An Inconvenient Truth

Neil the Ethical Werewolf observes:

The silver lining behind Democratic capitulation on Iraq, to talk like a mathematician, is that it reduces the 2008 election to a problem previously solved. 2006 showed us that we can destroy the GOP in an election where public anger about the continuing Iraq War is the big issue, and in 2008 we'll be replaying that scenario with 7 more GOP Senators up for re-election than last time.

Nobody seems to want to mention it because it's impolite, but I think this is almost certainly a factor in the congressional politics of Iraq. Not only are Democrats afraid of taking certain kinds of political risks to end the war, but they see no prospect of a political upside to ending it. There was a fairly overwhelming belief in Washington in mid-to-late November 2006 that Republicans would start moving to end the war in January. It didn't happen, but then came the belief that they would start to abandon ship in September 2007, which also didn't happen. But given that Republicans aren't doing what everyone expected them to do and reducing their political exposure on Iraq by winding the war down, Democrats are disinclined to go out on a limb to do it for them.

Comments

But given that Republicans aren't doing what everyone expected them to do and reducing their political exposure

Maybe National Review is calling the shots. They seem to believe that "playing politics" with a ruinous and unjust war is less excusable than prosecuting a ruinous and unjust war.

Posted by Bill | September 16, 2007 4:41 PM

"The silver lining behind Democratic capitulation on Iraq..."

Who wants such Democrates in power? They're indistinguishable from the Republicans. Your friend contemplates a pointless victory, as we've seen.

Posted by Guy in Jersey | September 16, 2007 4:49 PM

I didn't expect that Dems in Congress were going to end the war before January 2009. I did think they'd make a better effort of it, though.

In any case, I hope they realize that in 2009, with the likelihood of Dem control of the House, Senate, and White House, it will be their war. They can't run against Bush in '10 and '12, so they better the hell do something to get us out of Iraq.

Posted by JJF | September 16, 2007 4:50 PM

This is absolutely 100% true Matt, and you're right that no one is talking about it. You're right that earlier many Republicans were wavering, but after the O'Pollahan stuff and Petraeus I'm amazed at how they're once again solidly behind the war. Just how stupid are they?

Posted by Random Dude | September 16, 2007 4:51 PM

It's not that (or just that) Democrats "are afraid of taking certain kinds of political risks to end the war" . . . it's that they cannot end the war as long as Bush is in the White House. They. Cannot. End. It.

There's no way. Bush will veto any passed bill he doesn't like. There will never be 67 votes in the Senate to end the war over his veto. The Democrats cannot defund the war because even if they refuse to pass any funding for the war, Bush can always take it from another part of government spending and let the courts fight out the legality of that over the next few years. The Democrats cannot refuse to fund the entire government, and even if they did, Bush could do what Clinton and Rubin did in the Mexican crisis and find some dollars floating around not approved by Congress.

Sure, the Democrats could (try to) do what Kos suggests and keep sending bills for Bush to veto and then pass monthly supplements, but I fail to see the point of that. I suspect the embarrasssment to Bush (and the Republicans) would be minor.

So that is it. One way or another Bush will continue the war until he leaves office, whether Democrats are timid or bold.

And that's the way it is, and we'll just to have to deal with it. If someone else has a bright idea about how the Democrats can actually end the war before 2009, I'd like to hear it. I haven't heard it yet.

Posted by santamonicamr | September 16, 2007 4:54 PM

Seems true and unfortunate.

I can't help wondering, though, if this will work out as well as it's supposed to. Lowest approval rating of any congress ever, and all that.

Posted by Mike Meginnis | September 16, 2007 4:58 PM

That's pretty much what the Democratic party stands for these days -- let the Republicans do all the horrible things they want, so that we'll look better.

Anyone see the flaws in this logic?

Apparently not; Democratic voters keep falling for it.

Posted by Alan in SF | September 16, 2007 5:17 PM

...then came the belief that they would start to abandon ship in September 2007, which also didn't happen.

September ain't over.

Posted by Grumpy | September 16, 2007 5:28 PM

Jeff Nuding, Iraq veteran who voted for Sen. Clinton asks her and Congress to "choose victory". Does this make him a Democratic wingnut?

"Iraq veteran from N.Y. urges Clinton, Schumer and Congress to choose victory," NY Daily News:

"My soldiers know about the long and painful costs of war. All of us left our civilian jobs for a year and a half, and left our families and loved ones behind. Some lost their families or their marriages, and some lost their grip on home or health.

Yet none of us in the military serve under any illusion. We know what we signed up for. That's why so many of us reenlist.

Wars take time. They require steady will and determination. They compel commitment.

