Note to Democrats: Weakness on War Dooms Party

[babylonsister]

Note to Democrats: Weakness on War Dooms Party
Art Levine
Posted September 13, 2007 | 02:05 AM (EST)


The current Democratic weakness in opposing Bush's war could have fatal long-term consequences for the party -- as well as for our troops -- now that Democrats have largely abandoned efforts to push for firm timelines on withdrawal. (Today, The Washington Post reports, this cave-in to Bush is being repackaged as "incremental" change.)

By allowing the war to drag on with over 100,000 troops likely to be in place by next November, the party is dooming itself to long-term disaster, unless Congressional Democrats find the will to effectively oppose the war (if pushed successfully by anti-war groups). That's because the complete unraveling of Iraq and much of the Middle East will likely take place on their watch, not under Bush, when a Democratic president begins large-scale pullouts on behalf of a public clamoring for change, a long-overdue withdrawal that will take place without the necessary planning for a safe, fully-funded, responsible withdrawal that should have started years ago.

Instead, since taking office, they've veered off-course and failed to effectively make the case for a timetable withdrawal from Iraq that most Americans want.

As Juan Cole astutely points out this week:

The central question is whether the Democrats can force a significant reduction of troops from Iraq on Bush's watch, so as to avoid Iraq becoming exclusively their headache when they (as is likely) take over the White House in January of 2009. If they could, this drawdown would be the best option. Certainly, that is what a majority of Iraqis thinks, according to the new BBC/ABC poll.


But the answer is: No. The Democrats cannot get the troops out of Iraq because they cannot overturn a Bush veto in the House of Representatives, and because they cannot overcome the need for a consensus of 60 senators in the Senate. Some Democrats, such as Joe Lieberman, oppose a rapid withdrawal. And the likelihood that 11 Republican senators will suddenly become withdrawalniks between now and November, 2008, is negligible.

The testimony of Petraeus and Crocker may marginally reinforce the will of the Republicans to stay the course, but I do not think it is decisive. In all likelihood, the Republican senators would have continued to block their Democratic colleagues from doing anything really dramatic, anyway.

If the Democrats cannot prevail in withdrawing before Bush goes out of office (and they cannot), and if they then rapidly draw down the troops on taking office in 2009, they face the real prospect of a "Gerald Ford meltdown" of the sort that occurred in 1975 when the North Vietnamese and their VC allies took over South Vietnam.

more...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/art-levine/note-to-democrats-weakne_b_64225.html

[paulk]

1. if it "dooms" the Democrats

where does it leave the Republicans, who are, after all, the authors of this debacle?

[Paranoid Pessimist]

4. It leaves them ready to hand off the war to a Democratic President

so as to leave the Demos holding the bag for the next however many generations are left (before climate change and all the other stuff turns us all into soggy refugees). They's like to have Thompson or Guiliani win it, but if not, they're prepared to hang the blame on Hillary Edwards Obama so long as they keep most of their congressional numbers, which they will do through creative cheating.

[ShortnFiery]

2. Yes, unlike 2000 and 2004, when I truly compromised and voted for democrats more right leaning ...

I feel absolutely NO obligation to vote for a DLC or Blue Dog Democrat. NONE! Why? They will not run the government much different than the moderate republicans: 1) Corporations Rule; 2) Endless War for GE and other war profiteers.

Now tell me, why should I vote for people who I don't agree with just because they have a D after their name?

[plantwomyn]

3. Made that mistake myself.

Joe Donnelly of Indiana. Blue Dog all the way. Now I look at Sen. Bayh and wonder if he is worth voting for anymore either.

[Sam Ervin jret]

5. Fear of republican Bullies? Does that explain it all? We better hope it's more than that.

I do not doubt that Democratic politicians hate being portrayed as "soft on war" of the party of, "GOD FORBID" peace. However if this is the reason (the sole or even the main reason)we are unable to extract ourselves from our current prediction we had better hope a third part manifests itself quickly.

I could not help but note that the most far RIGHT comments (questions?) at the Petreaus hearings came from a member of the Senate who once ran for Vice President in the Democratic Party! Did the General need authority to bring the fight against the terrorist into Iran? This is a question about draw down and mission Iraq?

This so called "draw down" is not enough of a sham that a former Democrat needs to ask if you want to invade Iraq? "Are you sure you want to come home Gen.? Wouldn't you like some more power and maybe try, I don't know.. jumping over the border and chasing bad guys into Iran?"

what the ^&%*? I know it's New year and all but, come on, I don't think he celebrates in any way that is Supposed to alter his state of consciousness. What is going on with Sen Lieberman? Crazy juice?

[bbgrunt]

6. this is why 2008 will be a disaster for dems