The Iraq War and the Democrats: the 100 lb Gorilla in the Room.

[ludwigb]

We all know that 41 Dems in the Senate voted to fund and extend the Iraq War. When the vote comes back up again later this summer, chances are most of them will vote the same way again. Most of us have read the reasons why--it's the GOP's war, the mass media will crucify Dems for being "weak", yada yada yada.

The Democratic party strategy is craven and immoral, and everyone knows it, including the average American. How can the Democratic Party pretend they are an opposition party when they vote like this? Nobody here on DU or anywhere else wants to talk about it. Instead we see the typical anti-Nader threads... What a benevolent coincidence.... a convenient object for hatred even though the real betrayal is from the party that claims to represent us.

People here at DU feel the need to take out their frustrations on people like Ralph Nader and Joe Liebermann. After all, they deserve it. But just as the right-wing's indulgence in resentment and hatred blinds them from hard facts, hating the likes of Liebermann and Nader is a way to repress the all-too-shameful reality. Democrats continue to vote for the war for no other reason then craven political calculation. When 2008 rolls around and Democrats try to explain why they are more trustworthy and/or accountable than the opposition, the GOP will point to the Dems continued support for this war. Their failure to stand up for principle and end this atrocity.

If the Democrats are not accountable to us, the base, than who are they accountable to? Until we stand up and declare that we will support no politician who funds this war, then we have absolutely no right to lecture advocates for a third party or even Republicans for that matter.

Face it, DU. The American people will never come around to trusting the Democratic party until the Democrats demonstrate accountability--that means following through on ending this shameful war!

[goodhue]

1. Truer words were never posted on DU

Except that some of us on DU do want to talk about it. And Nader is best left out of analysis entirely.

[babylonsister]

2. I'm holding out hope that the Dems realize what a mistake they made

in prolonging this war in the name of funding the troops. The blood being spilled now is partially on their hands; I hope they recognize that. But hey! I'm an optimist, and that's hard to be in this day and age.

[welshTerrier2]

7. i think the Dems do realize they made a mistake

unfortunately, they think the only mistake they made was miscalculating the intensity of political blowback from caving in to bush ... the good news is, they'll probably offer something better the next time; the bad news is, their values and understanding of foreign policy are badly lacking.

so, i'm a little optimistic too ... for all the wrong reasons ...

[nancyr]

3. Spineless wimps.

They answer to whomever controls the purse strings. They certainly don't answer to the people who voted them into office under false pretenses. They've lost any credibility they might have had. I know of no-one who has any respect for any of them. A pity.

[globalvillage]

4. These should come up for vote before the July 4 recess

I think Reid and the other Dems heard the reaction, and I don't believe we'll see anything like that last vote in this next round. The best thing we can do now is to contact the ones who need urging and have them get behind these proposals.

The four Democratic proposals are currently being written and are in varying stages of completion.

On timelines for withdrawal, the Senate will take up a version of language contained in the vetoed supplemental (HR 1591 — H Rept 110-107). It would require that the withdrawal begin in 120 days, save for a limited force to carry out missions such as training Iraqis, fighting terrorists and defending U.S. personnel and assets.

The legislation would set a goal of completing this withdrawal by a date certain. In the first supplemental, it was March 2008. But Carl Levin, D-Mich., the Armed Services chairman and an author of the provision, said that date could change.

The readiness provision, meanwhile, is being written by Jim Webb, D-Va., who was once secretary of the Navy. Webb said it would almost certainly require that U.S. forces stay home between deployments for at least as long as they are deployed. He added that he would probably include a waiver in the event of an “unexpected crisis.”

The proposal furthest from completion is the reauthorization of the war, Reid said. It is expected to echo a resolution that Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., discussed last month. It would require Bush to renew the war authorization before he could extend military operations beyond Oct. 11.

http://public.cq.com/docs/cqt/news110-000002530202.html

[MadHound]

5. I fully agree with your point

And contend that it is not only the Dems stance on this latest war funding bill, but how in general they have failed to represent their constituents not just on the war, but on many issues throughout the past six plus years. The Patriot Act, NCLB, the bankruptcy bill, all of these and more have gone through Congress with substantial Democratic support.

This is just the apex of a curve that has been climbing for the past thirty plus years. It has just now become more apparent how little our so called leaders care about the opinions and wishes of their constituents.

[partylessinOhio]

6. If the Democrats don't stand for something and continue to be weak

enablers of Bush, I fear we will have another 8-16 years of Repug control of this country. We cannot survive that.

We need to clean out congress - Pelosi and Reid haven't done the job. Pelosi's favorable rating is down - read below.

[welshTerrier2]

8. "craven political calculation" ... and perhaps O-I-L ???

the OP stated: "Democrats continue to vote for the war for no other reason then craven political calculation."

but perhaps they too are in bed with Big Oil ...

HAS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, AND CANDIDATES LIKE OBAMA AND CLINTON, STOOD UP LOUDLY AND CLEARLY TO PROCLAIM THAT PROCEEDS FROM IRAQI OIL BELONG TO THE IRAQI PEOPLE AND THAT THE US SHOULD NOT PRESSURE THE IRAQIS TO "PRIVATIZE" (I.E. ALLOW TO BE STOLEN) THEIR OIL ????????????????????????????

the day before the invasion of Iraq, in an effort to sell the war to the British Parliament, Tony Blair said the following:

"The United Kingdom should seek a new Security Council Resolution that would affirm... the use of all oil revenues for the benefit of the Iraqi people."

Is he still saying that? Are you hearing that as a fundamental message from a majority of Democrats? Is your candidate making this argument? Where are the Obama and Clinton cheerleaders? Will they be voicing an opinion on this in this thread? I don't think so.

for an extensive discussion of the Democrats position on the Oil Law, read this thread ...

here was the concluding paragraph from that thread:

my measure of any who seek to lead this country will point very directly at how they address this issue ... either the oil belongs to the Iraqi people and any and all contracts with Big Oil should be voided, or we, Democrats and all, are imperialists ... let's hope that is not what we're seeing ...

STOP THE WAR NOW; VOID THE OIL CONTRACTS; BRING THE TROOPS HOME: PROSECUTE THE PERPE-TRAITORS !!!

[chaska]

9. 100 pound gorilla?

Male gorillas weigh 500-600 lbs at maturity.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[ludwigb]

10. LOL

My bad.