If fighting Saddam Hussein, and later Al Qaeda, in Iraq was important when earlier in this mission, they should still be important today. Al Qaeda is badly wounded there and elsewhere, but they aren't dead yet. Iraq is making gains as a democratic nation, but they still need help. They still need time.

[...]

Leaders influence the morale of their people, for good or bad. I wish you wanted to lead your constituents toward victory rather than defeat."

Perhaps if Hillary gets elected president next year, she will come around to Nuding's way of thinking? The netroots would scream, but in a country with only two major parties they would have nowhere else to go.

Posted by Juan | September 16, 2007 5:59 PM

Perhaps if Hillary gets elected president next year, she will come around to Nuding's way of thinking? The netroots would scream, but in a country with only two major parties they would have nowhere else to go.

But why would she come around to his way of thinking? Her advisors and policy-makers and executive branch staff is going to end up being made up of Democratic party activists, not Nudings and "Gathering of Eagles" types who are far, far outside the mainstream of public opinion at the moment. If Hillary wants to keep her job, she would be advised to get out of Iraq, lest she be outflanked on her left by a "I end the mess in Iraq" Republican candidate in 2012. Just because Republicans are stupid and self-destructive now doesn't mean they'll remain so when another opportunity to take the White House appears.

Posted by Tyro | September 16, 2007 6:06 PM

There is no important difference between Clinton and Bush on Iraq.

Posted by Peter Driscoll | September 16, 2007 6:09 PM

The danger in this Democratic strategy is that Bush & Co. will go for broke and go do something really, really dangerous, and (they hope) irreversible. E.g., attack Iran, attack Syria. What will the Democrats do then? I can only hope that Pelosi and Reid have thought hard about this, have talked to other members of Congress about it and have an actual plan.

Posted by MattF | September 16, 2007 6:11 PM

santamonicamr is right. The Dems do not yet have the votes. They can't end the war. So why complain when they play it slow and cautious?

All the Demorats have to do is make it clear that IF they had the votes we would be leaving.

2008 comes down to this:

Those who want out will tend to vote Dem.

We have a winning hand. Why overplay it now? People seem to forget that the only reason Dems have a Senate majority is Because Lieberman (I) chooses to caucus with the Democrats. That is our margin.

People who think we can force the President out of a war, solely using the power of the purse, with a majority so slim, don't know politics.

Posted by tomtom | September 16, 2007 6:13 PM

I agree that that is probably a factor in their thinking but it is an amazingly immoral strategy. Anyone who actually thinks like this is immoral in the extreme.

One day many Americans are going to wake up and realize, "Oh my god! We killed a MILLION people in Iraq because we took George Bush at his word when we should have known better. Our country has commited an act of heinous evil on par with the worst war crimes in history -- equal to Rwanda, as bad if not worse than Saddam himself, and within about an order of magnitude of Hitler."

But that day hasn't arrived yet, and in the meantime people are still calculating like the Iraq War was just a small military action with a little bit of collateral damage. In that case, why not prolong the war for political advantage?

I say "many Americans" above instead of all because the truth will undoubtedly prove too much for many to take. Like a victim of extreme child abuse, they will simply block it out of their minds.

This is the horror. If there is a Hell, George W. Bush is going there. He'll have a lot of his friends around down there too.

Posted by Junius Brutus | September 16, 2007 6:35 PM

Al Qaeda is badly wounded there and elsewhere, but they aren't dead yet.

Define badly wounded.

There is a new crop of 18 year-olds every year. GWOT is the perfect capitalist tool.

Posted by bleat my little talking point bleat | September 16, 2007 6:36 PM

So dems also think that people are stupid.

We are all so fucked.

Posted by gregor | September 16, 2007 6:37 PM

"But why would she come around to his way of thinking?"

Because it will be better for her politically to preside over an improving situation in Iraq than to withdraw military support prematurely and let Iraq collapse. If she does that, she'd be a one-term president like Ford.

The reality is that Iraq is likely to stabilize eventually, and that trend may have already started. The dog that didn't bark in the last few weeks was the rash of high-casualty suicide bombings everyone expected in the lead-up to the Petraeus-Crocker testimony. There was the big bombing of the Yezidis along the Syrian border, but nothing like what we are used to seeing from AQI in terms of quantity. If the trend continues or even accelerates under a President Clinton, she can take credit for it.

Posted by Juan | September 16, 2007 6:43 PM

Juan, if AQI was a main problem behind the instability in Iraq, I would consider your argument relevant. As it is, you're simply distracting from the issue, especially considering that AQI's waning had nothing to do with the surge.

If we're not out of Iraq in 2012, the candidate who wins the presidential election will be the one promising to get us out of it. The state of Iraq itself is irrelevant to whomever is in office in 2012, as far as the voters are concerned, who disagree about our presence there.

