The Senate will not stop paying for the Iraq war or relent from insisting that President Bush keep pressing the Baghdad government for a negotiated end to the violence, a top Democrat said Sunday.
This, in the spineless world of congressional Democrats, is what passes for opposition. They’ve completely collapsed, and add absurdity to it by saying the Iraqi government needs to negotiate an end to the war.
The Iraqi government didn’t start the war. The US did. By invading. To say a puppet government with little if any real power in a country occupied by a foreign power is the reason the war is continuing is so uncomprehending as to be lunatic.
Thus, despite all the blather from Dems about being antiwar, their position of the war is now indistinguishable from that of Bush and they surrendered on funding the war after barely putting up a fight. Given this capitulation, how real can their position on troop withdrawal be?
I recently had a somewhat heated discussion with an antiwar Democrat activist who was morally outraged that I linked Pelosi in with Bush on the war. Oh no, he said, they are very different, and besides, you have to work towards incremental gain, not like what you radicals in ANSWER want.
Well, there’s your ANSWER, Mr. Antiwar Democrat. Your party just betrayed you. Again.
Radical action is what’s needed. A massive people’s movement can and will stop the wars. Timidly hoping congressional Democrats will do so is delusion.
Your incrementalist friend has adopted a comforting delusion that’s very popular amongst the pwoggwessive democwats lately. By adopting an attitude that is non-results oriented they’ve admitted their antiwar posturing is uttery worthless. They’ve essentially joined the empire by relegating themselves to a comfortable place in the peanut gallery.
Joined the empire? They’re half of the empire.
As Peter Camejo says in the Avocado Declaration, a primary purpose of the Democratic Party is to take dissent and protest and channel it into the party where it be be rendered harmless.