’)As a proud Democrat it hurts to say, but Frank Rich’s conclusion is right.
Among Washington’s Democrats, the only one with a clue seems to be Russell Feingold, the Wisconsin senator who this month proposed setting a “target date” (as opposed to a deadline) for getting out. Mr. Feingold also made the crucial observation that “the president has presented us with a false choice”: either “stay the course” or “cut and run.” That false choice, in which Mr. Bush pretends that the only alternative to his reckless conduct of the war is Ms. Sheehan’s equally apocalyptic retreat, is used to snuff out any legitimate debate. There are in fact plenty of other choices echoing about, from variations on Mr. Feingold’s timetable theme to buying off the Sunni insurgents.
But don’t expect any of Mr. Feingold’s peers to join him or Mr. Hagel in fashioning an exit strategy that might work. If there’s a moment that could stand for the Democrats’ irrelevance it came on July 14, the day Americans woke up to learn of the suicide bomber in Baghdad who killed as many as 27 people, nearly all of them children gathered around American troops. In Washington that day, the presumptive presidential candidate Hillary Clinton held a press conference vowing to protect American children from the fantasy violence of video games.
The Democrats are hoping that if they do nothing, they might inherit the earth as the Bush administration goes down the tubes. Whatever the dubious merits of this Kerryesque course as a political strategy, as a moral strategy it’s unpatriotic. The earth may not be worth inheriting if Iraq continues to sabotage America’s ability to take on Iran and North Korea, let alone Al Qaeda.
You don’t have to be in the majority to exhbit leadership qualities, and when it comes to Iraq, the Democratic party just hasn’t led at all.
Where the hell are they? I mean, I’ve loved the way Harry Reid counterpunched the loons… but why have they all gone silent? Trying to give the president enough rope?
OK I’ll be the 1st to post here . . .
whatever happened to democrats who could stand up and proudly proclaim that they love their country? Just that. No conditions, no proclaiming a greater loyalty to some other group or ideology, just a simple, non-nationalistic patriotism, directed towards the US as it is, not as it will be in a dream of the future.
Wilson had it. FDR had it. Truman had it, he went without question to fight in WWI. Kenedy had it. Even Johnson had it. McGovern didn’t, despite his war-hero background. Carter didn’t. He was proud to president only of a potential America, as were Mondale and Dukakis.
What the hell has happened to the democratic party?
My bet is that that party, at its highest levels, is afraid of being tagged with “who lost China”.
Showing unqualified support for the Iraq effort is likely seen as the only way the party can avoid being stuck with that tag.
I think the leadership is contiuing its foolish belief that the press will actually point out the Presidents failures and therefore the Democrats will benefit.
You forgot Poland!
Zak822 is exactly right; sadly, in politics there’s no notion of sunk cost.
The Repugs have the Dems in a bit of a box; we all know it’s bound to be a pretty terrible situation if we were to simply cut our losses and pull out of Iraq. OTOH, continuing this folly means we’ll be expending American lives and saddling our grandkids with debt for no good outcome until someone finally musters the courage to say ‘enough.’
Unfortunately, whoever says ‘enough’ is going to get lambasted with the accusation that if we held on a little longer–Iraq would have blossomed into a democracy akin to New Hampshire.
Repugs are constantly whining about how Govt. should function more like a business. Yet, virtually every successful business recognizes sunk costs.