Posted by Tyro | September 16, 2007 6:48 PM

"Define badly wounded."

Running out of safe havens in Iraq, with a combination of U.S. military and local pressure driving them out of more places.

Unable to launch a successful attack on U.S. soil in six years.

Having difficulty recruiting high-quality recruits/copy cats/franchisees. From the masters-educated engineers of 9/11 to the pathetic black Muslim terrorists in Florida, to the bumbling Bosnians in New Jersey, etc.

Osama too weak to even credibly threaten any violence outside of Iraq, and instead having to resort to confused Marxist ramblings of an American undergraduate.

Posted by Juan | September 16, 2007 6:53 PM

Junius Brutus

A single line gives you away:

"why not prolong the war for political advantage?"

The Dems don't have the votes to stop the war!!!!

This war is being prolonged by Republicans!! Get it through your heads, because it will be a damn important point to make in 2008.

This conversation is too much like conversations with Nader voters in 2000. So sanctimonious that they wouldn't sully themselves with political reality, they voted for Nader in swing states, and damn the consequences.

If the Democrats now had a 55%/45% edge in both houses we might have a chance to take on Bush by defunding the entire government, if necessary. It would be a brutal battle, the other side would fight dirty, and we would take losses, but we would have a chance. The idea that we could prevail with that same strategy when we hold the Senate only because Joe Lieberman is reluctantly caucusing with the Democrats is crazy!

Posted by tomtom | September 16, 2007 6:58 PM

Tyro,

The decline in major AQI bombings is just one example of the trend. Other examples include the Shiite reaction to the recent Mahdi violence at Karbala, and the resulting crackdown on Mahdi extremists by the Shiite government, as well as Sadr's unilateral ceasefire. First Sunni tribes starting tiring of AQI, and now Shiites are growing wary of the more radical Shiite militias.

Posted by Juan | September 16, 2007 7:03 PM

"But why would she (Hillary) come around to his way of thinking?"

"Because it will be better for her politically to preside over an improving situation in Iraq than to withdraw military support prematurely and let Iraq collapse."

I am afraid that Hillary may be thinking along these lines. In the short term it would be better to preside over an improving situation (provided US deaths slow) than to leave and watch Iraq fall into chaos.

But, the situation may only (seem to)improve because ethnic cleansing and migration into camps have reduced the number of targets. Without political reconcliation (between Shiites & Sunnins)Iraq is likely to descend into civil when we leave, whether we leave sooner or later.

So is it really better for a (Hillary) to preside over 4 or 8 years without any real progress? By then Democrats will be fully complicit in this war, and the death toll would be higher.

On broad moral and narrow political grounds it is better for the Democrats to lead us out sooner rather than later. The far right will blame us for the loss, and mutter darkly about the stab in the back, but theirs will be a minority view. 2/3 of Americans will just be glad it is over.

Posted by tomtom | September 16, 2007 7:14 PM

Feh.

and oops.

Posted by Monty | September 16, 2007 7:22 PM

Good link, Monty.

Let's hope it is a mistake, and Hillary is not that unbalanced.

Posted by tomtom | September 16, 2007 7:28 PM

This merely demonstrates that Democrats are political opportunists no difference than corrupt Republicans.

Would be nice if Josh Marshall was willing to cover Democratic corruption as much as he covers Republican corruption. And don't tell me it isn't there - it's just not as obvious as the stupid Republicans.

But I digress.

Somebody want to explain how the Democrats are going to win 2008 with this strategy when the war in Iran starts in the next three to nine months - probably in less than six?

If you look at the news over the last week, I'd say there's a damn good chance the war in Iran will start before Christmas. It certainly will start before the elections next year in any event, and one story this week suggested before the election season begins next year.

The Democrats are not just going to inherit the Iraq war - they're going to inherit the Iran war.

Anybody see a Democrat around who is capable to going to the American people - and AIPAC - and saying "We have to unilaterally stop the war in Iran"?

So what difference will it make if the Republicans take the blame for the Iraq war AND the Iran war? Do you see any difference in the end result FOR THIS COUNTRY?

No, all you political clowns care about is your baseball game - which political scumbags "win".

You people just have the most amazing blinders on that I've ever seen a human wear.

As for Juan - he's clueless, cherry-picking and misinterpreting everything that happens there so he can maintain his "happy state" over the course of the Iraq situation. Just another stupid right wing nut.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 16, 2007 7:51 PM

Not only are Democrats afraid of taking certain kinds of political risks to end the war, but they see no prospect of a political upside to ending it.

