The progressive blogosphere is abuzz with comments about yesterday's capitulation by Democrats on the Iraq funding bill. Some bloggers are pissed, other dispirited. I'm in there somewhere. It does seem clear cut to me that the Democratic leadership caved in on this one and is trying to put a smily face on their "cut-and-run strategy on cut-and-run," as Jon Stewart called it on The Daily Show. Dennis Kucinich continues to be an anti-war standard-bearer in the House, a little guy with big courage. He voted against Bush's invasion in 2003 and has been consistent in his opposition ever since. Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama voted against the Senate version of the bill. To do otherwise would have doomed their chances at victories in 2008 Dem primaries. The hear Fox pundits tell it, Democratic Party primary voters are all anti-war lefty loonies who (all together now) "hate our troops." But most primary voters are part of the 70 percent of the U.S. populace opposing the Iraq war. The same people who sent a tide of Dems to Congress in 2006.
I think Joan Walsh summed up Dems' frustration in Salon:
Americans have already "spoken out" on the war. They oppose it. They elected Democrats to end it. Now the Associated Press reports Reid's boast that the compromise legislation would be the first war-funding bill sent to Bush since the U.S. invasion of Iraq "where he won't get a blank check." The president is absolutely getting a blank check, Harry, and Democrats should be honest about it. As proposed, the benchmarks are toothless; they have no consequences, and Republicans are making sure Bush can waive them and continue spending when -- note that I didn't say "if" -- Nouri al-Maliki's government fails to meet them.
No comments:
Post a Comment