Jan 30, 2007

The Democrats' Iraq War Dilemma

By Nat Parry
January 30, 2007
As the Senate prepares to debate a resolution against the proposed “surge” in Iraq, the Democratic Party faces something of a conundrum: will it heed the calls of its base and take concrete action to end the war, or will it simply use the opportunity to position itself in opposition to Bush’s policy in the hopes of retaking the White House in 2008?
So far, it appears that congressional Democrats are leaning toward the latter strategy.
Although the Democrats can thank a growing antiwar sentiment across the country for their victory in the Nov. 7 elections, so far the party’s leadership has balked at taking bold measures to force a withdrawal from Iraq or even to prevent an escalation of the war, and there is little indication that the party leaders intend to do so.
A proposal by Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., that would have required the President to seek additional congressional approval before sending 21,500 more troops into battle was quickly shot down, and instead the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved a non-binding resolution mildly expressing Congress’s disapproval of Bush’s plan.
Vice President Dick Cheney, appearing on CNN, essentially dismissed the resolution as meaningless. “It won’t stop us,” he
said, a position reiterated by George W. Bush.
Talking to reporters, the President made clear he will follow whatever course of action he chooses, regardless of whether Congress approves or not. “I’m the decision-maker,” he
said, adding that he “picked the plan” that he thinks is “most likely to succeed.”
The problem is, the American people have little to no faith that his plan has any chance of succeeding.
According to a recent Newsweek
poll, 68 percent of Americans oppose the "surge," and in another poll conducted just after the State of the Union Address, 64 percent said Congress is not being assertive enough in challenging the Bush administration over its conduct of the war.
While Bush says he won't govern based on polls, the issue is more complicated for Congress. The new leadership was elected by the American people largely based on the hope that the Democrats would stand up to Bush on Iraq, and many voters are counting on the Democrats to exercise their authority to bring the war to a halt.
But instead, the Democrats insist they will not cut off war funding – out of an apparent fear that the Republicans will portray the move as an anti-troop measure – and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has declared that impeachment is “off the table,” regardless of what may turn up in congressional investigations into administration wrongdoing.

Can you believe the arrogance of Bush and Cheney? I thought the President worked for us? Seems to me that Bush is a Tyrant and a Terrorist in his own way! The Democrats are willing to allow God knows how many Soldiers to die because they are afraid of the Republicans in the '08 Elections! My God what has gone wrong in this Country? I would think they would have a better chance of winning if they listened to the voters? That's My View of It!

Sphere: Related Content

5 comments:

Jeff Herz said...

I am honestly appalled by the Pres and Veeps behavior, but the Senate is a deliberative slow and methodical body by design.

If you saw Chuck Shumer on the Daily Show, the non-binding resolution is a first step. The Senate needs to slowly build a consensus and needs to convince at least 9 republicans to join them in order to effectively pass a binding resolution.

Though on the flip side, I do agree that the Dem's are afraid of appearing weak or not supporting the troops with the upcoming elections 20+ months away.

Pelosi is a moron not to consider impeachment, if Leahy finds true cause, something that never existed in the case of the US Senate vs. Clinton.

But hey that is just me

Carol said...

Both are valid arguements. Yes I still think Bush is a Terrorist and worse. I think by the end of February he will have gotten us into war in Iran. I also expect lots of Propoganda in the next few weeks to convince us that this is the right thing to do. I think Bush will say or do anything to push his own agenda!

Jeff Herz said...

One cannot successfully govern without a successful propaganda campaign. Look at history, whether "good" leader or "bad"

Jesse-

I recently wrote a post that said yes, the president is the commander in chief, but according to the constitution says the president is supposed to take direction from Congress. They are co-partners in governing, which is why we live in a republic, not a dictatorship, which is what we seem to be heading towards, but hey maybe it is just me.

Carol said...

I'm with you on this Jeff - it does feel like a Dictatorship! I am astonished the way the Media and all of Government appears to kowtow to. It is very weird!

Jeff Herz said...

beyond weird, almost to the point of surreal.

Save a life, gain a buddy - dogsindanger.com