And after we take the WH, what will be the upside of ending the war and risking chaos?

So is it really better for a (Hillary) to preside over 4 or 8 years without any real progress? By then Democrats will be fully complicit in this war,

The Dems are already fully complicit.

In January 2009, we take ownership of a war for which we have no plan, no strategy, and no vision. There will be no upside to ending it and so it will continue while we play for time and pray things miraculously improve.

Posted by Just Karl | September 16, 2007 8:01 PM

Richard Hack,
You seem to have a monochrome mind. If you can't tell the difference between Republican corruption and Democratic "corruption" you have faulty wiring. Maybe all the foam around your mouth shorted it out.

Just Karl,
The Democrats are not "already fully complicit" in the Iraq war. You are either a Republican mole, or like our fiend Mr. Hack, you are incapable of seeing shades of gray.

As far as a political upside, Democrats:

1. Don't have the votes to end the war now, full stop.
2. Dems will reap benefits in 2008, because the Republicans are not ending the war, and too few Democrats were elected to do the job. The motto for 2008 will be if you want it to end, you'll likely vote Dem

Once in power, if the Dems don't pull out, then they will own the war, and then they will pay if we stay in. So if we get power there will then be one hell of an upside to ending the war, because we want to win in 2010.

I know a lot of you find this political chess offensive. Grow up. If you want to get out of Iraq stop bitching and help the Democrats win so they are on the hook. Living in some fantasyland where Democrats are keeping us in Iraq is babyish. There are 49 Democratic Senators. We do not (yet) have the power to yank Republicans by the short hairs.

BTW, if you really care about Iraq voting for Hillary is hard to justify, because if elected she seems most likely to drag this war out.

Posted by tomtom | September 16, 2007 8:23 PM

There are 49 Democratic Senators

I understand not counting Lieberman, but who's the other non-Democrat? You kind of have to count Bernie as being on our team.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | September 16, 2007 8:35 PM

Neil,
Right you are, Bernie is on our teams. But even so when Lieberman defects we have a 50/50 tie with Cheney as the tiebrteaker.

The basics remain, Democrats don't (yet) have the votes.

Blowing our wad on a vain hail mary to end the war now would likely as not lengthen the war. A loss is a loss is a loss.

That is the point I'm making. Count Bernie as a Dem; (although technically he's not) it doesn't change the picture.

Maybe we'll get some Republican defection. Otherwise it is 2008 if you want change.

Posted by tomtom | September 16, 2007 8:48 PM

..., to talk like a mathematician, is that it reduces the 2008 election to a problem previously solved.

To talk like a philosopher, *sigh*.

Posted by Mike | September 16, 2007 8:59 PM

"I know a lot of you find this political chess offensive. Grow up. If you want to get out of Iraq stop bitching and help the Democrats win so they are on the hook. Living in some fantasyland where Democrats are keeping us in Iraq is babyish."

Its not babyish. Democrats had a chance to stop, or at least put the kibosh additional funds to Bush's stupid war last spring and they buckled like a belt. "Let's wait for the surge results" is the same as saying Yes Sir, lets continue this farce.

Had the Democrats actually opposed Bush's escalation/surge, you could argue they want to end the Iraq war and bring the troops home. But they didn't.

It is amazing to me, given my view that Democrats swept the congressional elections last year because the US citizenry believes the Iraq war is bullshit, that Democrats REFUSE TO OPENLY OPPOSE THIS STUPID WAR.

Posted by Monty | September 16, 2007 9:00 PM

tomtom,

Anyone who voted for this war is complicit in it's outcome. When you grow up you might be able to recognize the difference between shit and shinola. Cowardice is always a nuanced position.

The likely motto for 2010 will be, so we're not out yet, but what alternative do you have?

Posted by Just Karl | September 16, 2007 9:20 PM

How do you ask someone to be the last to die for a Democratic election campaign?

Posted by Moorlock | September 16, 2007 9:36 PM

Monty,
"Democrats had a chance to stop, or at least put the kibosh additional funds to Bush's stupid war last spring and they buckled like a belt"

Really? What veto-proof majority did they have? Or are you suggesting we should have done a Newt and shut down the gov't until Bush signed on? You really think that would have worked?

Just Karl,
"Anyone who voted for this war is complicit in it's outcome" I agree 100%. But you said earlier "The Dems are already fully complicit" Really? John Edwards is just as complicit as Cheney or Bush? That's crazy talk.

The motto for 2008 will be if you want it to end, you'll likely vote Dem

I pray to God that we elect Democrats who will pull out. I wish Richardson was running better.

Then the motto for 2010 can be aren't you glad we're out of that hellhole? Health Care, anyone?

