David Corn: The Democrats' Iraq Civil War

[marmar]

from TomPaine.com:

The Democrats' Iraq Civil War
David Corn
February 22, 2007



David Corn is the Washington editor of The Nation and the co-author, along with Michael Isikoff, of Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal and the Selling of the Iraq War. He is covering the I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby trial for The Nation.

A few days ago , a senior Capitol Hill Democratic aide called to tell me he was worried. The aide feared that his party would soon find itself split over the Iraq war.

Progressive House Democrats are pushing for a cutoff in funding, he said, not caring that such legislation would put their colleagues from less-liberal districts in a bind. Moderate Democrats, the aide said, will not likely want to vote against military spending for Iraq and face the criticism (justified or not) that they are not supporting the troops. Even though the war is unpopular and Bush and the Republicans are on the run, we’ll be dividing ourselves, said the aide, who works for a legislator who favors a funding cutoff.

The following day, a prominent liberal thinker in Washington told me he was concerned that Democratic leaders and antiwar activists are swinging behind Pennsylvania Democratic Rep. Jack Murtha’s plan to attach restrictions to Iraq war funding. Murtha’s proposal would prohibit money from being used to deploy troops to Iraq who are not fully equipped, fully trained and fully rested. That plan cannot win a majority, this thinker said; putting it up to a vote would only rip apart the party. The Democrats, consequently, would look weak and not achieve anything, but they still would give the Republicans the chance to accuse them of undermining the soldiers in the field. Couldn’t antiwar Democrats and activists, this liberal asked, find a more mature and sophisticated strategy?

A civil war may be brewing in the Democratic Party over Iraq. There are Democrats who want to take immediate and concrete steps to end the war. They want to force withdrawal through legislation. And there are Democrats who essentially do not want to go first. They want to push President George W. Bush to clean up the mess he made so that he, not the Democrats, will bear responsibility for how the war ends (which could be nastily). Both sides were able to agree on a nonbinding resolution decrying Bush’s surge and declaring support for the troops. But now that such a resolution has passed in the House and died in the Senate, the issue is, what’s next?

In the House, the main Democratic action at the moment centers on the Murtha plan, which would attach his severely limiting conditions to the newest round of funding for the Iraq war. “We’re gonna stop this surge,” Murtha said during a recent interview with MoveCongress.org, an antiwar group. .....(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/02/22/the_democrats_iraq_civil_war.php

[sinkingfeeling]

1. DU, along with all progressive organizations, should start a massive call-in/letter writing

campaign to 'lobby' all Democrats to support shutting down this thing in Iraq. We need to reassure them that the people of America want it stopped...just like they said last November.

[EST]

2. The most egregious aspect of this is that ANYONE could

consider that troops shoud be "fully trained, fully equipped and fully rested" as a severe limitation.

That should be the normal condition for dispatching any sort of troops to any sort of theater.

[lyonn]

3. Turn those words around and that would seem unthinkable.

Imagine sending troops under-equipped, mentally and physically tired and poorly trained into this chaotic battlefield. How they do play with words up there on Capitol Hill.

[gratuitous]

4. What's next, indeed?

I fail to see what's so hard to comprehend about this: A big majority of the people, in poll after poll, are in favor of getting out of Iraq sooner rather than later. Well over 60%, consistently, want something to happen.

I can understand being wary about getting painted with the soft on terrorism brush, but it seems that fewer and fewer people are being taken in by this dodge. The only place it still seems to have any currency is inside the Beltway bubble, and only then among the fools who pollute the public airwaves with overblown smack talk and fake brio.

Stand up for the people, Democrats. There's nothing to fear, and everything to be gained. And if the consistent message being sent to you by the people for the last three and half months isn't sinking in, we the people might just have to take a hand in this. And if we do, we're not going to worry overmuch about semantic fine points.

Do your job.

[blm]

5. You said it well, gratuitous. I also think they fear the bigname Dems will again side with Bush

on his military decisions, just as they did throughout the last 4 years, making it difficult for those Democrats actively opposing Bush's decisions and strategy.