Kevin Drum asks a good question of those of us who are frankly disgusted with how spineless the Democrats are on Iraq and their leadership in general so far:
So here’s my question: when we blogosphere types complain about this weak-kneed attitude, are we complaining because (a) we think the centrists are wrong; they could keep their seats in marginal districts even if they toed the progressive line on national security issues. Or (b) because we don’t care; they should do the right thing even if it means losing next November?
I think it’s mostly “A” with a sprinkling of “B”. Folks who have read me for some time know that while I’ve always been vehemently opposed to the war in Iraq since before it was a reality, I was not always in favor of getting out. I bought into the “you broke it, you bought it” groupthink until it became painfully clear that we accomplish nothing by sitting there in Iraq acting as midwife to a democratic wonderland that’s never coming. The Republicans are wrong on national security, and the Democrats have bought into Republican propaganda and media b.s. by following them. The reason the congress has such low approval ratings are because Democrats and Independents voted them in to end the war. The House and Senate respond to Presidential obstruction by saying they can’t do anything and by the way Rush Limbaugh might say mean things about them, and give up blank checks to the president to keep the war going until he’s out of office. Bull.
The moral thing to do has the advantage of also being the politically sound thing to do. Sure, there are Republican dead-enders who think anyone who votes in favor of ending the war is an anti-American traitor, but no matter how you vote those jokers are never going to be Democratic voters in any district. Democrats won in red districts because the Republicans rubber stamped the war.
Mentally, I’m not sure what’s wrong with the Democrats. Its as if they were out of power so long they don’t know how to act like they’re in the majority. Speaker Pelosi allows John Boehner to put whatever the heck he likes on the floor of the House but when she was in the minority leadership she was barely allowed to speak a word out of turn. In the Senate so far, Majority Leader Reid has left behind all his knowledge of procedure he used so well in the minority and has allowed all sorts of nonsense to go on. Right now they almost make Daschle-Gephardt and their rush to approve the Iraq War look downright powerful!
The only saving grace they’ve got is that next year is a presidential election and people understand now more than ever the vital importance of getting a Democratic president in office. But the Democratic congress continues to act like such little whipped sissies that it doesn’t take a great leap of the imagination for 2010 to look a lot like 1994 all over again. And if they keep conceding and conceding and conceding and conceding like they have on the most important issue of our time, they will totally deserve it.
If the Democratic congress has begun to lose loyalists like myself already, they may already be beyond help.
If we lose in November, it will be because we proved that we were gutless.
What could be easier than standing up to Bush right now, when the vast majority of the country is demanding we do so?
Our leaders are not thinking of the country, they are thinking of their careers and they deserve to lose them.
The reason the congress has such low approval ratings are because Democrats and Independents voted them in to end the war.
What evidence you do have of this?
I’m seriously asking this question because exit polls don’t show that. While they favored some withdrawal, I didn’t see any broad support for completely ending the war.
In my view, the GOP got their butts kicked because they essentially became the pre-1994 Democrats. Arrogant in their power, apologetic for corruption in their ranks, and so disconnected from their constituents that many voters stayed home and many voted Democrat to shake things up.
Oliver: “The reason the congress has such low approval ratings are because Democrats and Independents voted them in to end the war.”
Jay: “What evidence you do have of this?
I’m seriously asking this question because exit polls don’t show that. While they favored some withdrawal, I didn’t see any broad support for completely ending the war.”
Really? You have evidence of that, cause I think you are lying.
Stop it. So the Democrats are weak and spineless. It’s a fractured party, like herding cats. Use a different brand label. How about too independent to come together and end the war?
At the same time you could say things like the Republicans are too lock-step with the president to cause a break and end the war. Or the president and his congressional puppets still have too strong a hold for the narrow Democratic majority to cause a new direction in policy.
All you do is weaken support for the democratic party by claiming they are weak. That plays into Republican hands, when, face it, these guys are lockstepping the country to hell. Rephrase, not strong enough to overcome the Republican lockstep puppets. Make a case that democrats need more support to end the war not that they are unworthy of the support.
