Bush's popularity is at an all-time low, falling to a scant 28%. The troop surge is failing miserably, with April being the most violent month of the war. Now it is starting to look like May will wind up rivaling April in violence and death. Around 70% of the American people are opposed to the war in Iraq.
With the above facts, a person would think that this is the time for Democrats to seize the moment and act to end the war. But what are they doing? They're starting to "wuss out" before the ink is even dry on Bush's veto of the war-funding bill.
Leading House Democrats, including Pelosi, Obey and Murtha, are considering a new version of the war-funding bill. This new version would give Bush over $95 billion to continue his war. The money is to be paid in two installments. Bush would get the first half immediately with NO TIMETABLES OR BENCHMARKS! The second half would require another vote in July (when they'll probably wuss out again).
This is exactly why the American public have been voting against Democrats in recent years. They believe Democrats are gutless, and it looks like Democrats are going to prove them right once again. I guess they're just so used to knuckling under to Bush that they've forgotten how to do anything else.
There are a few Democrats with guts, but the majority of them seem to be hopeless. Right now, I only count four Democrats with enough guts to stand on their own two feet and speak the truth.
John Edwards says they should keep sending a bill with timetables until Bush either signs it or brings the troops home. Bill Richardson says we should bring the troops home now. Dennis Kucinich and Russ Feingold opposed the war from the very beginning.
But outside of these four, Democrats are proving themselves a pitiful lot. I am extremely disappointed!
I had a feeling this might happen. The clue to me was the Democrats' campaign slogan "change of direction in Iraq." This phrase was a political Rorschach test designed to garner the largest number of votes possible.
ReplyDeleteTo those who were hoping for a rapid withdrawal, the "change in direction" meant 180 degrees. To pro-war independents, it meant a long overdue course adjustment (witness the number of Blue Dog Democrats that were elected last fall).
I believe some (if not many) Democrats would like nothing better than for the war to drag on well into 2008 in order to keep it alive as a campaign issue. For example, if Harry Reid really believed the war was already lost, he would have moved heaven and earth to defund the war altogether. The fact that he backpedaled from his statement means he either didn't mean it to begin with, or else he's totally unprincipled.
I find this whole phenomenon reminsicent of the 1964 presidential campaign, when Goldwater was such a hawk that everyone just assumed that Johnson was the dove. The end result was 10 more years in Vietnam.
Lest you think I'm only cynical about the Democrats, I don't have much use for a lot of the Republican "leadership" these days, either. There's way too much posturing and jockeying for advantage in the '08 election.
I'm afraid you may be right that some Democrats would like to see the war continue so they could have it as a campaign issue.
ReplyDeleteBut this does not excuse Bush and the neocons who started this evil war and refuse to stop it.
I'm not excusing anyone; I thought my last paragraph made that clear.
ReplyDeleteNot to pat myself on the back too hard, but here's something I wrote back on November 11, 2006:
But the heavy lifting is going to come next year when these blue-dog Democrats run head long into the agenda of the liberal Democrat leadership. Someone is going to be disappointed: either the Netroots, who want nothing less than an immediate pullout from Iraq and George W. Bush’s head on the chopping block of impeachment; or the Republicans and Independents who voted for Democrat candidates who, in many cases, ran to the right of their Republican opponents.
It's in the third big paragraph of this post.
I have a hard time blieveing you when at least one of what you claim are facts are 100% not facts.
ReplyDeleteYou said, "...with April being the most violent month of the war." And shortly after "With the above facts..."
Well, This website disagrees with you.
Why did you mislead your readers like that?
If you only wish to count U.S. fatalities, then you are right. There are four months with more U.S. deaths since the war started.
ReplyDeleteBut if you also count Iraqi military and police casualities, then April was truly the most violent month.
Surely you're not trying to say the surge is working!
"Surely you're not trying to say the surge is working!"
ReplyDeleteI haven't paid enough attentntion to the "surge" and don't have time to research the subject.
And don't call me Shirley! heh