Moorlock
Not very clever. Vote for an anti-war Dem and help us get enough of a majority to stop the war. We aren't there yet.

Posted by tomtom | September 16, 2007 10:52 PM

The netroots claim that the 2006 election was a mandate to seek US defeat and retreat in Iraq would be as bad a read of the will of the people as the Democrat's "read" that the 1974 Watergate vote was a "mandate" to stab S Vietnam in the back and abandon Cambodia to Khymer Rouge.

1974 was a repudiation of Republicans, not a popular will request to lose a war.

Democrats paid dearly for that with 28 years of Republicans and Centrist Democrat rule.

2006 will be seen later as a repudiation of Republican corruption, Open Borders globalism, kow-towing to rich and theocrats in their domestic policies, reckless spending, an abysmal President leading the show with bungling on major issues and problems including horrific management of Iraq that was putting us in danger of LOSING.

It was not a mandate from the American People seeking a Far Left agenda of America's defeat and humiliation at the hands of Jihadis.

It was not a mandate of the American People for more terrorist rights and taxpayers picking up their million dollar lawyer defense tabs.

In a sense, it would be good for the country to allow the Far Left heirs of McGovern a 4-year shot at governing. The worst that could happen is 200 dollar a barrel oil, real civil war in Iraq, a bunch of Blue Staters killed by Jihadis - then the country resets for 30 more years of rational adult rule with even less Blue State bastions permitted to have influence..

Over reaction to Nixon caused the McGovernites disgrace and the distrust of ever letting liberals be in charge of security against criminals and enemy combatants.

Why not suck it up, watch Democrats in NYC die, Iraqis massacred, Iran with nuke bombs...then enjoy 30 years repairing America?

Posted by Chris Ford | September 16, 2007 11:23 PM

know a lot of you find this political chess offensive. Grow up. If you want to get out of Iraq stop bitching and help the Democrats win so they are on the hook. Living in some fantasyland where Democrats are keeping us in Iraq is babyish. There are 49 Democratic Senators. We do not (yet) have the power to yank Republicans by the short hairs.

People like you are why I'm scrapping my Democratic Party registration after about 40 years as a registered Dem. Since January, the Dems have done little but betray their constituents. (Actually, they started that in a big way with the original Iraq rollover in '02, but things were supposed to be different after this last election.) So many clever little calculations, so much "facing reality", and it's brought us nothing but tragedy. You've got a helluva lot of gall, telling people to "grow up" when you obviously can't learn from experience that's still fresh.

Posted by sglover | September 17, 2007 2:05 AM

sglover, what tomtom is arguing is that the Democratic Party doesn't have the power to stop the war. If he's right, you might as well get angry at your next-door neighbor or your mother or your kids for not stopping the war, because they don't have the power either. We need 51 no votes to defund it, and even a united party plus Bernie gives us 50. Basically, we have one of the crappiest majorities in the history of Senate majorities -- it's only a majority because an insane non-Democrat war supporter (L-CT) caucuses with us.

I don't know whether tomtom is right. But you have to give some reason to think that the Democrats can stop the war before you get mad at them.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | September 17, 2007 2:51 AM

"If you want to get out of Iraq stop bitching and help the Democrats win so they are on the hook."

Look, stupid, you did that last year. And where are we THIS year?

I'd rather foam at the mouth than have foam in my brain pan like you do.

The Democrats are gutless, corrupt politicians. Diane Feinstein? We KNOW her here in San Francisco. She's owned and operated by PG&E. Boxer? A lying pinch-faced bitch. I sent both these bitches emails asking about their policy on Iran. Neither of them addressed it directly; one didn't even mention Iran in the response.

The rest of the Dems are equal losers.

You keep harping on "lack of votes". That doesn't mean SQUAT. If the Dems were at all interested in stopping the war, they'd be on on the media DAILY making sure everybody knew WHO was behind the war. They'd be running investigations of everything. They'd be agitating for impeachment regardless of whether it could happen or not. They'd GET votes once enough Republicans were told by THEIR constituents that they were voting Democrat next year.

You're just another nitwit whose only interest is in playing a baseball game with national security, US lives, and US taxpayer dollars, just so your preferred cheap politicians WIN. A partisan fool who doesn't see the writing on the wall.

Just about everybody who's bothered to look is scared shitless that Bush and Cheney are going to start bombing sometime in the next six months. Are you just too blinded by partisan politics to see what is going down in every bit of news out of Iraq and Iran about the run up to another war?

So answer the fucking question you dodged with your bullshit response: what are the Dems going to do about IRAN? How are they going to get us out of Iraq if they're on board with going into Iran?

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 17, 2007 2:51 AM

"But you have to give some reason to think that the Democrats can stop the war before you get mad at them."

