Waiting For Democratic Courage

Democrats need to grow a sack. Last election, voters expressed dismay with the status quo and Bush's handling of Iraq. Recent polling shows that 70 percent of the public opposes the escalation plan and a majority want Democrats to use their majority power for Congressional oversight. Further, I think it was pretty clear from the '04 presidential election that Democrats lost, in part, because voters believed Democrats lacked courage, didn't have an easily understandable, coherent party platform, and would say whatever they had to to get elected. Notice that Democrats are far more concerned with the "electability" of their presidential candidates, but Republicans just go with the candidate they like the best. In short, Democrats need to toughen up and make courageous decisions regardless of what conventional wisdom, the punditry, and the right-wing attack machine has to say about it.

Democrats have a number of options with Iraq. Still, they have created an imaginary paralysis in which they feel helpless to influence decision making until Bush leaves office in January 2009. They appear terrified of taking positions that could leave them vulnerable Rove-Republican attack machine.

The conventional wisdom and perceived options: cutting off funding for the war is a radical option, not wise or prudent to exercise in the near future, and likely political suicide. Cutting off funding would show Democrats don't "support the troops" and would hurt the party in '08. Therefore, only two sensible options remain: the least popular is the Kennedy position and bill he has introduced which caps troop numbers at their current level (pre-escalation) and deprives funding for any extra troops. The more popular option, and the bill likely to be passed within the next couple of weeks, is to symbolically condemn Bush's new plan and show Congress's and the American people's disapproval.

Frankly, I am irritated by the second and more popular proposal. Bush does not care. The resolution will have zero impact on how he conducts the war over the next couple of years. He has "made his decision." If there's anything we've learned from the last six years, and particularly since the Iraq war, Bush and his administration have their own ideas of how best to lead the country and what policies to implement, and they are uninterested in what the opposition has to say about it. Of course Bush knows his plan is unpopular, but it's the defining issue of his presidency and he's not going to abandon his mission just because public opinion has mounted against him. Therefore, this resolution has no teeth and will have no impact on policy. It doesn't even force members of Congress to account to their constituencies because they have already made public statements on how they feel about Bush's plan. In short, I believe this resolution is an act of cowardice and a futile political ploy to pretend that Congress is exercising its power.

If I were a member of Congress, I would introduce a bill (along with Bernie Sanders (Socialist-VT) to set a date for the military to be out of Iraq and cut off funding beyond that date. Like Brad said in earlier posts, the date could be arranged in consultation with the generals on the ground to determine the most expeditious and safest way to carry out the withdrawal. This resolution would give Bush extended notice to comply with Congress to prevent American forces stranded in Iraq without the resources they need. The way this option is framed conventionally, it seems, is that if Congress votes to cut off funding, they are the ones that would be undermining the troops. But What if the resolution gave Bush months to prepare for withdrawal and he still didn't comply? Wouldn't he be the one keeping troops in Iraq when he knows they will be deprived of resources by a specific date?

Memo to Democrats: it would be nice if you could reach down and pull your genitals to the proper place in front of your body instead of continuing to look down and being deceived by a vaginal-type presence.