Does the Democratic Party Leadership Want to Withdraw from Iraq or Win the War?

If you are not already convinced that the Democratic party leadership supports the war and does not want to end it, this Washington Post poll should help you change your mind.

The Democratic Party leadership keeps saying that they cannot vote a reduction in the $190 billion supplemental war budget because the voters will turn against them for endangering the lives of the troops that are there.

The key finding in this poll is that exactly one-quarter of Americans want Congress to fully fund the 190 billion dollar supplemental budget for the war. Fully 70% want it reduced, with 46% want it dramatically reduced or eliminated altogether. Even 45% of Republicans want it reduced.

Not only that: most people think that the Democrats are not doing enough to oppose Bush's war policy. In fact, the evaluation of Congress has dropped 14 points since the Democrats took over, apparently because of inaction around the war.

All this shows that the U.S. electorate would certainly support a reduction and maybe even a drastic reduction in the war budget. Such a reduction could be used to hamstring the surge and force Bush to truly de-escalate, and perhaps withdraw.

And the Democrats would not have to worry about a veto, because if Bush vetoes the supplemental, he is vetoing the funding for the war. The Democrats can pass it again and then wait for him to sign it or withdraw the troops when the money runs out.

So why don't they do it? The old idea that they are afraid of losing the election is wiped out by this poll.

So the only other reason is that they do not want to hurt the war effort.

Listen to the actual words of the three Democratic front-runners for the presidency. The reason that none of them would guarantee withdrawal in their first term was that they were not sure they could accomplish their goals in four years. What kind of goals need four years to accomplish?

Sure, they disagree with the way Bush is conducting the war, but they want to use different strategies to accomplish Bush's goals: defeating the insurgency, installing a friendly government that is an enemy of Iran and will welcome an overwhelming American presence (military and political and economic) in the Middle East. Right now, if we withdraw, the insurgency (Sunni and Shia) would dictate what government would emerge and it would not be our friend; it would not be an enemy of Iran either; and it would oppose any powerful American presence in the Middle East. Clinton, Obama, and Edwards do not want to withdraw while this would be the result.

They want to fight on for an outcome that would make the U.S. the dominant presence in the region.

Comments

[Prolet]

The Dems and Repubs are both committed to staying in the Iraq invasion occupation until the "OIL LAWS" are set in place, in which U.S. Oil coroporations have the total power over the oil disbursements among themselves..., to the exclusion of the various Iraqi ethnic groups that are holding back for a piece of the oil profits which they need to ooperate their own internal governments. It's that simple..., otherwise, as they say..., were brocolli the profit prize..., there never would have been a PNAC inspired invasion.

[outnow]

The "Humpty-Dumpty" syndrome is more like it than the Pottery Barn analogy.

All the King's horses and all the King's men, including Blackwater, could not put poor Humpty together again.

The bin Ladens are not going to "fix it" for Dubya this time. Maybe the complicit Democrats can throw more money and lives at their own failure to come to terms with Iran. Ever since the installation of the shah in 1953 following the CIA coup we have reaped the whirlwind.

Or, the Democrats can stand up, quit playing politics, solve the Palestinian "problem," and treat out addiction to oil - all oil.

It is insane to solve the problems of the Middle East without solving the larger problems of climate change and peak oil.

The pieces are already falling into place without the US doing anything, partition Israel, leave Iraq and Afghanistan, make peace with Syria and Iran.

[DieboldHacker]

Until they *act* like real Democrats, (Cut the occupation funding; pursue impeachment) they can kiss all support from progressives goodbye. And that, ladies and gents, is how they will manage to lose yet again in '08.

[drblack]

The Dems, especially Hillary Clinton are sucking from the big corporate teat like the Repubs did.
Hillary, Pelosi, Reid, Feinstein, Hoyer etc will destroy American Freedom and Prosperity just as all Presidents and Congress' have since Reagan truly began the corporate controlled government.
If we as Americans continue to pay more attention to superstition and celebrity gossip then to what the government is really doing then we will find ourselves with a Red China style of government. Free to make and spend money and not much else.

