Why are Democrats so "skittish" about Iraq?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

If the majority of the American public supports withdrawal of all or most of our troops from Iraq, why do (most) Democrats still seem perpetually "skittish" about doing anything and everything to start getting them out of there? It should be obvious (at least to anybody paying attention) that Bush thinks that he has absolute authority to make ALL decisions related to the military and that, unless Congress flat-out pulls the plug on the funding for military operations in Iraq, he will withdraw our troops from Iraq ONLY when he feels like it and he has all but made it clear to everybody that he doesn't even expect to be the one to even make that decision unless circumstances in Iraq get SO BAD that he loses the support of a large number of members of his own party (and maybe not even then!). It should be clear that, barring some unforeseen "miracle", our military no longer controls the situation in Iraq in any meaningful way and we are doing little in the way of actually protecting the Iraqi people given the daily casualty counts, both among Iraqi civilians and "coalition" soldiers. The only explanation for the Democrat's timidity and apparent unwillingness to do anything other than attempt to pass a bunch of "toothless" resolutions that I can come up with is that the public (and maybe even some Democrats) seems to be buying into the RW spin that if Congress cuts the funding for our troops it would leave our soldiers without basic supplies and leave them stranded in Iraq (more) vulnerable to enemy attacks (conveniently ignoring the fact that many of our troops ALREADY lack vital supplies and ARE vulnerable to enemy attacks despite the massive amount of money that we have been spending on military operations in Iraq). I don't understanding why Democrats can't argue for cutting the funding for our current OPEN-ENDED occupation "policy" (that Bush has essentially been pushing) but providing the funds to safely withdraw our troops from Iraq, which seems to be what most people want. The ONLY "alternative" plan out there that I think sounds remotely reasonable is Murtha's plan to establish clear and concise goals/benchmarks for our continued military involvement in Iraq, but this is something which, frankly,should have been done a LONG time ago and its value seems minimal given the (un-)likelihood that any of these goals/benchmarks could ever be met soon and without substantially INCREASED military involvement.

[Gardasil]

1. Because they are being scared by a sensationalistic...

media that wants to see our side fail. Everyone knows the media in the hands of the right wing and religion nutzies.

That's why you hear the media talk about "the democrats being weak". on "terror".

[The Count]

3. That, and possibly more personal forms of blackmail

[Gardasil]

4. Well, you do have Lieber"man" in their caucus.

He is probably a mole for the Whitehouse.

[leftofthedial]

2. they aren't governing at the moment

they are jockeying for position with one another and with the repukes

check back in 2009, after the campaign is over

[quinnox]

5. It takes time

One reason could be is that they are enjoying the damage this is doing to the republican party. The longer it goes on the worse it will get for the republicans until maybe they will face a total wipeout in the 2008 elections, both presidency and the congress.

The polls have shown a progressively worse opinion and eventually it will be overwhelming sentiment and this helps the Dems and hurts the republicans.

[maxsolomon]

7. this 100 billion supplemental is the now. there is no more time.

this is the opportunity to end it. now.

pass a bill to fully "support the troops" in their withdrawal from iraq.

[TayTay]

6. Some Democrats are

Some are not. It is wrong to say that all Democrats are skittish about Iraq. This is a way to negate all action and pretend that no one cares.

There are a number of people in both the House and the Senate who have been working very hard to make changes in Iraq and have proposed legislation to hold this Admin accountable for their actions. We should be singling those people out for their actions, not blanket-condemning everyone.

[bagrman]

11. I would think that we are experiencing how it works in a fascist state.

The military complex that has been nursing off the gov. teat for so long is now wagging the dog. WE have known for a long time that "we the people" have been out of the loop for a while, that the "money talks BS walks" program has been running things for a while. Multi national corporations are draining the public coffers and it's going to stay that way for a while, " money trumps peace". We are building an embassy that is bigger than the Vatican, we aren't going anywhere. The Dems will put on the goat and pony show and the repukes will keep anything from happening, They've been given their marching orders "Twig" is staying, and if the populace gets out of hand we'll crash the economy, then they can worry about that.

Latr

[Proud Liberal Dem]

13. No argument with you there

Of course, there are SOME Democrats that ARE trying to do something about Iraq. I didn't mean to paint them all with such a broad "brush", however it seems like there is a distinct (and disturbing) lack of support and enthusiasm among many in the leadership (i.e. Reid) for those whom support measures stronger than "embarrassment" to stop the daily carnage in Iraq.

[MissB]

8. bump

[BlueManDude]

9. "end up like a dog that's been beat too much...

'til you spend half you're life, coverin' up." Springsteen BITUSA.

[cassiepriam]

10. Cowards who been scared by the Rove propaganda machine.

Are there no statesmen who will come forward and do the right thing?

[walldude]

12. Battered wife syndrome...

Really...

[Quantess]

14. The Dems in office still probably get intimidated by a dirty look from across the aisle. (EOM)