Look, rocket scientist. Like I said, if the Dems were REALLY interested in stopping the war, they would be TRYING to do it instead of compromising and refusing to even TRY to dump Bush and Cheney.

They also have to show some semblance of trying to prevent the NEXT war in Iran - which NONE of them have done.

So don't give me any crap about not being mad at them. They're cheap, lying, corrupt politicians not significantly different from the Republicans. They're the Democrat side of the War Party and they're flushing this country down the tubes.

You think fucking Iraq was bad? You think the Dems should be IGNORING the fact that Iran will be at least FOUR TIMES WORSE? You don't care? You don't believe it because you have blinders on? You don't even want to THINK about how much damage such a war will do to the US economy, to the US military, to the US position geopolitically?

Christ, pack of morons here...

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 17, 2007 2:56 AM

"Christ, pack of morons here..."

With Richard Steven Hack leading the pack.

Posted by Petey | September 17, 2007 2:58 AM

"sglover, what tomtom is arguing is that the Democratic Party doesn't have the power to stop the war. If he's right, you might as well get angry at your next-door neighbor or your mother or your kids for not stopping the war, because they don't have the power either. We need 51 no votes to defund it, and even a united party plus Bernie gives us 50."

Personally, I'm angry at sglover's next-door neighbor for not stopping the war. I think it's almost exclusively his fault.

-----

Beyond the obvious point that Neil voices, it's worth noting just how historically radical a step it would be for Congress to defund the war, assuming the highly unlikely event that the votes could be wrangled up and survive the veto showdown with Bush.

To the best of my knowledge, Congress has never used the power of the purse to recall US troops already in the field over the objection of the CiC during the entire history of the Republic.

That's not to say it's impossible, but we've had some pretty unpopular wars before, and the fact that it's never happened should give some evidence of how difficult it would be.

Posted by Petey | September 17, 2007 3:06 AM

Yo Richard Steven Hackmeister,

Apparently you've been under a rock your entire life, and have just awoken to the fact that politicians usually act like politicians. Let it go, you'll feel better for it. You want that ideal world, keep voting for the third & fourth party candidates. Or you know, foment a revolution. And take a civics class or something, instead of screaming your ass off to everybody about how politicians keep making political calculations in a two-party system. I mean, great, you're over to one side of the political spectrum, good for you. HELLO. YOU'RE IN THE MINORITY. The people in office have to base their decisions on a different slice of the electorate. They're not going to stage a sit-in at the Pentagon to appease the likes of you. That doesn't make them "cheap and corrupt"; it makes them rational actors. Just because you disagree with their calculus doesn't mean you're calling spades.

Morally speaking, I think Bush should've been impeached immediately after no WMDs turned up. Just because it didn't and couldn't happen, doesn't autmatically make every Democrat a lying corrupt sack. Gee, what nuance I'm capable of.

Here's the real reason why Democrats can't "end this war." Because its not theirs (or the Republicans') to end. "We" are killing thousands of people. The Iraqis are killing each other. I'm for withdrawal on balance, but that's not going to end the war. It could even lose the Democrats the following election, if Iraq turns out worse than I believe it will.

Posted by Bill | September 17, 2007 8:15 AM

"We" *aren't*, that is.

Posted by Bill | September 17, 2007 8:18 AM

And before you scream some more about the majority of Americans being against the war, they're by and large only against it because it's going badly, not because they're in a moral lather like you (and me). If things get worse after we pull out that's not exactly a win-win for the Democrats. The memebers of Congress actually have to consider the MANNER in which we force a withdrawal. And that's before the matter of having enough votes.

Plus, as for what the Dems are going to do about Iran, I'm not really sure what you're getting at since they can't exactly tie the President's hands before he acts unilaterally. That's a question to ask of them once something (big) actually happens with regard to Iran.

Posted by Bill | September 17, 2007 8:23 AM

Hack may be a loon, but he's right about one thing: The Dem leadership had no intention of bailing on Iraq this year and they basically led netroots voters along to get their sweep.

If Dems were really interested in "ending the war" (more accurately, accelerating the war, but without the presence of U.S. troops) they would be conducting quiet negotiations with on-the-fence Republicans like Warner and Hagel now instead of public posturing in a lame attempt to appease their netroots.

Posted by Fred | September 17, 2007 9:45 AM

I love moral purity trolls.
So sanctamonious. So pointless.
Uselful idiot doesn't even begin to descibe it.

Their commitment is as deep as a single disappointment. Like buying them a medium slurpee intead of a large one. Man, you traitor, you mediumist sellout, I'm quitting the party. As if anything worthwhile in life can be achieved without some failures and disappointments along the way. The Democratic Party isn't going to change into what I want it to be because I feel angry and tear up my membership card. It takes a little more than that.

