Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Dems help sink real opposition to Bush's Iraq

Posted by David Sirota at 9:37 AM on January 25, 2007.


Apparently, circus contortionists have replaced political leaders in Washington, D.C...

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

Circus contortionists never cease to amaze, because the moment you think they can't twist their bodies any further, they somehow do something even more absurd, like tying a full slip-knot with one leg. The same can be said of Washington politicians these days when it comes to Iraq: the moment you think they can't obscure their positions any further, they go right ahead and wow the crowd with ever more hideous poses.

Nowhere is this more apparent than among top congressional Democrats. As we saw earlier this week, just months after the public delivered a strong anti-war mandate to Washington, top House Democrats are demanding that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D) take a "go slow" approach to Iraq - Washingtonese for a "do nothing" approach. Now yesterday, Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joe Biden (D-MBNA) led a group of Democrats on his committee in voting down a bill that would have forced President Bush to get congressional authorization for an Iraq escalation. Ignoring basic historical precedent as laid out by Rick Perlstein in Salon, Biden instead championed a toothless, non-binding resolution.

But it gets worse - much worse.

At the very same time this is happening, Senate Democrats are somehow trying to pretend they have absolutely no power to do anything and, in one high-profile case, they are basically claiming they aren't even part of the government.

As I noted before, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is actually asking the public to sign a petition demanding President Bush back off his escalation plan. The petition, of course, says nothing about the fact that Democrats, now in the majority, could themselves stop the escalation by using any number of Congress's constitutional powers. Put another way, the petition is asking the public to demand President Bush do something that the petition sponsors themselves could do.

Then, today, there is Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), the senator who - despite every effort to make us forget - voted for the war and continues to this day to oppose efforts to end the war and bring our troops home. The New York Times reports that she said offered up the classic pass-the-buck self-fulfilling prophecy that "we’re not likely to stop this escalation." Still, she said, congressional lawmakers like her "are going to do everything we can to send a message to our government and the Iraqi government that they had better change."

Let's repeat that to comprehend it's true absurdity: U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton, who serves as a senior member of the majority party that controls both Houses of our government's Congress, said that all she can do is "send a message to our government" that "they had better change."

This is triangulation on a bad acid trip. Whereas old-style Bill Clinton triangulation meant sucking face with Republicans and Big Money interests in order to isolate Democrats, the new strung out, acid trip-style triangulation by Hillary Clinton means Senators actually pretending that they, as majority party lawmakers, aren't really part of "our government." Seriously - is she planning on having her staff "send a message to our government" in a self-addressed stamped envelope? I mean, I understand that she's very, very busy now running for president, and can't be bothered with details like, oh, massive U.S. troop casualties in a war she pushed. But did this woman and her professional political entourage forget that about 3 months ago, she asked New York voters to re-elect her to serve as a U.S. Senator in "our government" rather than as some innocent bystander sending "messages" to something she's supposedly not a part of?

All of this is happening as the vast majority of Americans and, courageous lawmakers like Sens. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Chris Dodd (D-CT) and state legislators from all over the country are saying it's time for Congress to use something more than polite senatorial "non-binding" requests to stop a war that is killing more and more people, further destabilizing and already unstable region, and severely damaging U.S. national security.

It begs questions I asked a few days ago: in the face of such inaction, distortion and dishonesty, isn't it time we finally face up to the fact that there is a powerful faction of Democrats on Capitol Hill who support the Iraq War, support the escalation and support President Bush? And further, because Democrats now have real power in the majority, isn't it time that the progressive movement spend some real resources not just chasing cheap media-grabbing headlines by going after our partisan foes like John McCain (R-AZ), but also doing the less glamorous, more serious, might-get-you-kicked-off-the-D.C.-Christmas-party-list work of taking on those in the Democratic Party who clearly are helping President Bush continue this war?

Is this too much to ask? My pessimistic side says it might be - there remains serious resistance within quarters of the progressive movement to actually going after Democrats, no matter how many troops die, no matter how much those specific Democrats may undermine their own party, no matter how much these specific Democrats lay waste to the progressive agenda. That resistance seems to have as much to do with cocktail party chumminess as it does with the cold, hard cash that comes with political consulting fees, campaign jobs, and insider careeerism.

Then again, we are in historically uncharted waters. The convergence of an unpopular war and new political technologies that are giving citizens back more of their voice really provides a chance to break into some truly new politics (and I'm not referring to the hackneyed "post-partisanism" that the media now reflexively ascribes to any new politician that hasn't been in D.C. for the last quarter century and yet who, upon being elected to federal office, instantly knows to utter only nebulous, substance-free platitudes). There is a huge amount of organizing going on right now, whether through the Progressive States Network's 50-State Anti-Escalation Campaign, this Saturday's march on Washington or through scores of other efforts. We can make a difference, I am sure of it - but only if we are willing to take on our opponents - ALL of them.

Digg!

Tagged as: iraq, clinton, biden, kennedy, dodd

David Sirota is a veteran political strategist and author of Hostile Takeover, a New York Times bestseller about the corruption of both political parties.


Bipartisan Concern About the Dangers of McPalin’s Hate-Mongering
"I accuse you of deliberately feeding the most unhinged elements of our society the red meat of hate ..."
Post by Emptywheel. October 10, 2008.
Stock Market Drops 107 Points During Bush's Speech on the Economy
That's the kind of confidence Bush inspires these days.
Post by Amanda Terkel. October 10, 2008.
McCain-Palin Rally Attendees Say Incredible, Ridiculous Things
File this one under the "give 'em enough rope" column.
Post by Seth Colter Walls. October 10, 2008.

