On the war - what is the difference between Dem leadership and Rethug Obstructionists?

[RiverStone]

No sarcasm intended. Here are two examples expressing similar sentiments from well knowns....


From a speech by Michael Moore at the University at Buffalo last week:

"What on Earth makes you think a Democrat is going to be elected next year when they don't even have the spine to take the victory that's been handed to them and do something with it?" he said, noting that in a recent debate, none of the top three Democratic presidential candidates would commit to a complete withdrawal of American troops from Iraq by 2013, despite 4,000 U.S. troop deaths and at least 20,000 injuries in the conflict since 2003. "Last November, they were given a very clear message by the people of the United States to stop this war," he added. "Not only have they failed to stop the war, they are enablers of the war."

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mikeinthenews/index.php?id=10340



Helen Thomas (10/3/07):

President Bush has no better friends than the spineless Democratic congressional leadership and the party's leading presidential candidates when it comes to his failing Iraq policy.

These Democrats seem to have forgotten that the American people want U.S. troops out of Iraq, especially since Bush still cannot give a credible reason for attacking Iraq after nearly five years of war.

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_7074632


************************************

Couple the remarks above with the recent 92-3 Senate vote to provide Shrub with another 150 billion for his dirty little war (per John Fogerty's great new song) and look how the lines between what defines a rethug and a Dem on the Iraq war debate continue to blur. I know we did not start the damn thing or dig up the lies that led us there, but in the here and now I have a question:

What is the difference between the Democratic Leadership position on the war and the Republican position?

I'm referring to the "Democratic Leadership" - Dennis Kucinich has unequivocally expressed from the get go his anti-war position and later, his plan to withdraw the troops.

I will definitely be voting DEM in the General Election; but for all the Independents and fence sitters, I believe we need an obvious contrast. I'm not sure what that is anymore on the war debate? Without a clear contrast, 2009 may mark the year liberals form a new Progressive Party that truly reflects our agenda.

[The_Casual_Observer]

1. In the end, it's really up to bush to end the war.

Short of de-funding the whole thing, which isn't going to happen for a variety of reasons, it's up to bush & republicans, it's their problem.