Democrats Fumble Iraq Policy

[pberq]

August 25, 2005

Democrats Fumble Iraq Policy
by Jim Lobe

http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=7092

<snip>
While Republicans voice growing unease over U.S. President George W. Bush's vow to "stay the course" in Iraq, Democrats remain deeply divided about their position on a conflict that most of them privately describe as a major foreign policy disaster.

Despite the plunging popularity of the war – and of Bush's approval ratings – leading Democrats, particularly the party's brahmins in the Senate, have so far refused to countenance talk of withdrawal, preferring instead to attack the president over tactical issues rather than the war itself.

But their reticence – no doubt inspired by their fear of being depicted as "soft on terrorism" and the memory of their disastrous Vietnam War-era splits between hawks and doves in the late 1960s and early 1970s – is appearing increasingly untenable as the party's grassroots activists enlist in what is becoming, thanks to the mother of one fallen soldier, a serious, new antiwar movement, and as prominent Republicans themselves demonstrate a growing willingness to question the war.

<snip>
At the same time, however, the refusal of top Democrats to reassess their position is spurring growing frustration and even anger, both among grassroots Democrats who have been emboldened both by the polls and by the way that Cindy Sheehan, the bereaved mother of a dead U.S. Marine who camped out most of this month outside Bush's Crawford, Texas, ranch, has put the president on the defensive, and by some prominent unelected leaders and funders.

[opihimoimoi]

1. IT IS TIME....for everyone to PILE ON....From the Grass roots to the top

of thje Dem Tree...it is TIME....

Da momoterium iiz wid us guys,

[Dogmudgeon]

2. First rule of a political fight:

When your opponent is destroying himself, you step back and do nothing. Which is what the Democrats should ideally be doing.

--p!

[BillZBubb]

5. That "rule" is a proven disaster.

Our opponent may be destroying himself, but we are not being helped. You do know, don't you, that polls showing Bush with 45% favorables show the congressional Democrats with 42% favorables?

As Bush sinks, we are not rising. In fact, we are sinking too.

I remember reading posts with the same "rule" last summer as Bush's polls looked bad and Kerry was holding his own. I pointed out how the "rule" had always failed in the end in the past and that Kerry was letting an opportunity slip away. He needed to be on the attack, but wasn't.

Unless the Democrats can differentiate themselves fully from Bush and the Repugs, Bush's falling popularity won't help us at all. We need aggressive leadership and an unrelenting attack on all Repug policies. If we don't do that, this "rule" will work its magic again and we'll still be the minority party.

[Dogmudgeon]

7. Here's the Republican rule

"Steal the election".

That one's kind of hard to get around.

The fight should have been directed toward the Swift Boat bullshit and the other lies against Kerry. Letting the Republicans make fools of themselves worked fine; letting them defame Kerry without "consequences" was what was fatal.

No more unanswered defamation. But why interrupt a perfectly good case of political suicide?

--p!

[K-W]

11. Nobody is advocating interuption.

They are advocating capitalizing on popular opinion. You know, that thing that politicians who want to actually win elections do.

[Dogmudgeon]

12. That's different

And I support it wholeheartedly.

The main point I was trying make was to not allow Bush to avoid his well-earned melt-down. It's easy to become the bad guy in press when the real bad guys are so much as spoken of harshly. And it's why Cindy Sheehan is so effective -- she isn't criticizing Bush as much as calling him to account. His own pride indicts him there.

These days, capitalizing on popular opinion isn't always successful -- that Diebold thing again. But the tide is indeed turning.

--p!

[pberq]

8. We need agressive leadership, not RW talking points

"Unless the Democrats can differentiate themselves fully from Bush and the Repugs, Bush's falling popularity won't help us at all. We need aggressive leadership and an unrelenting attack on all Repug policies."

Right on, amBushed!

More from the article:

<snip>
So far, only one likely 2008 presidential candidate, Sen. Russell Feingold, has called for a complete withdrawal – by Jan. 1, 2007 – although, in a television interview Sunday, he stressed that the date should considered a "target," rather than a "deadline."

On the other hand, five of the party's most prominent leaders – 2004 presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Sen. Joseph Biden, Sen. Evan Bayh, and Sen. Hillary Clinton – have not only opposed setting a date for withdrawal, but have also, at various times, supported substantially increasing the number of troops in Iraq, as well as the size of the U.S. Army and Marine Corps. The last three are all considered by the party establishment as strong presidential candidates.

"If we were to artificially set a deadline of some sort, that would be like giving a green light to the terrorists, and we can't afford to do that," Clinton, whose ex-president husband has also refused to publicly criticize the war, noted last February.

http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=7092

With friends like these, who needs enemies?

How stupid does Hillary think we are? The idea that withdrawing from Iraq "gives a green light to terrorists" is nothing more than Republican propaganda!

As I've stated elsewhere, the ongoing occupation is the CAUSE of the insurgency. If "staying the course" was of any help, we would know it by now. It's been alomost two and half years, and things are only getting worse.

[rodeodance]

9. I think it is time for the Democrats to step into this space --this space

that is being created by falling poll numbers and the antiwar movement.
Dems do have an opportunity to show some Leadership here!!

[K-W]

10. What a good way to have nobody vote and hand the repubs a victory.

People arent going to drag themselves to the polls to vote for 'the other guy/gal'.

[Doctor_J]

3. yeah, that's it

the Dems have NO say in the government, NO positive media coverage, yet this war is THEIR problem. Sheesh. Imagine if this boondoggle had happened while WE controlled all the branches of the government. There would have been daily lynchings by now.

[BillZBubb]

4. We remain a leaderless party.

It's pretty tough politically to admit you made a mistake, particularly such a huge mistake as the Iraq quagmire. All those Senate Dems that voted for the IWR are in a box. They are trying to finesse their position, but as Kerry's pathetic attempt last year showed, nuance doesn't get you anywhere. The right wing has them in the flip-flop/weak on terror box and they can't get out.

Pathetic. That they didn't see this coming speaks volumes. Our party (or what should be our party) is weak, ineffectual, and rudderless.

[pansypoo53219]

6. seems to me

that the retardicans who STARTED the war are the ones fucking it up. dems just ain't complaining enough.