Sad reality: Democrats don't want to end this war

I believe nearly every Democrat believes the war is not only morally wrong, but against America's strategic interests. I don't question that.

However, it seems that almost everybody in in the Dem power structure -- this includes the leading candidates and the leadership on the Hill -- have concluded that the safest course is to let Bush continue to have his war. They could end this thing right now by cutting off funding. Their calculus says that is a bad political strategy because:

1) It would give Bush an opportunity to revive his ratings by twisting the arguments making the Democrats the bad guys. It would open the door for Bush to argue, "Those treasonous Democrats snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. The Surge was working. I had this war all but won before the Democrats screwed it up."

and

2) It would reduce the war as an issue 14 months from now. If the voters believe we are on our way out of Iraq, then they don't have to worry as much what Ghoiliani and others would do on that front.

The Dems in power have decided the best play is to let Bush have all the rope he wants. He has already hung himself, and now they hope he will hang the rest of the GOP candidates from the same rope.

I must say I have very mixed opinions about this. Not ending the war as soon as possible is a horrible thought, both on humanitarian and economic grounds. But what if we took the courageous, moral stand to do what is right today, and that ended up enabling the GOP to take the White House for another 4 or 8 years? Wouldn't that be even worse, both on moral and economic grounds?

Where do you all come down on this moral dilemma?

deaths of Iraqis and our soldiers, they are saddling the next Democratic president with the chance to be the one who "lost" vietnam...I mean, Iraq. In another generation, there could be neo-neo-cons, who believe that Iraq was winnable if the Democrats and the media hadn't stabbed us in the back. They never learn, because their wounded machismo won't allow it. If we could force Bush to withdraw instead, its Bush who is hung out to dry before his followers.

yet.

Bush has kept his base(rank and file Republicans) with him.
This means GOP on the Hill have to stay with him.

As long as the base stays with Bush, the Democrats cannot
stop the war. Implied here, something this serious
must have some Bipartisan Support. Dems need a few
Republican votes with theirs.

When Clinton was being attacked during his administration
his base saved him.

Democrats on the Hill do not do a good job of explaining.
They just say--Do not have the votes. This leaves them
open to criticism from base and Independents.

the fragile coalition of neocons and rw theocrats has collapsed under the weight of Iraq and the constant assault on the middle class, mixed with illegal immigration.

I disagree with the whole premise. 2006 demonstrated that this coalition is pissed off and not voting.

took office. Makes it a tough when, by default, it now requires a veto proof majority in the Senate to pass ANY legislation at all. They don't yet have the required veto-proof majority.

It's become the de facto rule of congress now that they've lost the majority in both houses. It's jr's cynical & desperate trump card.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It does not take a veto-proof majority to cut off funding. If they pass no bills at all, there is no funding. If they simply refuse to pass a bill funding the continued offensive occupation, that certainly does not need a veto-proof majority.

Why aren't they doing that?

They are afraid there are way too many pussies in the Democratic ranks. People like Bayh, Landrieu, and many others don't have the guts to take a stand on anything. If they called that hard vote today, they might not be able to get 40 Senators to vote for it. They can't take that chance.

And they believe that if they let Bush have his war for another 17 months, we will end up with a Democratic President, 58-60 Senators, and a very solid majority in the House. That will put us in a position to not just scale back the war, but to actually reverse much of the damage the Neocons have done since 1980.

I must say I think there is some wisdom in that game plan, although it condemns another 40,000 people to die in Iraq.

but not of "losing"

I think they are afraid that those predictions of widespread genocide will come true. In other words, many of them believe rapid withdrawal would make things even worse that it is now. They don't want to be blamed for that.

hundred of billions of tax dollars are poured into the war machine? By then, the military industrial complex will *own us* and The YOUNG American People will serve as not much more as "cannon fodder bitches" to our corporate masters. :grr:

But if you will permit me, I'd say that is a tactical concern, not a moral one. That is to say, we will have no more control over the civil war as we withdraw than we have while occupying, which is to say no control at all. If there is to be a genocide, it will happen regardless of when we withdraw.

If you accept that argument, then it becomes a tactical question. If the Dems force that withdrawal to happen such that the genocide is the big news before the election, that could tend to validate Bush's position. So once again, it gets us to the same place. We don't really want to end this war now. We want to end it in January of 2008.

that's when they want it to end.

OR, they really don't want it to end. If you listen to most of the candidates, they've acknowledged some sort of long term troop presence there to address genocide concerns.

I must say I am conflicted. I cannot ignore the fact that we took a stable if brutal government and destroyed it, leaving chaos in its place. I have no confidence in the ability of the Iraqi government to bring order out of the chaos. I am loathe to trust the Iranians, Saudis or Turks in this, who each have their own agenda.

