Dems On Iraq: Autoshadowphobia In Remission?

A few months ago, I wrote about how on Iraq, Democrats had caught a pretty virulent case of Autoshadowphobia - fear of their own shadow. In the face of polls showing the public wanted an end to the war, Democrats were refusing to use their power to, well, end the war. Instead, they were forwarding the Innocent Bystander Fable, which claims that despite controlling both houses of Congress, Democrats don't have any power whatsoever.

Now I am happy to report that the tide may be turning. It looks like Democrats' Autoshadowphobia could be in remission.

Yesterday, Colorado Sen. Ken Salazar (D) - who had perhaps the most intense case of Autoshadowphobia - told the Denver Post that he will now consider supporting legislation that uses Congress's power of the purse to end the war. This is a marked departure for a man who has been offering to co-sponsor non-binding legislation that claims to end the war, but doesn't - and instead just provides wavering Republicans political cover.

Now, fresh off the Associated Press wire, we learn this:

"After weeks of suggesting Democrats would temper their approach to Iraq legislation in a bid to attract more Republicans, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid declared abruptly Tuesday that he had no plans to do so. The Democratic leader said he will call for a vote this month on several anti-war proposals, including one by Sen. Carl Levin that would insist President Bush end U.S. combat next summer. The proposals would be mandatory and not leave Bush wiggle room, said Reid, D-Nev.'There (are) no goals. It's all definite timelines,' he told reporters of the planned legislation."

Perhaps this new Pew Poll is responsible for moving Democrats. The national survey found that "By nearly two-to-one, more say Democratic leaders in Congress are not going far enough, rather than too far, in challenging Bush's policies in Iraq." That poll also not only found that "somewhat fewer Republicans say Democratic leaders are going too far than did so in July" but that "by a wide margin, independents also would like to see Congress do more to challenge Bush on Iraq."

Whatever the reason for the apparent remission of Autoshadowphobia, it is good news. And we will see the first test of this new resolve on an upcoming amendment by Virginia Sen. Jim Webb (D) mandating longer rest periods for troops. Stay tuned.

Cross-posted from Working Assets

Comments

[wayoutleft]

stopping the war has always meant not bringing a bill to the house floor at all AND IT ALWAYS WILL. i'm sorry if it's politically inconvenient for pro dem careerists, but YOU EITHER GIVE BUSH THE MONEY OR YOU DON'T PERIOD. nothing else matters or ever will. if any politician is given a choice he will ALWAYS chose the army- any time, anywhere. the democrats are for the army and against the people- and they always will be, just like all politicians everywhere. politicians are extensions of the army. elections? it's covered- there are no anti-military choices.

[researcher]

dont count on it nancy and reid are in way over their heads.

when will america give up its love affair with the two party system until we do we will continue to have wars like this and the middle class with be in rapid decline.

unchecked capitalism sucks the life out of everyone but the few at the top of the wealth chain.

if you think the demos are your saviours you are in for a big surprise.

they were voted in the stop this insane war and well they have failed while trying to convince the american voters they cannot do anything about it.

some know different but very few americans do.

people are smart is a tv commerical what country did they visit to arrive at that conclusion.

[mari2JJ]

Hmmm, count the votes and tell me when Democrats ever had enough votes to stop this war. Futile to keep whipping the ones we did elect with this mantra till we make certain next two elections we elect enough to get the job done in both the House and the Senate. It is as simple as that.

[mdub72]

SensibleAmerican, what are you talking about? You wrote:
""Impeach Bush", "stop the funding" are great slogans but they involve a political process which involves a certain number of votes! The Democrats do NOT have those votes!
No. A 2/3 majority is only needed to approve funding, not deny it. If every Democrat voted to cut funding, there wouldn't be the 2/3 majority needed to keep funding the war. Also, the Democrats could impeach Bush and Cheney. A college student recently asked Kerry this question and was maced. What's their excuse for not doing this?

[realitytrumpsbull]

Dems aren't going to 'get er done' on ending the war, vote independent or go to
www.impeachbush.org. Nothing says 'we are tired of your crap' quite like, "You're fired!"

[outnow]

The Middle East contains 60% of the world oil reserves. Oil is both a critical source of profit and a strategic weapon to control the global economy and other countries which depend on oil. Control of this region is essential to global domination. We have approximately 170,000 troops there and an armada of ships and military bases in the region. The U.S. also has Israel's interests at heart in assisting Israel in "pacifying and colonizing" the region. The U.S. also has client states, albeit dictatorships, such as Saudi Arabia to support for in exchange for oil.

We are threatening war with Iran and that effort has almost one-hundred percent support in Congress.

Bush claims that should the U.S. withdraw from Iraq, Islamic extremists could control a key part of the world's energy supply, and could blackmail and sabotage the global economy while buying weapons with oil revenues.

The "mission," according to Bush, is to forcibly restructure the societies to ensure U.S. domination. The U.S. has the "right" to control the world's energy. The classes represented by Bush are imperialist monopoly capital who have overran and occupied Iraq. This was thought to be easy, and it was also thought that Iraq could be used as a jumping off point to restructure the entire region in the interests of U.S. imperialism.