Arrogant in their power, apologetic for corruption in their ranks, and so disconnected from their constituents
While this is all true, Jay, I think you’re forgetting that wee matter of Bush policy and the GOP lockstep with that policy being a factor in those elections.
While this is all true, Jay, I think you’re forgetting that wee matter of Bush policy and the GOP lockstep with that policy being a factor in those elections.
Sure, but that was only a major factor for hard core Democratic and Republican voters. Nearly 40% of all voters said that support or opposition to Bush was not a factor in their voting.
“Nearly 40% of all voters said that support or opposition to Bush was not a factor in their voting.”
First of all, I’m going to need a source for that, you pathological liar.
Secondly, that means for roughly 60% of the people, Bush was a factor. That’s a big chunk o’ voters.
All you do is weaken support for the democratic party by claiming they are weak.
Perhaps because they are being weak. I’m not a water carrier like Rush Limbaugh. The Democrats are being total wusses on stopping the war and they’re getting killed at the polls for it. And they should be. I’m generally not the kind of guy demanding purity from the party, but I do demand that they not act like little bitches on the most important issue of our time. They are.
They have the House. They have the Senate. They have the power to end the war in Iraq.
They have the House. They have the Senate. They have the power to end the war in Iraq.
Actually, for as little as I’ve enjoyed the surrender of the Democrats, this is overstating the nature of legislative power even if you don’t consider that Cheney considers the legislature to be an irrelevant body that must bow at the feet of the All-Powerful Executive and his own, mysterious, 4th Branch.
They have a majority in the House and Senate, yes. They do not, however, have a veto-proof majority.
What sickens me, though, is how often they refuse to make George use that veto. Rather than taking a principled stand on a bill that Bush and the GOP would surely deny–thereby putting the onus and the political consequences of the decision on Bush and the GOP, they simply avoid starting the fight.
They were elected to throw punches even if they can’t score the knockout. Right now they’re staying in the corner and absorbing body blows. Boo on them.
midderpidge: “So the Democrats are weak and spineless. … All you do is weaken support for the democratic party by claiming they are weak.”
Oh. My. God.
By all means, let’s not say anything that would hurt their feelings. Let’s not point out how they are royally fucking up what should be an easy opportunity to lead.
No, no, no. Let’s just bury our heads in the sand and keep saying everything is all right.
I have to side with Oliver on this one, unless I’m wrong and they needed more than 41 votes to cut off funding for the war.
A majority of those polled going back to the start of this year* says, “the United States should withdraw its military forces from Iraq in order to avoid further U.S. military casualties, even if that means civil order is not restored there”. We’ve got 45% saying they want most troops out in less than a year, with the “one to two years” group bringing the total to 72%. When asked, “Based on General Petraeus’s new report, do you think the United States should pull out all troops immediately, pull out all troops gradually over the next year, pull out after Iraqi troops are capable of taking over, or, send more troops?”
a total of 64% said to leave either immediately or gradually over the next year. The balder question, “Do you support or oppose legislation that would set a deadline for withdrawing U.S. combat forces from Iraq by next spring?” gets 55% support. And of course, you have to go back to 2004 before the number saying this war was not worth fighting goes as low as half.
*The Democrats approved funding after this point.
And another interesting poll from May shows 57% favoring a deadline for withdrawal tied to funding. The same number, given multiple options, prefers either that solution or a bill providing no additional funds that would “require all troops to be withdrawn by March”.
So a lot of folks, a majority of the people, are in favor of
- getting out of this war pretty damn quick
- using the “power of the purse” to bring that withdrawal about.
And yet Congress, the Democrat-controlled Congress, continues to do nothing to bring about either of those goals.
Why shouldn’t we yell and bitch about that? Does anybody seriously think they’ll start showing some spine if we ask nicely?
Bitch all you like, to call the democrats spineless doesn’t help. It just makes the war supporters stronger. After all, there is no way in hell a majority of the democrats are going to block funding for the troops. “Oh my God! They are stranding them in a war zone without Bullets!!!” Get real.