Posted by Northern Observer | September 17, 2007 9:56 AM

Tomtom is obviously right, the Dems simply do not have the votes right now. One can add to this the incredible power that the Executive branch has gradually amassed over foreign and military policy, something that the framers of the Constitution clearly tried to avoid but accelerated greatly post-WWII.

Even after we are out of Iraq, it is going to take a long time to roll back the military-industrial complex. This is going to be a multi-decade battle, disappointing to see people bailing after less than a year.

Posted by mq | September 17, 2007 10:41 AM

Jesus H. Christ. For the people who, for the millionth time, are aping the "we ain't got tha votes" song and dance, YOU DO NOT NEED A VETO-PROOF MAJORITY TO NOT PASS A BILL. It is not complicated.

Argue why you don't think it is politically smart to shut down the Bush administration by refusing to fund it, but please quit pretending that the Democrats "cannot" do it. They can, but they won't. I think politically they are taking a shortsighted course, but I guess that remains to be seen (and with the Republicans imploding, I don't know that the Dems can lose in 2008). Morally, I think the Democratic course is bankrupt.

Posted by Jeff in Texas | September 17, 2007 11:23 AM

And honestly folks, if you think Hillary has to "come around" to the idea that staying in Iraq will be her best political bet, you simply have not been paying attention. Even Hillary's plans for leaving Iraq mainly involve a whole lot of staying there. There will be no "coming around" about it, except maybe as a rhetorical dodge during some speech to the netroots explaining her non-change of heart.

Posted by Jeff in Texas | September 17, 2007 11:27 AM

2006 showed us that we can destroy the GOP in an election where public anger about the continuing Iraq War is the big issue

2006 showed us that the public was tired of a supine Congress watching as an incompetent President led the nation to failure.

I see Neil's theory repeated far too often by progressives and particularly partisan Democrats. Democrats in Congress will get credit if they fight to end this catastrophe. They'll get even more credit if they succeed.

If they take the course of action Neil describes Democrats will lose significant support among anti-war Democrats, not to mention Independents and Republicans who crossed over last election. They may keep their majorities, but they'll have planted the seeds for their own unraveling.

Posted by Jinchi | September 17, 2007 12:38 PM

We need 51 no votes to defund it, and even a united party plus Bernie gives us 50.

Funding is an active process. You need to pass legislation to fund the war, not to de-fund it.

That means Republicans need 50 votes (plus Dick Cheney) to pass a bill to their liking. And that means they need Democrats to pass any war funding bill. Last time, they got 37 Democrats in the Senate to rubber stamp Bush's war.

Democrats have the power to control the course of the war by drawing lines they will not cross. All they have to do is refuse to vote for a bad bill.
It's time to stop pretending they have no power over the course of this war. They own it now.

Posted by Jinchi | September 17, 2007 12:47 PM

I don't know whether tomtom is right. But you have to give some reason to think that the Democrats can stop the war before you get mad at them.

Mr. Ethical Werewolf --
I always enjoy your remarks, so I'm grateful for your reply.

Even if I grant your point that the Dems can't stop the war, my mounting contempt for them springs from a boatload of betrayals on issues from economic justice to civil liberties to wars even worse than the Iraq catastrophe. The Dems didn't have to roll over on bankruptcy "reform". The Dems didn't have to roll over on FISA "reform". The Dems didn't have to roll over on a Politburo-like 97-0 resolution that effectively says, "Deal with Iran as you see fit, Mr. Commander in Chief Decider Guy". I don't give a flying fuck if there's but a single Democrat in both Houses. Either he votes in a manner that distinguishes him from his supposed opponents, or he doesn't. And the Dems don't. Time after time. Their pathetic performance on the Iraq war issue is only the worst example.

AND.... I think the Dems like the war just fine. That is, they expect to be the folks winding it down some day, in some manner. But for now, I believe that they're perfectly delighted to have the war as an issue. This is why they refuse to take any "chances" on ending it now. In this way, they are as morally contemptible as Bush and Cheney and the neo-con vampires.

Since it's a Democratic tradition, now, to be not only gutless, but tactically idiotic as well, I note that this "clever" strategy will backfire severely, once the Dems gain their expected electoral sweep. They will have set themselves up perfectly to bear ALL the blame for whatever ugliness occurs in Southwest Asia after they announce peace with honor, or whatever they're going to call it.

Posted by sglover | September 17, 2007 2:51 PM

To the best of my knowledge, Congress has never used the power of the purse to recall US troops already in the field over the objection of the CiC during the entire history of the Republic.

