners, Steve Hildebrand and Paul Tewes, served as staffers for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC). In addition, these anti-war leaders continue to consult for many of the same U.S. senators whom they need to pressure in order to end the war. This is the kind of conflict of interest that would normally be an embarrassment in the activist community."

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/18349197/the_chicken_doves/2

[Sarah Ibarruri]

7. I read the article, which spoke about career politicians trying to keep their careers going....

There are a lot of career politicians in Congress. ALL OF THEM, in fact. Not one is in there without charging, as a Mother Teresa of sorts. However, they still have to introduce bills and vote. Good article about career politicians, but it tries to use that as the reason they didn't fight the war. But all Congress is career politicians.

The article doesn't really really address why Congressional Dems didn't fight against the Iraq War, not really explain. It also does not definitely does not explain why, if the Repukes impeached our President Clinton, they won't impeach Bush & Cheney for crimes far more than any Nixon engaged in.

[jgraz]

8. Wow, it seems pretty obvious to me

Pelosi, Reid, et al have decided that keeping their jobs is more important than ending the war, and they're doing anything they can to undermine the war movement.

They're doing the same thing with impeachment. They LIKE having George Bush and his war to run against. Without them, the Dems might actually have to come up with some ideas of their own.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

9. It doesn't explain it. The Repukes might have thought the same thing before impeaching Clinton.....

that it might jeopardize their jobs. No, the article does not explain WHY they did it. The article does say that Pelosi and Reid are career politicians. But so are all Congress people from the beginning of Congress to the present. There are no Congress people that are not career politicians. All Congress people are career politicians, all want to protect their jobs, but impeachment has been done before and somehow DEMS are refusing to do it now. It makes no sense at all.

[Dhalgren]

11. The Democrats in Congress do not "really" oppose Bush. That is your

answer. The Democrats in Congress - as a party - are on the same side as Bush; they are paid by the same corporations as Bush is; they are all of the same class as is Bush - the Governing Class. They support Bush and have since his appointment in 2000. That is why the only two candidates we have for the Democratic nomination will both continue Bush's war policies and neither will pursue criminal charges against anyone in the Bush administration. Why doesn't anyone ever ask Clinton or Obama about criminal charges against Bush and his crew? They aren't interested in that - just like Congress isn't interested. We have been bought and sold, everything else is just puppet shows for the dimwitts...

[Sarah Ibarruri]

24. Okay, let me see if I understand what you're saying.... Dems aren't against Repukes, but Repukes are

against Dems?

[Dhalgren]

28. Right. Just look at the past 13 years or so. The Republicans stick

together against anything the Democrats put forward, yet half the Democrats vote with the Republicans on a consistent basis. The Democrats cave-in to the Republicans at every opportunity, yet the Republicans are always easily thwarting anything the Democrats want to do. What do you think it is? The Democrats only this past week removed Lieberman from the Super Delegate list! Lieberman was a Super Delegate and he isn't even a Democrat! Again, what do you think this is?

[Skittles]

29. the fact that the repukes goose-step in tune with the master

eventually will bite them in the ass

[Sarah Ibarruri]

32. That's depressing and pathetic. Why do Democrats have such low standards these days?

Democrats in the past didn't do that (from what I've read).

[smokey nj]

10. K&R!!!

[mike_c]

12. this article is more important than all the sound and fury in GD: P combined....

The democrats had their chance-- handed to them by the American people-- and they've blown it completely, IMO.

[jgraz]

13. They didn't blow it. They never intended to try.

It was a shell game from the beginning and we were the marks.

[elehhhhna]

14. A bunch of lousy executives hellbent on keeping their jobs

[mike_c]

17. word....

What he said.

[hisownpetard]

25. Absolutely. Makes me want to cry.

[kristopher]

15. My (conspiracy) theory about Dem inaction

How many here think that Dems in Congress might be being blackmailed? I mean, do you really think that the domestic spying operation was aimed only at "terrorists"?

Everyone has something to hide.

[jgraz]

18. You don't have to be blackmailed if you've already given up

I'm sure blackmail and even threats of violence are not beneath this filthy regime, but why go there when the patsies are already lying down for you?

[kristopher]

19. You're confusing cause and effect??

[Marr]

16. Infuriating. This is why we need more people running against these

entrenched, corrupt politicians. We need to replace the status quo, not just shuffle seats or put one party over another. We need to promoting candidates that represent progressive causes, not just "Democrats".

