Thursday :: Feb 8, 2007

Will the Dems ever grow a pair or are they just a different brand of the war party?


by soccerdad

As Matthew Rothschild points asks: can the Senate be much more pathetic than it is? It can’t even figure out how to pass a non-binding resolution about the surge, surely to be ignored by the President. And as he points out, when Judd Gregg, Republican of New Hampshire, introduced a bill to not cut off funding for the war the Democratic Leadership ran for cover, with Reid saying: “There isn’t a Democrat here that wants to take monies away from the troops.” Well gee thanks for repeating the Republican line. Not the way to frame the issue.

Look, the only way that Democrats will be able to stop this war is by cutting off funding for it.
Pro-war pols and pundits will always blame the Democrats for “taking monies away from the troops.”
But what the Democrats would really be doing is taking away Bush’s wherewithal to wage this foolish war, Bush’s wherewithal to get more U.S. troops killed.

Robert Parry asks: Will the Dems Finally Play Hardball? The obvious answer is no. With a few exceptions, most appear to remain eunuchs having gladly surrendered theirs over the last 6 years. Parry’s idea is that the Libby trial has produced enough evidence to demonstrate a role for Bush and Cheney in the leak of Plame’s identity. If the Democrats are serious about stopping the runaway war machine launched by Bush, dragging Bush and Cheney before the House Judiciary Committee would at the least expose the scum-factor of this administration and tie up their time while other avenues for attacking Bush’s disastrous policies in the Middle East are explored.

John Walsh suggests a way to stop the funding for the war in Iraq that would only take 41 votes in the Senate, i.e. filibuster any appropriations bill that contains money for the war in Iraq. He admits that such an action is improbable. He suggests, however, that intense pressure be put on the Senate to do just that.

Perhaps some Senators will give in to pressure if they realize that their re-election is at stake. And we are now at a moment of societal upheaval over the war, with splits among the ruling class, one faction of which is furious with the neocons for creating this disaster. So anything can happen. But even if the Senators refuse, we shall know where everyone stands. And if the Democratic Senators fail to do the bidding of the people, it helps the antiwar movement to know that we must look beyond the Democratic Party for a true champion of peace in '08 and beyond.

Personally, I think we already know were most Dems stand, pro-war. The whole debate about the surge is about tactics, and ignores the important questions that should be asked.
1. Why did we go to war in Iraq?
2. Why are we still there?

Maybe someone should put a straight-forward question up for a vote. Something like: Do you approve of the genocide of millions of Muslims so that you can gas up your SUV for $2.25/gallon?

soccerdad :: 1:04 PM :: Comments (14) :: Digg It!