Dems Hold All the Cards on Iraq, So Why Are They Folding?

Remember earlier this summer when Harry Reid and the Democrats vowed they were "going to hold the president's feet to the fire" on Iraq? Well, now it appears they've decided to play footsie with the White House instead and take what one Democratic strategist calls "a more nuanced approach" that includes backing off demands to set a firm withdrawal date.

In anticipation of next week's inevitably sunny side up -- and statistically cherry-picked -- report from Gen. Petraeus, the White House has cranked up its spin machine, and the Democrats are falling into their default duck-and-cover mode.

So we get Bush hopping off a plane in Australia after his eight-hour photo-op layover in Iraq and telling the Deputy Prime Minister: "We're kicking ass" -- while Democratic leaders let it be known they are hoping "to manage expectations" by lowering their sights on Iraq.

Bush is certainly not kicking ass in Iraq but next week he may be kicking ass in Washington.

Just last week, Reid was promising "I will not let these Republicans hide. When the Senate returns to Washington, I will force them to take vote, after vote, after vote on bringing an end to the war in Iraq."

Now the air on Capitol Hill is full of talk of "bipartisan compromise" and even Ken Salazar's insipid proposal, which Reid himself had previously rejected as a "toothless tiger," is getting renewed interest.

"I can't believe how Democrats are playing this game," a Republican strategist told me the other night. "They hold all the cards -- and they are folding."

This spineless approach is the last thing Democrats need. Do they have no memory of 2002 and 2004, when caution and timidity led to defeat? If 2008 doesn't turn out to be a landslide for Democrats, it will be because of the seeds of caution being planted now.

Perhaps the weight of Katie Couric's take on Iraq -- "real progress has been made there in terms of security and stability" -- was too much to bear. In the same way that once Cronkite turned against Vietnam Johnson knew the war was lost, it appears the Democrats believe that once Couric embraced the surge, it could no longer be resisted.

So next week, the collective wisdom of 16 intelligence agencies and the Government Accounting Office may be eclipsed by the cherry-picked stats of Petraeus and the administration. As the Washington Post reports, apparently certain kinds of violence in Iraq just don't count in the eyes of the administration. Literally -- they aren't being counted. Shot in the head from the front? Doesn't count. Shiite on Shiite bloodshed? Doesn't count (this despite escalating warfare between rival Shi'a groups in Basra). Sunni on Sunni violence? Doesn't count. As those radicals in the Iraq Study Group put it in their report: "Good policy is difficult to make when information is systematically collected in a way that minimizes its discrepancy with policy goals."

And good political strategy is difficult to make when you are constantly wondering how your decisions will look in a future attack ad. "This administration's capabilities of having Rose Garden press conferences and the kind of punitive rhetoric they're using is concerning to Members," explained Rep. Ellen Tauscher. "I don't think we have a vehicle [for withdrawal] that will get 60 votes in the Senate. In the absence of that, we're naked."

Well, better naked than castrated.

The Democrats' thinking on this is unfathomable -- it makes no sense logically, morally or politically. They have the majority of the American people wanting to bring this war to an end; a constant stream of tragic news from Iraq; and a president committed to "stay the course" despite all evidence that the course we are on is taking us over the cliff.

It's time for Democrats to stop sounding the retreat on ending the war and actually pay attention to John McCain, who said that if they "are serious that we ought to stop the war" they should "bring up a bill to cut off the funding and end it."

McCain is right. Exercising their Constitutional power of the purse is exactly what Democrats need to do if they are serious about ending the war. And if they are serious about winning in 2008.

Follow Arianna Huffington on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ariannahuff

Comments

[Cindilee63]

I couldn't agree more! I have just fired off a letter to the DNC. If they don't grow a backbone and stop letting Bush stomp all over them(and us) with his cowboy boots and then saying "thank you sir may I have another" this independent will look elsewhere. Their cowering is sickening. They need to take a firm stand and stomp all over the republicans. We the people are ready to kick some bush regime Butt!

[Freetoast]

Dems won't stop this because they own shares in the same munitions / construction companies as their republican cohorts. Only thing that will ever end this is when they run out of idiots willing to go over there.

[glesslib]

One of Hitler's henchmen ( I mean the real Hitler, not the little jerk that's presently running our country) was famous for saying that when your enemies disagree with you call their patriotism into question. The Democrats,and I consider myself of the yellow dog variety, have fallen for this over and over and over again.

However, let's not forget the other side of the aisle. The Repubs aren't stupid. They know that this is a losing proposition. Yet, they continue to support this incredible debacle. What are we missing here?

There's not enough courage on Capitol Hill to fill an eye-dropper.

