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.

It's Clear: Voters Elected Dems to Protest Iraq

By Robert Dreyfuss, TomPaine.com. Posted November 8, 2006.


Now the Dems must thunder from the pulpit, threatening to rain down hellfire, hail and brimstone on Republicans who want to stay the course.
protest

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

More stories by Robert Dreyfuss

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

For the first time in American history, Americans have gone to the polls in wartime and rejected that war. Not only that, but they’ve done so overwhelmingly. Just as the election of 1932 was a seismic repudiation of the failed economic policies of the Hoover Republicans, the election of 2006 was a landslide against the Bush Republicans and their criminally misguided war against Iraq.

Amid pre-election polls showing that voters oppose “staying the course” by margins of as much as three to one, the American people have issued a sweeping mandate to the U.S. government: Get out of Iraq.

How that mandate is handled by Democrats and Republicans is yet to be resolved. And both energized Democrats and chastened, mainstream Republicans who want to change course in Iraq will confront a stubborn, blinkered president who, for the next two years, is still the commander-in-chief, and a giant stone Sphinx of a vice president, who has already declared that “it doesn’t matter” what voters think. “We've got the basic strategy right,” Vice President Dick Cheney told ABC News  over the weekend.

It may not be popular with the public—it doesn't matter in the sense that we have to continue the mission and do what we think is right. And that's exactly what we're doing. We're not running for office. We're doing what we think is right.

So the question is: In the face of an electoral sandstorm of Biblical proportions, how long can Bush and Cheney continue to do “what we’re doing”? Let’s look at five forces arrayed against them: the Democrats, the Republicans, the military, the U.S. bureaucracy and the Iraqi resistance.

First, the Democrats. It would appear, from their initial post-election reactions, that some Democrats get it. “We cannot continue down this catastrophic path,” said Nancy Pelosi, who will be speaker of the House. “And so we say to the president, ‘Mr. President, we need a new direction in Iraq. Let us work together to find a solution to the war in Iraq.’” But the Democrats have shown themselves to be lily-livered vacillators on Iraq: most of them voted for the war (and for the Patriot Act), and their ranks are shot though with pro-war right-wingers, not to mention the revived neocon Joe Lieberman. But, if they intend to retain or expand their solid majority in the House and their potential razor-thin, but all-important majority in the Senate in 2008 without incurring the wrath of the American majority opposed to the war, the Democrats can’t blow it. That will mean that they must become a resonant echo chamber for the anti-war voice of the American voter, who will demand nothing less. The Democrats must thunder from the pulpit, threatening to rain down hellfire, hail and brimstone on Republicans who want to stay the course—while scrutinizing every Pentagon budget request and holding investigative hearings into war crimes, abuses, cost overruns and mismanagement. Expect every general who’s ever called for Donald Rumsfeld’s scalp to headline a House or Senate hearing. And just wait ‘til the new leaders of the House and Senate intelligence committees get their hands on those long-suppressed files on the lies that got us into war in 2003.

Second, the Republicans. On the eve of the election, Senator Joe Biden, the Democrat from Delaware, said that a dozen Republican senators had approached him to say that it was time to change course in Iraq. In fact, most mainstream Republicans had long ago written off the 2006 elections, but they are in full panic mode about 2008. If the war in Iraq is still raging in the summer of 2008 and the GOP runs a pro-war candidate (think John McCain), the party will suffer yet another landslide loss. That’s precisely why Representative Frank Wolf and Senator John Warner, both Republicans from Virginia, created the Iraq Study Group, led by former Secretary of State James Baker. The ISG report is expected in January, and it’s likely to call for what amounts to a withdrawal from Iraq. Expect Republicans to nod their heads sagely and praise Baker’s wisdom. Even more than the Democrats, it will be Republicans—contemplating the end of their political lives two years from now—who will demand an end to the war.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: elections06, iraq

Robert Dreyfuss is the author of "Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam" (Henry Holt/Metropolitan Books).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

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:
1st Step: Call on the Senate and House to ban depleted Uranium weapons immediately
Posted by: LeftWright on Nov 8, 2006 11:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Coalition forces have used more than 120,000 kg of dU weapons in Iraq since 2003.

This is in addition to the 2700 tonnes of dU used in the 1990-1991 Gulf War.

Depleted Uranium has a half-life of 4.5 billion years.

U.S. forces continue to use these WMD's in Iraq.

We must end this insanity ASAP.

Please contact your local House and Senate members, Speaker Pelosi and Rep. Murtha today and once a week on this issue until they ban dU weapons.

