Democrats need to grow a pair
Thursday, Representative John Murtha (D-PA) called for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. Friday, House Republicans said, "Okay, you want to withdraw troops? Let's withdraw troops" and presented a resolution for withdrawing troops. While the Democrats were brave enough to suggest an Iraq withdrawal, they completely -- how shall I put it? -- pussied out when it came to an actual resolution. An AFP story about the resolution observes, "Republicans put up their own version of the resolution, calling for 'the deployment of United States forces (to) be terminated immediately,' aiming to make the Democrats appear unpatriotic if they voted for the measure." The resolution, H.R. 571, was defeated 403 to 3, with spineless Democrats voting to defeat the resolution. Which House members aren't spineless? Cynthia McKinney of Georgia, José Serrano of New York, and Robert Wexler of Florida. Apparently, Democrats will talk all day long about doing things, but when it comes to actually doing things, they're afraid of appearing "unpatriotic."
Why are they so afraid? President Bush is on the defensive, or at least, he should be. He attacked his critics on Veterans Day and followed up earlier this week. He sent Cheney out to repeat the talking points that war critics are trying to "revise history." Any junior high school-level debater should be able to take these speeches down; Bush and Cheney make a lot of claims, but offer no evidence to support their assertions. In contrast, war critics offer a plethora of evidence indicating that the administration cherry-picked intelligence -- whether true or not -- in order to support its attempt to convince the world and the American people that we needed to go to war with Saddam Hussein right now!
Instead, the Democrats do nothing. If Bill Clinton's White House were in charge of the Democratic Party, we would be seeing a lot more criticisms of the war and we would be seeing the Democratic Party trying to "win the hearts and minds" of moderate Americans who are unsure of what to believe.
Instead, they send Howard Dean to Meet the Press with the nebulous promise that "sure, we have ideas, and our ideas are better than the Republicans' ideas, but we can't tell you what our ideas are. Just trust us on this one."
The strongest criticisms of the administration are coming from what might be considered the fringes of the Democratic Party -- blogs like Daily Kos, and Air America Radio. Put these people on Capitol Hill and you'll see the Republicans quaking in their boots, which are made from the skin of the poor.
But the Republicans have a coordinated media strategy, something Democrats don't have. The RNC sends out daily talking points, and Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and Rush Limbaugh all obediently repeat the talking points like the syncophantic, despicable lap-dogs that they are. This means that, in the heartland of America (and I dare you to find a state in the midwest where you hear Rush on more stations than you hear Air America shows), voters hear day in and day out that Democrats are lying, and Republicans are just trying to spread freedom, and the Iraq War is going really swell, and by the way, if you keep voting for us, we'll take care of that whole gay marriage and abortion thing and we'll give the richest one percent of Americans cherry tax breaks because, hey, they work really hard and deserve it more than you do.
If the Democrats want to do anything about the administration, they have to be unafraid to challenge the administration where it counts.
Oh, and in other news, THOMAS, the Library of Congress's searchable database of legislation, has updated its look. The web page no longer looks like it was designed in 1995.
Comments
First off, this "Our troops must come home now!" thing is a terrible idea.
A. I think our reasons for going to war were spurious at best
B. I think our tactics in this war are shortsighted
C. I think George W. Bush is 2 hairs away from taco
However, what we need is a change of tactics. Moving people out of their houses, blowing the hell out of shit looking for "insurgents" which incidentally means, anyone found to have a gun, insurgent paraphanelia, shoots at us or we just don't like the look of. Now, this is pissing people off. However, if you withdraw, just flat out withdraw, then the Iraqi government won't have a chance to stabilize, sort out it's military affairs and prepare an adequate defense to the insurgency (which similar to Vietnam, is not just anti-U.S. but also anti-U.S. supported Iraqi government). A total withdrawal would be like running into someone's house, breaking all their shit, then running away, shouting over your shoulder, "Your welcome!" Not a good P.R. move. The way we win this insurgency is by doing what we haven't been able to do in our own country (I'm a pessimist in this regard). We convince the average schlub that we've his best interests in mind (note to Cheney, RE: Halliburton ... not helping). We show them that this new government will be less corrupt, the education, social and police infrastructure will be built up with their interests coming first, not the American SUV driver. While I'm not a fan of this war, leaving it is a bad idea. However, each time we yank evacuate an area we piss people off. Now, yes, this means anyone left in the area is probably an insurgent. Then again, they could be looters, they could have overslept and they might just not be fans of getting uprooted from their homes by a foreign power. The war itself was a bad idea. Let's face it, Hussein was power hungry, first and foremost. He never, NEVER would have shared power with Zarqawi. Withdrawing our troops will not improve safety, short term, hell yes it will. They'll be back here. But long term? Nope. And this "insurgent war" with it's sweeps, operations and et cetera? We're fighting Vietnam ... in a desert. In Vietnam vast jungles concealed enemy positions, the thick vegetation made fighting difficult (and we were fighting at least partially an established army, this is pure insurgency here folks). In Iraq, we've got mountainous terrain, deserts and of course, the fact that in a crowded town there is no way to tell an unarmed insurgent from a standard citizen. And nebulous actions that blanket large groups of people only serve to further the cause of the insurgency by pissing off the populous. Ask the British how well it worked to try and maintain control of a region by sweeping for revolutionaries.
Incidentally a part of me thinks, what the hell? Let's throw this one to the people. If they want to be a certain way, it's their choice. Perhaps this insurgency is their way of saying, "We really don't fucking like democracy" Then again, screw them, they can be just like us. I'll be the first to open a Baghdad McDonald's. Suckers
Posted by: Wolf | November 19, 2005 3:43 PM
You're reading the gop spin on this resolution, which isnt surpising since they control the MSN. Murtha came up with a sensible resolution, but they refused to vote on it. Instead they put up a resolution that was so far out there that only wackballs like mckinney would vote for it. It's all a political stunt. So many crazy bills like this is the reason a Senator/Congressman has such a problem being elected President (you voted for and against resolutions with the same name, but different meanings all together for instance).
On the above comment, they will eventually pull out, but not until you see a "decent interval" which you should know all about considering your Vietnam comparisons. Wont happen soon, imo.
Finally:
Recommend Kenneth Arrow to your neoconservative friends as recommended reading...
Well enough of my realism for tonight.
Posted by: Kevin | November 19, 2005 11:38 PM
I wasn't implying that a pullout was a bad idea, merely that a wildly jumped to, unstructured one would be a terrible idea. And that you can not win a war against insurgency by sweeping through towns. Ask the ETA, IRA or even, hell, the VietCong. Eventually we will pullout, and from the looks of things it won't be pretty. America will rail against Bush, elect a bunch of Democrats who are running on a platform of, "We'll make it right." The war will be bungled, our troops lives and the lives of Iraqi civilians will be compromised, because American voters are like American investors. Quick turnaround, no patience, no sense of the long haul
Posted by: Wolf | November 21, 2005 8:32 PM