Why Dems can't "end the war"

[gulliver]

Dems can't end the war because they don't have a vision of what it would mean. The Republicans do: catastrophe. And the Republicans also have a vision of what it will be like (for a while) if we keep the war going: a chance of "winning."

The people aren't "on our side," and the Dems aren't ignoring the will of the people by funding the war. Those ideas are simplistic. The polls say the that most people are for a timetable, but the majority also think the war can still be "won." So some of the people who are for a timetable are for a timetable because it can lead to "winning."

If the Dems want to end the war, they need to come up with a best and worst case vision, and they need to blame Bush for the fact that both of these visions are terrible. As Bill Maher said the other day, the Dems should bluntly point out that Bush lost Iraq. Then ending the war can be sold as making the best of a bad situation. Ending the war to spare the lives of soldiers and Iraqis is not enough if we don't provide a vision of what happens after the war has ended. Might an unknown future not have even more soldier and civilian deaths in it than we have now?

We the people need to know what future we are choosing. We don't want a decision (ending or continuing the war), but a result. You need to tell people the likely result of the decision if you want them to make it. People won't give Bush and the GOP their rightful blame for this foolish, criminal debacle until they accept the situation in Iraq for what it is and the future of Iraq for what it likely will be. Until we have a vision, everything will remain in a state of suspense while Bush and the GOP try to sneak away from their crime.

[GreenArrow]

1. "vital stragetic interests"

apply to Dems as well as Repubs. Our being in Iraq is less a partisan thing than a USA thing.