Democrats capitulate again on Iraq

Democrats would make Iraq timetable in bill ‘advisory

The compromise language would keep the deadlines included in the original House bill but make them nonbinding, as the Senate version did, and would allow President Bush to waive troop-readiness standards.

In other words, they’ve made the bill even more toothless while deciding it’s ok to sacrifice the lives of more US soldiers by insuring that ill-prepared troops will be sent to Iraq. For a party who took over based on a supposed antiwar agenda, they, with just a few exceptions, cravenly continue to support the war while pretending to oppose it.

It’s not just gutlessness, it’s complicity. Only a people’s movement can end the wars. Democrats, aren’t you tired of being backstabbed by your ‘leaders’?


  1. You say this as if you’re surprised. The Dems need the war to beat the Repubs with– they can’t end it without throwing away a vital political advantage.

    As to what will end the war, that depends on what you mean by ending it. A people’s movement could bring U.S. troops home, but the war we started would continue on without us. (Just as democracy did not spontaneously break out when we went in, peace will not spontaneously break out when we leave, though some commentators I’ve heard seem to think so.) To really end the war would require someone with guts to get all parties in a room to start talking. Yes, talking– something neither Dems nor Repubs put much emphasis on. Yet all of the Iraq parties, and the U.S., have much in common. We all want the U.S. out, and a stable government, and some sort of power sharing agreement. It is only Al Queda (which U.S. action has empowered) that opposes these, and Al Queda would have much more difficulty operating in a stable society.

    BTW, yes I know what is needed. No, I don’t know who can do it. (It has to be someone outside the U.S. Government, because as you can see, no one in the government is particularly interested in ending the war. At that point, once there is a peace strategy, a people’s movement can pressure the govt to do what it does not want to do.) I’ve worked as an analyst in successful peace strategies before (and would again), and I know it can be done.

  2. However, the first step towards peace is withdrawal by the US. And the US government clearly doesn’t want to do that because they want hegemony in the Middle East and control of the oil.

    If the US left, the power of Al Qaeda et al would lessen substantially.

    I not sure you can devise a peace strategy then form a people’s movement. It seems more the other way around, the answers and next indicated step come as a result of taking action.

  3. Don’t get me wrong, I see the people’s movement as vital to the process. But in this case, a people’s movement in America does not have the reach to do what needs to be done. I also don’t see a cohesive peace strategy (in the people’s movement or anywhere else) that goes beyond the withdrawal of American troops, which I see as necessary but not first.

    I could be wrong. Are you guys going to Iraq to talk with your counterparts there and not telling us? THAT would be a Movement I would strongly encourage! But of course that would be illegal, because our government doesn’t really want the war to end… and I doubt you’d get much sympathy from the Dems, either.

Comments are closed.