It seems to me that too many of the Democrats are on board, in one fashion or another, for this "mission." While they were ostensibly elected to stop this war, they now have the troops in harm's way. I predict that Bush will attack Iran and risk precipitating WW III rather than backing down and facing the natural and probable consequences of his actions.

The Democrats are too hypocritical and have too many conflicting agendas of their own to be united enough to prevent this slaughter. We are now the Imperial States of America. Let's hope it works because Hitler lost his oil war with Russia and it was a disaster for Germany.

[PADDYWHACK]

outnow,you're spot on,shrub doesn,t want anyone to know the full extent of this genocidal disaster.

[emjay1954]

The Democratic leadership's position can be summarized thusly: "We don't want to stop the war now, because we might have to do something bold (like filibuster any war funding bill that doesn't include withdrawal; votes required: 41), and that MIGHT alienate "moderates" (whoever they are), which would jeopardize our winning more congressional seats in '08. Please, PLEASE vote Democratic in '08. When we have the Presidency and 70% majorities in both houses, THEN we'll withdraw the troops. Scouts' honor."

[zjr909]

I'm more than just a little concerned that all of a sudden Harry Reid and the Democrats are promising a real fight to end the war. Concerned because there are a couple of things before Congress just now that FAR outweigh the Iraq war. Namely, Habeus Corpus, torture, wiretapping. These three - especially Habeus Corpus - require all the effort the Democrats can muster; because if we permanently lose it, the game's over. Period. So, just when the fight to restore Habeus Corpus is on the horizon, Reid decides it's time to gear up for the big war funding battle. Call me paranoid, but I'm long past trusting the Democrats to look out for our interests. After all, they just wily-nily gave away our 4th amendment rights before heading out for vacation. It doesn't look good.

[MikeDu]

I'm of the opinion the administration has finally shot its wad on the Iraq fiasco (an old military term - has nothing to do with Senator Craig). After months of pleading "Just wait! Just wait!" they finally produced their big September report with its earth-shaking conclusion - just wait! What will they do now, make us wait for another report and another and another? Would Bush be insane enough to provoke a ground war with Iran in an effort to chain our forces forever in Iraqi?

[rmreddicks]

R's & D's. $$$...,

We see a "Grand Strategy" that is unattainable. We have useless (if occasionally amusing) tactics. We lack strategy. I am wondering how we develop that strategy. And just what the hell that strategy can be.

[MissFortunate]

It's unfortunate that they didn't get the message in November of 2006, which by now is not only a dead horse, it's skeleton is hanging in their closet.

But really, it's about doing the right thing, this is the right thing to do, end this war.

[rabun666]

BUSH IS HOLDING THE AMERICAN TROOPS IN IRAQ AS HOSTAGES, in an article emanating from the Rockridge Institute, in Berkeley. Bush's reprisals, if the Democrats disagree with him, will be directed against the American troops he holds as hostages in Iraq. Bush has even announced this with his usually braggadocio, publicly. He vetoed Defense appropriation bill that called for better body armor for the troops and better armor for the vehicles in Iraq. THIS HAS TO BE TRUMPETED. Holding the American troops in Iraq as hostages for political concessions is a terrorist act and so is the blackmail that goes with it. These are both high crimes impeachable offenses.

[puhibay]

The wheels are falling off the Bush war-wagon.
This blackwater incident ( 20 dead), the elections coming up, the threat of never leaving Iraq, the constant drain on the treasury, and a stubborn president who never admits he is wrong.
It's over, time to pull the plug on the war and call it a wrap, pull out, go home, it's over.
NO MAS!!!

[altohone]

The Democratic leadership is dominated by those who won't take a principled stand.

Only a principled stand will generate the public support needed to keep the DLC'ers and Blue Dogs from defecting while pressuring Republicans too.

The endless stream of mealy-mouthed proposals is the cause of public discontent with Dems in Congress as seen in polling... not the lack of bi-partisanship.

In my view, the establishment is intentionally avoiding a clear differentiation in order to prevent a consensus policy for withdrawal from emerging.

[mamacat]

1.) Bush and friends lied us into this war. For that, Bush should be impeached.

2.) Recognising that we should get out of Bush's war in a way that at least attempts to minimise casualties among both the Iraqis and the "coalition," we come the the big question, how do we do that?

I think it is essential to start listening to the Iraqis. Constantly, it seems, someone comes up with an opinion or a plan on the what the Iraqis should do. Never does anyone talk to the Iraqis and ask them, What do you want us to do?

As far back as May of this year, a majority of the democratically elected Iraqi legislature signed a petition asking the U.S. to work with them in setting up a time table for us to get our armed forces out of the country. (One can assume they want our mercenaries out as well.)
Not once did anyone in the White House talk about what we should do to cooperate with the Iraqis. Instead, the talk is about what the Iraqis need to do to cooperate with us. I get the feeling that if the Iraqi legislature had done something that Bush liked, he would have jumped at the chance to make political hay. Instead, all they did was ask us to work with them to end the occupation, something this administration is not interested in doing.