Speaker Pelosi
2371 Rayburn HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Rep. Murtha
2423 Rayburn HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Only mail POST CARDS, as letters get screened for bio-weapons.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Be well.

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

Sorry
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Nov 8, 2006 11:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
but the Democrats aren't going to do squat on Iraq issue. My prediction is that, if anything, they will become more 'warmongering' in order to appeal to the voters that elected them into office (since Polosi chose to go with the conservative Democrat candidates and not the progressive ones.) That will lead to infighting betwixt the two wings of the Democrats coupled with the control issues between the Clintions, Polosi, and Deans of the party. Then, after more bloodshed, a Republican will get elected President and we will extract ourselves with "peace with honour" ala Vietnam.

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

» RE: Sorry Posted by: Conservasaurus
» It's still pretty cool Posted by: Donna_Darko
» RE: It's still pretty cool Posted by: Conservasaurus
Wat about the oil? The whole reason for occupying Iraq with permanent military bases?
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Nov 8, 2006 12:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I haven't heard a definitive answer yet on the permanent military bases in Iraq. Will they be abandoned when US troops withdraw? Will they be taken over by a US-backed "Shah of Iraq"-style regime backed by an Iranian SAVAK-style secret police apparatus? Or will the Iraqi wish for independence under a democratic government finally be realized?

The oil factor is the invisible elephant in the living room, that everyone manuevers arpound but that noone wants to talk about, Dems or Repubs.

Regardless of who won this election, the Four Brothers of Big Oil (once the Seven Sisters) are still firmly in control of US foreign policy - and they own the media as well. It's really not surprising that California's proposition 87, the "Tax Big Oil to pay for Renewable Energy" initiative, was defeated - the fossil fuel - media empire provided lots of free advertising against it.

It makes one wonder about the election system, the lack of any exit polls on California's initiatives, and the unaudited proprietary software used to count the votes. All you have to go on is what the government tells you... and they've been repeatedly proven to be casual liars.

The American living room is so full of invisible elephants that it's impossible to take step without running into one. Living in denial... not a river in Egypt, I'm afraid.

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

fearlessmanateehunter
Posted by: fearlessmanateehunter on Nov 8, 2006 12:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I HAVE A CONFESSION TO MAKE.....

I voted for Katherine Harris yesterday... :-(

It was just one of those moments and I guess that you could say that I'm one of those "bleeding heart liberals". I felt sorry for her, she doesn't have a friend in the world and she is mentaly challenged. I knew she couldn't win but I just felt soooooo bad for her, she seemed so desperate. Anyway I am mad at Bill Nelson because he voted to abolish Habius Corpus.

I feel better now.... ;-)

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

» RE: fearlessmanateehunter Posted by: Mr. Heathen
Time will tell
Posted by: YogiBear on Nov 8, 2006 1:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wonder if in two years, fickle voters will see a still broken Iraq, blame the Democrats for failing to fix the problem, and go back to a Republican president?

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

» RE: Time will tell Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Time will tell Posted by: NWCrow
» RE: Time will tell Posted by: yellow
Time to Pull Out Now and Let it Collapse
Posted by: sofla100 on Nov 8, 2006 2:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With us out of Iraq things can develop as they should. This means basically the end of Iraq, and a welcome to the new state of Kurdistan and to the new Iranian Republic which will extend East of Baghdad. The rest of the country will either fade into the new Iranian Federation or possibly into Saudi Arabia. A good outcome? Some might think its bad but really the Kurds want a real country and they deserve it. An expanded Iranian Republic will serve as a check for US and Israeli ambitions in the region. As long as the USA no longer tries to meddle in Arab affairs, the USA need not worry, plenty of oil will be available for purchase.

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

Is the coup underway?
Posted by: edith on Nov 8, 2006 3:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Don't count on the newly elected Dems to cut off the gravy train for the Iraq boondoggle. Many of the new Dems are from Ky, Indiana, NC and other red states. They did not run on a get out of Iraq platform. Dreyfuss, the author here candidly recognizes the possibility of more heming and hawing by the bleatocrats.

However he accurately notes the discontent of the military brass with the Duke of Crawford and his now fired DOD boss.

Enter Robert Gates, spymaster and confidante of Bush Sr., who himself was up to his eyeballs in CIA business for years before and after his "official" brief term as CIA boss in the 70's.

whether you agreed or disagreed w/Iran contra, it was realpolik at its best: the US and Israel wheeling and dealing in secret with their supposed ultimate enemy, Iran. Gates was at the heart of that deceptive little diplomatic and spy operation. He was lucky not to be indicted, though Reagan pardoned Weinberger and others who were involved.