[Metta]

20. A wonderful article. Straight ahead and on the money.

Kudos to Matt Taibbi for writing it and to you for posting it here. :toast:

[Jeffersons Ghost]

21. K&R

[Arctic Dave]

22. Blackmail is the lamest of reasons

The way I see it is like this. In the past you did something you should not have, OK fine. But there is such a word as redemption. I would think ending the clusterfuck in the Middle East would be a perfect way of showing the people you claim to work for that you truly are trying to help them and not just yourself. So far I, and many others, don't see these fuckers doing a damn thing other then jerking themselves off while people lives are lost, then blaming the other guy for not allowing them to do there job.:rant:

[lumberjack_jeff]

23. Using the war as a bludgeon to use on Republicans is okay.

Perpetuating it is not.

Ironically, now that they're the ones who keep the war going, we can no longer use our best bludgeon.

[freefall]

26. Excellent article. Thanks for posting, kristopher. Unfortunately,

I disagree with the last line. I think enough Americans can be fooled at least long enough to insure we never recover form the trouble we're in now and heading into in the future.

Peace,

freefall

[jannyk]

27. KIck & R!!!! Read this folks!

[sce56]

30. SOSDD

It is the same old crap that we have had dumped down our throats for years! Now when on super Tuesday the Democratic vote doubles the GOP vote you would think the congress would see we back them against the Repukes but no it is business as usual in DC.

[Martin Eden]

31. "the war will be off the table during the presidential campign"

The quote in the subject title of my post was drawn from this paragraph:

"The really tragic thing about the Democratic surrender on Iraq is that it's now all but guaranteed that the war will be off the table during the presidential campaign. Once again — it happened in 2002, 2004 and 2006 — the Democrats have essentially decided to rely on the voters to give them credit for being anti-war, despite the fact that, for all the noise they've made to the contrary, in the end they've done nothing but vote for war and cough up every dime they've been asked to give, every step of the way."

While it is true the Democratic leadership in congress has not made a credible effort to end the occupation of Iraq, I think the author is badly mistaken about the war being "off the table" during the presidential campaign.

I'm willing to bet that Iraq will be a major battleground in the presidential contest between John McCain and the Democratic nominee. McCain has focused much of his rhetoric on "winning" the "war" in Iraq and staying 100 years if necessary. Even if Obama or Clinton want to avoid making Iraq a centerpiece of the debate, McCain will make it so and the media will hype it because it makes for good theater.

The Democratic nominee will repeatedly put on the spot to define their policy and intentions regarding this issue of vast importance that will offer voters a stark contrast between our candidate and McCain.

[Martin Eden]

33. IMO, this is why the Dems haven't forced Bush to pull out of Iraq:

Forcing a withdrawal from Iraq by withholding funds has huge political risks with very little political reward.

Does anyone here think Iraq is anything but a major disaster, and will continue to be for some time after we leave?

If the Democrats force Bush's hand, the Democrats will have ownership of the policy and will be blamed for what follows. For decades to come, Republicans will point to post-occupation Iraq as exhibit A in why Democrats can't be trusted in matters of national security. It doesn't matter that a Republican president engineered the inevitable disaster. Taking ownership of Iraq at this point can be a huge political liability with little potential political reward.

Anti-war voters disgusted with Democratic inaction are not going to switch their votes to Republicans over this issue. Some may stay home or vote 3rd party, but those lost votes would likely be a fraction of the votes lost if the 2008 general election was held amid glaring headlines depicting a bloody civil war in Iraq following the departure of US troops forced by Democratic funding cuts. Think about what the McCain campaign would do with clippage of Islamic radicals celebrating their "victory" over an America that had to "cut and run" from Iraq.

I am not supporting the inaction of the Democtaic leadership in Congress. I am stating why I think they haven't acted.

It's politics and political survival, which is to be expected from politicians of either party.

In their defense, I will say that the most responsible withdrawal from Iraq must include extensive diplomacy with Iraq's neighbors to minimize the instability and bloodshed in the power vacuum of our departure. It is in everyone's interest to prevent a regional spillover of a civil war in Iraq. To make any real diplomatic progress, this diplomacy also needs to take place within the framework of fundamental changes to our foreign policy of the last 7 years. The neocon "Bush Doctrine" of "preemptive war" must be repudiated.

Obviously, none of those necessary and responsible measures can take place while Bush is in office.

The real bone I have to pick with Reid and Pelosi is taking IMPEACHMENT off the table. Getting Bush/Cheney out of office was imperative not only to end our occupation of Iraq responsibly, but also to uphold our Constitution and rule of law.