That's not to say it's impossible, but we've had some pretty unpopular wars before, and the fact that it's never happened should give some evidence of how difficult it would be.

God forbid that people who inhabit leadership positions should actually try to, y'know, lead. Christ, odious as he is, at least Gingrich had the stones to actually follow through on his government shutdown game of chicken. Oh, but why should Democrats risk their precious '08 majorities over minutia like an epic foreign policy disaster?

Posted by sglover | September 17, 2007 3:41 PM

Cut the B.S. about the democrats not wanting to end the war--they know they can't end the war because they don't have enough of a majority to override a veto, stop a filibuster or do anything the lockstep Republicans don't like. They barely have a majority, and--like it or not--majority does not rule in America.

Posted by Joe | September 17, 2007 5:26 PM

I agree that Democrats have capitulated on way too many issues over the past several years. But I think things are slowly getting better on that count.

The House and Senate leaders who enabled the war -- Tom Daschle and especially Dick Gephardt -- were replaced by Reid and Pelosi in 2005. Reid and Pelosi proceeded to completely destroy Bush's Social Security Privatization proposal by getting every single Democrat, except one or two in the House, to oppose Bush's plan. That was the moment when I regained confidence in the party. Because Bush's plan died with a whimper, we forget about it, but if it had passed, it would've been by far the biggest domestic policy catastrophe of the Bush era. It failed because Democrats showed surprising unity and toughness and fought back.

The Democratic Party of 2007 is a long distance from where it needs to be. But I think we've spent the last four years moving in the right direction. With the possibility of big Senate gains and a Democratic president ahead of us, I think we could see a victory in 2008 that would make the party self-confident enough to do some really great things.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | September 17, 2007 5:54 PM

With the possibility of big Senate gains and a Democratic president ahead of us, I think we could see a victory in 2008 that would make the party self-confident enough to do some really great things.

I think the dispute here is that those of us who are disgusted by the Democrats capitulation think they'd do much much better in 2008 if they proved they stood for something. Something they're willing to fight for, even if they don't think they can win this round.

Drawing clear lines on the war, insisting on certain standards, showing that Democrats have a fundamental objective to end this folly. Those are the things that would define the party.

Democrats won last round because people were disgusted by the Republicans. They aren't yet sold on the Democrats. It's their job to seal the deal.

As someone who was very happy to see Democrats win the 2006 elections, I have to say I couldn't care less if they kept their majorities next round. And I'm hardly the only one. Their too-clever by half strategy turns my stomach.

Posted by Jinchi | September 18, 2007 12:20 AM

And once again none of the morons here even try to address the big fucking elephant in the room: Iran.

WHEN ARE THE DEMOCRATS GOING TO PREVENT BUSH FROM ATTACKING IRAN?

Answer the fucking question!

Or shut the fuck up about how oh so terribly smart politicians the Dems are for fucking the country into YET ANOTHER WAR!

It DOES NOT MATTER what the Dems do about Iraq! They haven't done ANYTHING to stop the war on Iran!

Get it through your knuckle dragging partisan heads!

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 18, 2007 2:50 AM

As someone who was very happy to see Democrats win the 2006 elections, I have to say I couldn't care less if they kept their majorities next round. And I'm hardly the only one. Their too-clever by half strategy turns my stomach.

And there you have it. I pretty much agree with the Ethical Werewolf about the Social Security victory, but I gotta say, it's a damn pathetic "party" whose big claim to loyalty is now, Look! We actually stood for something, not too long ago! And by the way, don't forget that it wasn't Democrats who ousted the useless Daschle from "leadership" -- it was the good citizens of South Dakota.

Further, I find it next to impossible to believe that a big '08 win is going to somehow galvanize a new Democratic Party. If it happens (and I expect it will), the victory will owe far, far more to well-deserved revulsion at what the Republicans have become than anything else. In line with my thinking about their Iraq fecklessness, I fully expect that the Dems will spend their time in power congratulating themselves, sharing spoils among their own cronies, and generally ignoring the really serious rot in our system. Here's my suggested Dem rallying cry: We won't go out of our way to fuck things up, but don't expect a helluva lot more from us. You wouldn't believe us if we said we wanted to do more anyway.

Finally, Richard Steven Hack correctly points to the biggest contemporary reason why the Dems ought to inspire nothing but disdain among any thinking American. Why the hell aren't they trying to head off a nightmare in Iran?!?!? They have to do this NOW. In fact, it should have been the FIRST item on their agenda back in January. Compared to preventing an epochal strategic disaster, everything else must be a distant second -- and the Dems have done LESS THAN NOTHING.

Posted by sglover | September 18, 2007 1:59 PM