[bocalou]

The Republicans on Iraq and the war on terror have been on fumes since the last election. There are endless Republican failures of the past 7 years and compelling arguments against the Reublicans current positions.­..if only the Dem's had the vision to repeat these arguments as a team over and over again as the right does? That's the Republicans success...­staying together on core issues, even when fumes are all they have. It works! Stupid Dem leaders. I keep hoping the Dem party splits with a moderate group emerging that can energize the moderate righties who are looking for leadership too. Please, oh please 3rd party!

[guajiro]

Once again, the corporate donors control the politician's careers, be they Democrat or Republican. The Pentagon has many influential, wealthy corporations that give generously to politicians and of course without that money...er­r, speech, politicians won't stay in office long. Until we pass a law stating that corporations are 'artificial persons', not 'persons', they will continue to have access to our constitution's laws like freedom of speech, and will continue to have undue influence over polticians(money is speech for corporations). Think of it, they give millions for their cause, how much did you, any of you, give last year to any politician? If you're not wealthy enough to form a corporation that can give millions of dollars to influence politicians then our system won't listen to you. Why should the pols listen to us. We don't have the money to buy the media time for them. So our only salvation is to revert corporate status to 'artificial person' and we'll get our government back.

[Sake]

This is me.

I was expressing how disappointed I was in my Democratic Party, and their folding on the important issues regarding wiretaps, Iraq, and yes, Iran too. It seems they are content in the positions taken on these issues as they stand. America needs better. Perhaps the Republicans can come up with a better alternative to Bush then the Democrats do nothing approach. Impeachment is off the table, etc. etc....

[Hastings]

They are folding because they know they are wrong and George Bush has won the argument over Iraq.

[Sake]

I'm so disappointed in my Democratic Party. honestely, I don't know where to turn to. America needs help, and it appears that it won't be coming from the Democrats. Maybe the Republicans can field someone to turn things around.

[BillCarson]

A bit off topic.

For those of us who follow Riverbend, She has a new post! http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/

She hadn't been heard from since April and many had feared the worst, but shes ok, safe, relatively speaking, in Syria as a refugee.

And while we listen to the pundits and politicians blithely talk about surges and nuanced responses, check out her blog to see what life is really like in Iraq. And now her new life as a refugee in Syria, and beyond...

[RACaplan]

If a member of the Senate is against the occupation of Iraq, they need the courage of their convictions. Absent the 60 votes necessary to call for a time table out of Iraq, no bill should be brought to the floor. Those Republicans who refuse to get on board need to be outed for the rubber stamps they are, especially those facing re-election in 08. If such a bill is vetoed, it should be re-sent to the President until he realizes the inevitable. This is the Edwards approach and it is a leadership position. If Hillary or Barack want to become president, they must now provide the leadership to assure the passage of such a bill. The Senators that say no to them may be saying no to the next POTUS. It is not enough that they sit back and simply vote yeh or nay. The next president will be the candidate that shows leadership NOW!

[csbrudy]

It is because they are terrorized. Literally. There are so many ways to terrorize people: For instance, we will kidnap your nephew and feed him to a pack of pitbulls.
Oh, wait a minute, that can't happen. Just like our vaunted Air Force just might miss one hijacked plane, maybe two, but four? What else can't happen? Let see, how about the BBC reporting the collapse of a building that was standing for another twenty three minutes? Impossible. Look at Conyers. In the face of hundreds of people calling for impeachment investigations, he stonewalls. Why? Because he loves his grandchildred and doesn't want any of them to be tortured to death.
Can't happen? Congress waited over a year to do a lame coverup investigation of 9.11? They are terrorized.

[mexamerican]

because they are fragile little snatches.

[myturnnow]

I believe the Republicans are betting on the cowardice of the Democrats to win 2008. If the Democrats sit on their hands and do nothing, they WILL lose the 2008 support of the people. I hope they are listening. I do wonder too, what gives with them. The White House seem to have a hold on them. Could it be that all the "wire-tapping" activity has paid off handsomely for the White House? Maybe there is so much dirt and corruption within the Democrat Party itself that the Democrats have been rendered spineless. Something is definitely not right.

[cylindar]

I hear everybody asking what happened but no one is really looking for the answer to what is happening. Someone has some very dirty linen in the closet and that is why they are afraid to move ahead. Think about it for a second and then think about it some more. And wonder, Why, and then begin to think about what the answer could be. There is something really very very wrong here. Not just a little bit wrong, but very very very WRONG!!!

[Dejack]

Why are they folding?

Weak leadership.

Pelosi and Reid, to be exact.