So hope that Gates is the consiglieri of the Bush/spook faction tied to Wall St and the oil business which may have decided that young W is not good for business. There will not yet be a sudden heart attack for the Decider, but let's hope that the real manipulators of the country have decided that it's time to cut losses, maybe wheel and deal with the Shia and with Iran, and in the process dump the parasitic Israelis. The senior mililtary would back such common sense actions to preserve the status, wealth and position of the more established aristocracy, in contrast with the nouveau Texas types favored by Rove and W.

I do hope Rove is careful crossing the street.

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

But how would the Dems "end" the war?
Posted by: Burton on Nov 8, 2006 4:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How would the Democrats end the war in Iraq? You can pull out US troops but you'd end up with the civil war among Iraqis continuing.

There is a deeper issue here. How will the Dems end the terrorist attacks against the West?

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

Happy, yes. Insanely optimistic, no.
Posted by: opeluboy on Nov 8, 2006 5:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Good. Less Republicans. Can't be bad.

However, I agree with the majority of posters here that we can expect little change from the Dems when it comes to the war, and that indeed some may even be prompted to do more chest-thumping.

We can also expect even more craven knee-walking from the Pelosis and Clintons when it comes to Israel, so there goes any real chance to decrease terror.

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

Conventional wisdom unfamiliar with Iraq war votes
Posted by: autonomie on Nov 8, 2006 8:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's awesome to see so many people coming together against the war. But it won't do much to help bring Democrats to power, who are equally down with the war. Want proof? Have a look at these Iraq war votes and see for yourself. 96-0, 100-0, 403-3, and so on. There's really no difference between the two parties.

Great to see people against the war. But now it's time to identify exactly who supports the war and throw them out.

And that's both parties.

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

It's not just about the war
Posted by: zigzag on Nov 9, 2006 8:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think it's simplistic to believe that the decisions made by voters were mostly about the war. I think the entire culture of neocon ideology was on trial here: the stripping of the Constitution and Bill of Rights by the administration and Congress, the refusal to fight corruption through effective campaign financing and ethics reform, the decisions to relegate low-income and working middle class people to the level of criminals and citizens without rights, giving government over to the banking and insurance industries, the oil companies, the pharmaceutical industry and the defense contractors, giving giant media conglomerates a free hand in consolidating and channeling information and an iron grip on the airwaves formerly owned by the public (the Internet is next), and on and on. Yes, the war was an important factor for many people, but I believe there's a larger and more fundamental movement afoot. The oligarchy that's been building under the guidance of Grover Norquist, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and other adherents of Leo Strauss, the men whose very aim it is to destroy the republic--the government of the people and by the people and for the people, is finally being recognized by young voters and those older voters who take the time to read and become informed. This election was a tiny step in the direction of taking our government back. We have a long, long way to go; Democrats in the Senate and House are generally not guilt-free here and are, in fact, nearly as corrupt and power-driven as the Republicans. We have to keep after them continually, too, and make them honest.

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

The war was the reason?
Posted by: JRLiberty on Nov 9, 2006 11:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Exit polls showed that the real reason for the defeat was corruption at 42% the war was second @ 40%

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

So What?
Posted by: gonzoskismet on Nov 9, 2006 12:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm not going to say that it's not a good thing for the nation to see the Dems back in control of Congress. But these are some of the same suckers that got caught up in the WMD lies Bush, Cheney, Rummy and Condi were pushing. This resulted in a bunch of dead people that were doing a pretty good job of living until these fools come along. And you can call it a war on 'Terra', you can call it 'National Security' or you can call it a peanut butter and banana sandwich, the point is, these people are dead because of a shit pot load of lying people freaking everybody else out over a man with a rag on his head and a hand full of bottle rockets that didn't have a prayer of reaching the American
mainland.
I guess you could call this a war. Or a taco. Or pissing on a dumpster at three A.M. as your Patriotic duty. Those of us that have been in the middle of such a flag waving nationalistic orgasm know what it really is. It's called survival until you get your ass out and you curse the Commander in Chief a million times until you do get out. Cheney doesn't have to worry about it because he got FIVE deferments during Vietnam. That means he can spout all the important bullshit statements he wants to and the media will lap it up.
So, we'll just have to wait and see if this great Dem take over is a real change in direction for America or just re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.Old men talk about wars and young men die in them. And when ya'll wise up to that, this shit will stop.

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