I am inclined to agree with Colin Powell (even though he had become a pawn of the Bush administration) - we broke it, we bought it. However, I hate thinking of the price we must pay.

God, I wish we had only 4 more months of these war criminals in charge.

Since Colon Bowel was personally involved with breaking it, that "we" applies to him. It also applies to Bush**, Cheney, and Rumfelled. Let them go over there and fix it themselves.

They can't, of course. Neither can the U.S. Army.

ya think?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1820251

do I have to repeat what my Congressman said to us:

1.) Any attempt to defund the war will just mean Shrub will find the money somehwere else and keep going.

2.) Bringing the troops back could take up to a year and will cost at least as much as it costs to just keep them there.

3.) Essentially, the war cannot end without agreement from the White House.

This is from a liberal Democrat who has been in on negotiating this mess.

Why do some here insist on believing what some asshole blogger has to say and NOT believe the people who are involved?

Morally, they can't continue to allow it to be funded.

That might mean cutting funds on new R&D in the military. So be it. It might mean closing bases elsewhere. We ought to be doing that anyway. Defense appropriations are what they are, and the chimp needs to be forced to work within that, instead of the democrats continuing to vote for an unlimited budget for the occupation.

who says they'll find the funds in the military budgets? These guys could just as easily take it out of the VA, or highway funding, or anything else they feel like.

I used to work within the acquisition system - on the sides of it, not as a procurement specialist, but enough into it that I did the training and all. It was a legal issue for us to even be able to pull money from one defense fund into another. I reported a supervisor once for misappropriation of funds - and that was all within the defense budget.

If congress approves a set amount for the defense budget, pulling it from highway funding isn't really an option unless congress allows it to be an option.

(I've no doubt they would, but that's a separate matter.)

during his last speech. That's a sign or propaganda to come.... Wow, are the Dems going to be shocked? I won't.

is that because it's cheaper to keep them there another whole year if they come home dead?
i am very disturbed by these excuses, disgusted by that bit of immoral calculus.

a reasonably orderly withdrawal gets planned, and many will likely have to fight their way to exit points.

It's not putting them on a plane and they just fly home-- every unit has massive amounts of equipment that must be moved with them. While waiting for all this stuff to get packed, they still have to eat. Even if the fighting were to magically stop tomorrow, the expenses of feeding and housing over a hundred thousand are still there.

Nope. Stopping a war isn't nearly as easy as starting one is.

i din;t say it was easy, i said it was a moral imperative.
and since you were equating the monetary cost of keeping them there another year vs beginning a withdrawl as being the same (as if the monetary cost was the most important thing here?) i'm not suprised i have to tell you that.
it's about human lives, and the cntinuation of a deeply immoral occupation. The relative cost is not a valid excuse. Difficulty is not a valid excuse.

you also defund exiting from the war.

The primary problem, as it has been in every war since 1812, is that it is almost impossible to stop a war that the White House doesn't want stopped.

Ask critics of Lincoln, Andrew Jackson, Woodrow Wilson, Lyndon Johnson, Nixon. Clinton... how easy it was to control a war White House. Even war preparations, like FDR insisted on before we got in, were fought constantly by Republicans back then and got nowhere.

Nope, no matter what "experts" who've never actually been involved with these things say, it is incredibly difficult for Congress to order a President around.

It's not like some of us didn't see this coming. Many of us remember past debacles, Viet Nam being a pretty big one. Gotta tell ya, though, I never thought this would end up as as big a mess as it turned out to be.

of doing nothing. there is no excuse for the immorality for not telling the truth about this war. and most dems won;t "risk" that...
no excuse for not trying to do the right thing -now. no reason not to begin the fight now- except maybe pollsters are telling them they don;t need to "risk" it to win.

Which is, the Democrats have the ability to defund the operation, which is not exactly the same thing as ending the war, but they are choosing not to for a variety of reasons. I certainly accept the point that there are some other valid reasons beyond 2008 election strategies. But when you boil it down, both of us are saying that the Democratic plan to end the war depends on winning the Presidential election, and they aren't going to do anything other than posture until that time.

about that general comment? :)

Stop thinking too much and making this more complicated. Stop worrying about what will happen in 2008 if you do this and that. Stop worrying about what Bush will do.

The Democrats should march their rears into the House and Senate and do what is right. They should write and support whatever bills are needed to end the war without counting the votes to override a veto if Bush should veto. Let Bush veto if he chooses, but send those bills to him pronto. Or in some instances, like funding, send him NO BILLS.

Do what is right - let the chips fall where they may. KISS!

Show some damn guts already. If the "leaders" don't like it, recall them and elect new "leaders."

Stop making excuses - it looks weak, lacking direction and having NO PLANS.

our leaders are cowards

... your analysis 100%. It sucks, and I don't know what the answer is.