What they should do instead is seize the money and apportion it out in a way that puts the onus on Bush and the Republicans for not accepting it. For instance, if the military needs $46 billion? Ok. Take it. But cut out all money for the contractors. Tack on another $50 million to have inspectors audit and check on existing contracts with an eye toward rooting out fraud and failure to deliver. Pull Blackwater out, and then refuse money for hiring new mercenary contractors. Etc. Make Bush veto that bill.
Here’s the problem. If they cut funds for troops in Iraq, it doesn’t mean the troops would come home. It just means they wouldn’t have the funds they need to do their job while there are there.
I honestly believe that George W. Bush would rather leave the troops their without enough equipment and watch them die in huge numbers than admit he made a mistake.
The only way to get the troops home early is to impeach him.
I think that would violate the law, and in fact would provide a perfect justification for impeaching him.
Midderpidge, how much support does it need before 41 Democrats will take a stand for it? 80% maybe?
Not gonna happen.
The public may want the war to be over and the troops to come home, but they sure don’t want them stuck in a war zone with no bullets.
Just cut funding for the contractors instead. After 4 years of stories of fraud and waste, recent stories of abuse and murder by mercenaries, coupled with the Bush administration’s complicitness in wasting tens of billions of dollars with nothing to show for it, the public could understand cutting the money for reconstruction and mercenaries.
Bush would be forced to veto anything that doesn’t fund his army of crows.
“The public may want the war to be over and the troops to come home, but they sure don’t want them stuck in a war zone with no bullets.”
And this is why that can’t defund the war.
I truly believe that Bush would rather see 100,000 American troops die that admit he made a mistake. Not only that, but he would be able to keep those troops there and honestly believe a.) he was doing the right thing and b.) the Democrats were responsible for the troops deaths.
He could do it and not lose a minute of sleep.
That’s why to end the war, I think the easiest and most effective avenue would be to attack the contractors and mercenaries. It’s the soft stinking underbelly of Bush’s Iraq strategy.
There are more contractors in Iraq than US military. The military is dependent on these contractors in several ways. Meanwhile, contractors have contributed to the deterioration of US image in Iraq, taking part in the abuse and torture of prisoners, arrogant treatment of civilians, even the murder of Iraqi civilians…
Billions and Billions of US taxpayer dollars wasted on reconstruction with nothing to show for it. Do you think Bush wants a spotlight on this?
No accounting.
Little or no oversight.
Hundreds of million$ finding its way to Al Qaeda
Fraud.
Overbilling.
Halliburton.
Corruption in the Iraqi government.
Cronyism.
Mercenaries gone wild.
The list goes on, and this is totally seperate from the way he’s screwed up the military aspects of the war.
And it can be applied to how the Iraqi government has failed to step up and develop into a ruling body. Take reconstruction, I believe the figure is something like the Iraqi government has refused to take control of 90+% of completed US projects, and I think, they have accepted Zero in the last 2 years, leaving us to continue to fund, man, operate, guard or simply abandon the work we have completed.
Fund the military. Defund the contractors. Include in spending bills funding to appoint inspectors and auditors to pour over the contracts, root out abuse, fraud and corruption, cancel contracts, stop paying for mercenaries, revoke immunity of these contractors from US laws. All little things the public at large could support, would think is fair and at the same time is so far within the powers and duties of the US congress that when Bush vetoes the bills his complaints about usurping his authority as commander-in-chief would make little to no sense to the US population.
“Can anybody hear me? Have I suddenly become invisible?” Again, the actions you believe Bush would take are very likely illegal, in which case we couldn’t ask for a better situation going into impeachment hearings. See also the poll I just posted yesterday on the subject of using the power of funding.
We’ve always interpreted the law to mean that when Congress cuts off funding, the President must bring the troops home. I know of exactly one case where the White House acted differently in somewhat similar circumstances. And Ira-Contra seems universally recognized as illegal.
Congress has an approval of 23%. Do you really think cutting off the funding for the war – what something like 55-60% of the electorate wants – is going to drive that number lower? No.
“Congress has an approval of 23%. Do you really think cutting off the funding for the war – what something like 55-60% of the electorate wants – is going to drive that number lower? No.”
No. But it could get a lot of soldiers killed.
Putting in timetables and hard benchmarks is another issue. That would only be a problem if Bush vetoed the spending bill so often that funds started to run out.