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
otto
Posted by: otto on Jan 26, 2007 5:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree 120%! Too many members of the Democratic party have slipped too far to the right, as the right moved to the extreme right. Perhaps we're all guilty to some extent; we Americans (North Americans - I now live in Canada) have become so spoiled by our standard of living that we have become blind to much of what's really going on in the world. We rob the poor in third world countries of their resources and congratulate ourselves on the few pennies we send back in aid. We overturn their attempts at democracy and set up dictators and call them defenders of freedom and democracy.We spend more than the rest of the world put together on weapons of war. We cause most of the pollution that results in global warming. If the rest of the world lived as we do, it would take 7 planets to provide enough resources. And we are led by the "bread and circuses" of Tom Cruise and Modonna, etc. and the corporate control of the media that encourages us to buy and consume. Hopefully, we are starting to learn a lesson as more and more of us face poverty as a reality rather than a fiction of life...I just hope it isn't learned too late or in too drastic a way!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's hard to stand up with a spine made of jell-o.
Posted by: monkeywrench on Jan 26, 2007 7:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wonder how many Democrats who want Speaker Pelosi to "go slow" on ending the Iraq occupation have kids over there fighting. My guess: none. And, if Hillary was so in favor of the "war," why isn't Chelsea over there? Answer: for the same reason that The Bush Twins, Babs and Jenna, are not: it's easy to fight battles when it's sombody else's kids doing the actual fighting and dying.

Senator George McGovern said it well, referring to the Vietnam War, when he said that he was sick and tired of old men inventing wars for young men to die in – and now, women, too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No Surprise
Posted by: brainvib on Jan 26, 2007 8:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why should there be any surprise or question on the Dems oatmeal posture on Iraq.
They do not really want out any more than Bush does. OIL OIL OIL and OIL
COMPANIES have a great financial interest in both divisions of the two party system.
Iraq oil, bought with your tax dollars and paid for with the blood of your sons and
daughters will insure future profits for big oil. Dem or Rep they stand for the same
thing, the dominance and growth of corporate america so if you expect meaningful
Democratic opposition to this war you are about to be sadly disappointed. I wish and
pray that Ms. Waters would be inspired to start a third party based on her peace group.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: No Surprise Posted by: willymack
Some other possibilities...
Posted by: bob t on Jan 26, 2007 1:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...could be that the Dems are going to let the rethugs hang themselves when this latest Bush strategy also fails as have all the rest. Then the Dems can take over the presidency in '08, thats one possibility. Another is that we must remember that they have only a razor thin edge over the rethugs and almost no power when it comes to Baby boy Bush and Daddy Darth Vader Shotgun Cheney.
I don't know I'm just guessing but I am willing to give them some time so that they can set up their slay Bush strategy by letting Bush shoot himself in the foot, since they can't stop him antway. Whereas if they were somehow able to stop Bushie boy now they would be blamed for whatever happens in Iraq just as they are now being blamed for what happened in Vietnam.
The shame of it is more troops will die, but no matter what happens the Dems cannot stop Baby Bush, Shotgun Cheney or Daddy Bush no matter what they do because there already is enough money in the pipeline for Bush to do his escalation dance.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sick and tired of excuses
Posted by: TennMom on Jan 26, 2007 11:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I spent last fall donating to, and volunteering for, candidates I believed would stand up to the imperious, naked emporer in the White House. What a waste of my time, my money and, most importantly, my vote. I broke my own rule about voting "for the person" and steadfastly resolved that not one Republican box would be marked on my ballot. Silly me. I actually thought a Democratic majority would make a difference, strip Bush of his self-assigned powers and turn this country around.

The Democrats are wasting our time and money, just as the Republicans did in the previous 6 years. The Dems first 100 hours may have been productive but nothing of consequence has happened since. Hearings which result in meaningless and impotent resolutions are as shallow and self-serving as the actions of the previous congress, when it made a show of investigating 9/11, WMDs and illegal wiretapping.

With few exceptions, I'm disgusted with all of those I supported. The newly empowered Democrats praised the populace for taking a stand on change, then simply went back to "business as usual." They praised us for our support, then turned around and spit in our faces. For them, it was "all good", as soon as the money was banked and the votes were tallied.

For most of them, it isn't about what America wants, needs, or demands. It is about the next election. It is about keeping short office hours, free meals, free postage and taxpayer funded travel. It is about never having to worry over health insurance premiums, relying on Social Security in their golden years, or agonizing over the fact that their child is in Iraq. Their fundraisers, their speeches, their promises were filled with the pronouns "we", "us" and "our." Now elected, "I", "me" and "my" are their words of choice.

Despite what those we've elected have told us, they can stop Bush's ill-advised recipe for "victory." It is their constitutional responsibility to direct how taxpayer money can be spent. It is their responsibility to draft and pass a law that will not allow Bush his "surge." They can do so without affecting the troops already in Iraq, because that money has already been appropriated. They can do so by loading any new war spending bill with amendments for which no Republican will vote. I imagine 70 is a good "round" number of amendments - about the same number the Republicans attached to the minimum wage bill.

The Democrats have the power to do a great many things which would fulfill their promise to America, the most powerful of which would be to start impeachment proceedings. They can stop the "surge", they can bring the troops home, they can isolate and restrain the Bush disease. They can, but they won't. Their futures, funded and approved by the American voting public, will be impacted by doing what is right. When money, prestige and power are at stake, doing the right thing is too insignificant to matter.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]