More

Glenn Hurowitz

Glenn Hurowitz

Posted: September 6, 2007 02:57 PM

Why are Democrats Trying to Own the War?


The Senate Democratic leadership is already moving towards yet another toothless and self- destructive "compromise" on Iraq, according to a report in today's New York Times. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Armed Forces Chairman Carl Levin are suggesting they're willing to forgo a real deadline for withdrawal this spring in exchange for Republican support of the non-binding "goal" of withdrawal. Here's the problem: allowing Republicans to say they supported Democratic legislation that had the stated goal of bringing the troops home will give them credibility when they try to claim that, in President Bush's words, "We all want the troops to come home as quickly as possible" without actually doing anything to actually get those troops home.

Instead of giving Republicans a way to say they're trying to end the war, too, Democrats need to keep forcing votes on measures that will actually do something to end it. The sad truth is that the votes may not yet be there to end the war. But Americans deserve to know clearly who's behind this war and who isn't so they can hold their representatives accountable at the ballot box. Already, Republicans in tight races across the country are systematically trying to claim that they support ending the war without setting a deadline for withdrawal.

In Virginia, where Republican Tom Davis faces a tough race whether he tries to replace retiring Senator John Warner or defend his suburban Washington House seat, he held an entire town meeting to make the case that he legitimately shares the goal of withdrawal while also voting against withdrawal.

Maine Senator Susan Collins, who's facing a contentious reelection has been grasping at straws to try and prove she wants to end the Iraq War -- sponsoring or co-sponsoring a bewildering array of non-binding legislation dealing with Iraqi troop commitments -- without actually voting for a withdrawal timeline that would bring the war to an end. And in New Hampshire, Senator John Sununu is similarly grasping at straws.

If the Reid/Levin "Rescue-a-Republican" plan goes forward, Democrats won't just be throwing these sinking candidates a legislative lifeboat. By passing toothless legislation that removes the pressure for real action, they'll also be taking on a degree of ownership for the war and its failures. At the very least, they'll be providing Republicans ammunition to tout their support for a "bipartisan" plan. And they'll be spitting in the collective eye of the progressive activists, donors, and bloggers whose enthusiastic support they'll need for victory in 2008.

Democrats have had enough snatching defeat from the jaws of victory: just this once, let the Republicans drown themselves.

Follow Glenn Hurowitz on Twitter: www.twitter.com/glennhurowitz

 
 
  • Comments
  • 31
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
photo
Singha
My micro bio is still pending
09:10 PM on 09/06/2007
No funding...no war.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Scarabus
Retired Humanities Prof.
08:56 PM on 09/06/2007
The Democrats aren't claiming ownership of the war. Rather, they are ceding ownership of the war to Cheney, Bush, Halliburton, and Blackwater. And they have no moral right to do that!

Let's cut to the chase. Suppose I said this to you: "If you vote to endorse the deaths of thousands of people, I'll let you stay in office. On the other hand, if you vote to save the lives of those people, to save American taxpayers billions of dollars, and take a first step toward restoring American honor and credibility across the world, I'll make sure you're defeated in the next election."

How would you vote? That's what it's about. Democrats (and Republicans) in Congress and the Senate have this choice: Be an angel of death, and hope you will both be re-elected and be able to sleep at night. Or be an angel of life, hope you will be re-elected, but know that you will sleep at night and will be vindicated by history.
outnow
Ban the bomb
08:52 PM on 09/06/2007
The Democrats need a strong leader. Taking impeachment off the table is a weak move. Would you play chess by saying, "No, I won't threaten to take your queen -or on guard."

Nancy Pelosi made an historic mistake. The magnitude of her poor strategy will echo forever as the United States degenerates into a fear-mongering fascist authoritarian regime.

Hillary and Obama have sold out to the whole war-mongering money machine. Only Edwards, Gravel and Kucinich have the guts to run this country. I say dump Hillary and Obama and tell them why. Pelosi can go too. Harry Reid is doing more but he looks like a whipped puppy.
08:02 PM on 09/06/2007
The democrats bought the war hook, line and sinker.
They still do.

The democratic candidates with the most media attention aren't saying anything. With friends like these who needs the republicans?

If you really want to know why the democrats want to own the war, take a look at where their money is coming from.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dadw5boys
Disabled Vietnam Vet
08:43 PM on 09/06/2007
60 VOTES TO PASS A LAW 51% IS NOT 60 VOTES.
07:48 PM on 09/06/2007
Democrats have to be held accountable. I pledge not to give a dime to any Democrat who lacks spine to end the war in Iraq (by demanding a timetable). I will give money to Democrat challengers in the primaries who take on the spineless Democrats.
outnow
Ban the bomb
07:42 PM on 09/06/2007
Democrats bought the war when they voted to invade Iraq and when they voted to occupy Iraq and send the taxpayers the bill. If the war ends up in their laps whose fault is that. At least John Edwards is admitting his mistake. Hillary says she trusted BushCo.
07:14 PM on 09/06/2007
.
in fact democrats do "own the war"..

the day democratic politicians took congress and gained the power to set legislation they became the owners of the failure in Iraq.. on that day democrats could have simply announced that no funding would occur and that the bills for funding would never again be sent to the floor for a vote..

even today democrats announce their intention to "compromise" meaning of course that the misery to our soldiers and their families and the Iraqi people would continue..

one of the first pronouncements made by Nancy Pelosi was that George W Bush would not be impeached.. before any evidence was brought to her.. before any accusations were made.. before even accepting the argument that impeachment was necessary.. Nancy decided George W Bush as made of gold and untouchable.. this is the leadership we have been given by democratic politicians.. that passing anything.. even bad laws and bad policies which endanger this country and our people.. would be acceptable.. because they the democrats prefer to be partners with the republican politicians rather than be partners with the American people..
.
07:07 PM on 09/06/2007
Ron Paul claimed in last night's Repo debate
that 'the Neo-cons' were responsible for the
war (presumably by hoodwinking GWB), not the
American people. Mike Huckabee disagreed,
insisting that according to the 'one nation
indivisible (& under god!)' rule, we are *all*
proudly responsible, by which is to say that,
spiritually at least, we are *all* Republicans.

So, let's go out there, team, and win this thing for the Repos!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
06:38 PM on 09/06/2007
The Dems want Iraq as an issue in 08. That won't happen if the war is actually stopped.

Too bad good men and women in the US military must die to let the politicans play their games.
07:26 PM on 09/06/2007
Neither Repos nor Demos want to lose the war.
Repos need, politically, to win it, more than
Demos do. Unfortunately, the Demos need for the
Repos NOT to win it. They believe they can
achieve this by getting our troops out, which
seems to be what the People want, and it's
useful for them to attempt an arrangement with
'moderate' Repos to reach this goal. Since
the Repos are still fixated on winning, a
'compromise' joint Repo-Demo withdrawal
arrangement is very unlikely, however.

Seriously, the Demos do not *need* to have the
war as an issue next year. They need to have
it *over* now, so they don't have to deal with
ending it then. They DO need to not be blamed
for losing in Iraq, as do the Repos.

Another fine mess, eh?
07:54 PM on 09/06/2007
'Unfortunately, the Demos need for the Repos NOT to win it.'

I think this is a very serious problem,
and I hope someone can figure out a way
around it.

The equivalent problem on the Repo side
is that they *really* need to win, and
it's not entirely up to them to arrange
this, as the other side(s) have to accept
defeat.
05:16 PM on 09/06/2007
It is starting to look as if the democrats really do not want to stop this war. They are just giving the impression they are..
If they are this ""useless"" in
(if this is wha they call) "trying??" to defend our constitution , laws and do the will of the people , then should just resign and let Cheney have their salary along with the donation of our tax money they are giving them..
05:16 PM on 09/06/2007
With all respect to philjames and others, I don't buy the fear of the blame game philosophy of legislation. The American people are smarter than that. Our friends at Daily Kos are right on this issue that it's time to take a real stand regardless of crass political calculations. The war is already a disaster. It will remain a disaster. We will withdraw most of the troops eventually and calamaties will ensue. That's what happens when you don't have any plan for what to do other than expecting to be greeted as liberators. Just keep sending funding bills to Bush with specific withdrawal timetables. Then, it will be up to him to veto and explain why he won't sign the bills. He won't have a good explanation for not supporting the troops. Eventually he will either sign or funding will run out and he will be forced to re-deploy or withdraw troops. It will be on his watch, on his head.
06:15 PM on 09/06/2007
But your scenario has been tried and failed already. And don't misunderstand me about the political calculation. I am not saying it is a good thing. But it is the only theory that explains the facts so far. It is the only theory that explains why the Dems have not taken a much stronger stand and why just today Reid is talking about not forcing a timeline. The presidential election political gaming (out of the DLC?) has done the requisite 10,000 stochastic model runs and predicts that 9 out of 10 times Dems come off as losers -- as Defeatocrats--if they try to force the issue and the Republicans retake the WH and maybe make some Congressional pick-ups. Everyone understands that the aftermath of a withdrawal will be continued sectarian violence on into the future. Dems don't want that to occur during an election cycle as important as this one. The troops of course are pawns in this game.
04:43 PM on 09/06/2007
It's like this:

The war is not going to be lost while GWB is
in office. Not to be allowed. If the war is lost,
Repos will lose next year's election also.
Repos don't want this.

If the war is won while GWB is in office, it
will be a Repo victory & it will insure the
election of a Repo president next year.
Demos don't want this.

The Demos don't want GWB to win the war (see
above) right now, but they also don't want to be blamed
for losing the war.

If the Repos win next year, the war will go on
until its won, because the Repos won't lose the war.

If the Demos win next year, the war will go on
until 'peace with honor' is achieved, because
the Demos won't lose the war either.

The only 'good' option for Demos *now* is to get the troops
home soon without achieving victory. Repos are not going
to allow this, as the only good option for Repos is to win.
Outside their control, however. Result: stalemate.

If Repos win next year, the war goes on until it's won.
If Demos win, the war goes on until 'peace with honor' is achieved.

Unfortunately, 'peace with honor' is not a very good option either.
Demos may decide it really needs to be a 'win' after all.
outnow
Ban the bomb
07:40 PM on 09/06/2007
This is what my relatives in Washington are saying - that the Democratic "front runners" are not calling for withdrawal.

I pointed out that John Edwards is calling for withdrawal.

In fact he is calling for nuclear disarmament. So blame Hillary and Obama who want to look "strong on defense." Do they want their kids to die for this war? They want your kids to die for this war.
04:31 PM on 09/06/2007
"But Americans deserve to know clearly who's behind this war and who isn't so they can hold their representatives accountable at the ballot box."

We already know who's behind the war. It doesn't matter whether you put "D" or "R" behind your name, POLITICIANS are behind the war. The citizenry is not.
04:02 PM on 09/06/2007
Well, Gosh!

That’s easy.

They have no clue how to win in Iraq than Bush does. Well, let me change that. They don’t know how to succeed in Iraq where Bush has failed miserably.

Succeeding is NOT doing the “Saddam Dance” all over the Iraqi people; it is building a country that can prosper and hopefully, FORGIVE!

Mind you, the Dems will have to do all this, with America crumbling before their eyes, the Constitution in shreds, a debt load that is higher than Everest, racism now rationalized and accepted, taxes being a dirty word, gays beaten in schools and private property rights in the hands of anyone that can convince city fathers they know what to do better with the property.

When Colin Powel said; “You break it, you own it” the Neo-Cons jumped for joy.

While we have all been distracted with, the core of America has been hollowed out, financially, spiritually, ethically and morally.

Dems will only have 4 years to turn things around, even if elected. No change, and they will be out and the next corporate megalomaniac puppet will be in.

They are facing rebuilding the country, the family, the courts, the justice department, the bridges, the heartland, the farms, the infrastructure, the industry, the shipping, the ports, the air transport system, the dams, the environment, the rivers, the mountains refuge, the savings and loans, bring back the war on drugs, education, the banking system and laws, renew natural open space and they will have to do all this without raising taxes or incurring inflation.

My answer?

Go Green.
Go new and innovative manufacturing products and ideas.
Go family businesses.
Go family farms.
Go quality products.
Go small business.
Build moderately priced homes, with a HUGE workshop attached.
Encourage land ownership. (Homestead act, if you have to for families.)
Rethink laws that prohibit Live/work multi-use of property.

America is filled shell and the Dems know it!

And get people away from Wal-Mart as a dream of future employment.

The Dems need to learn how to BUILD!

All the best

Knute
07:16 PM on 09/06/2007
.

democratic politicians will not take any of your advice..

instead they will toady along with whatever republicans want them to do..
.
03:38 PM on 09/06/2007
I'm all for ending the war and bringing our troops home, but I don't think it would look good on us, if we left Iraq such a horrible mess and in a civil war where dozens or more Iraqis die daily. We caused that mess with our invasion, we can't just leave it.

So I can understand the Democrats not wanting to be the ones to be seen as abandoning the Iraqi people, however we Americans voted the Democrats into place last November in order to get SOMETHING done to end a war that Bush seems incapable of wrapping up. I wonder if that is why the Democrats gave Bush ground on wiretapping, the Patriot Act and some decisions surrounding Guantanamo. I haven't come to a conclusion on that yet.

And my humble opinion is, everybody who voted for the war, already owns the war.