[Plowboy]

Win the war? What war? Against whom? For what purpose? For whose benefit?
The war in Iraq was started to eliminate WMDs that were not there. It was against Saddam Hussein. But then it became against Al Qaeda which Saddam had kept out until we took him out and let them in.
But that was expected because we are to be in this war for a long time. (Until "terrorism" disappears? But "terrorism" is a word. And it describes our actions those of our friend's and enemies. Something smells fishy here.) There never was an exit strategy.
And there is a greasy feel about the issues. They keep slipping away and being replaced by other "realities."
Truth is hard to see when you refuse to look at it.

[outnow]

The "war" is a rhetorical metaphor. A metaphorical relationship is established by "sophistry," the art of deception by "discourse."

By conflating our imperial aims and the threat of "terror" the elites have established a common understanding in the United States.

Who is the enemy? The answer is whoever is designated as such by the Decider. What is the process? It is totally arbitrary.

Bush gave a 72 minute speech in which he explained the process of decision-making. Most educated people were of the opinion that the speech was incomprehensible. If the goal is to control the oil, and you have previously represented that it is about democracy and weapons of mass destruction, the arguments must morph into other reasons, such as fending off competitors for the oil. Conditions on the ground are decided by the general. Kafkaesque logic based on fear and greed, not logic.

[TakeNoNeoConPrisoners]

nunzia: The Dems have finally figured out what the repugs have known for generations: that the average american is a shallow fickle moron whose opinion - and I use the word loosely here - can be turned on a dime. Or more accurately, on a 20-second commercial. They know that if they block the funding, the Repugs will run ads saying "they won't support the troops, they stopped the funding" and the average joe will turn on the Dems in a heartbeat.

What it really says is that the Dems either have no principles or won't standup for their principles b/c they are truly poor election campaigners incapable of defending their principles when it matters. Instead of drawing a line in the sand and defending it and themsleves, they turn tail and retreat afraid of being attack by the big bad repigs.
The Dems are truly cowards and I for one will find a third party candidate to vote for even if it means the repigs win again. What better way to send a message to the Dem party then YOU LOST AGAIN in an election that they should have won hands down but were afraid to represent the people's wishes.

It must get alot worse for America before it can get better. I might even vote for the repig to send that message to the Dem party.

[Doofus]

What a HUGE surprise!

While the Repos really, *really*, REALLY
must win their War, the Demos must not LOSE it.
That's the big difference between the two.
That is ALWAYS the difference between
the two parties, whenever we're in a war.

The only viable option has been for US to
get out of Iraq while Bush is still in office.
'Viable' meaning not involving political
suicide for one party or the other. (With
considerable spin, the Repos would have to
persuade even themselves that to leave would
be to 'preserve victory'.)

Anyway, there's still time...

Kucinich/Paul - Tag Team 2008 - What a pair!

[SamEllison]

If you think we must stay in Algeria, you must accept what we do in Algeria. History does repeat itself.

[akoop]

Are we coming full circle now? We installed a regime that was "...a friendly government that is(was) an enemy of Iran and will welcome(d) an overwhelming American presence (military and political and economic) in the Middle East."

It was headed by Saddam Hussein and the Baath party. They suppressed the 'radical' Islamist (Shia) and fought an eigth year war with Iran in which our presence was strongly supporting both sides.

What war are we fighting in Iraq now? I thought we already won. We collapsed the Baath party, destroyed what was left of the Iraqi army, captured Hussein, and insured that there were no WMDs that could be peddled off to the nearest terrorist group.

Now, we are fighting 'insurgents' of what? A government that has no more relevance for the various peoples who we label Iraqis than the lines drawn on a map to satisfy British Petroleum interests?

So now we're staying until we can prop up a government that likes us?

See Randy Newman: Political Science

[Dap]

Dear Mr. Schwartz,

What an excellent, eloquently expressed and profound essay/post. I can see that no one is going to pull the wool over your eyes.

That's a real "Tell it like it IS". Blessings on ya! Agape.

[thinkbig]

Incidentally, if the big three aren't going to end the war to the satisfaction of the people here, then why isn't everyone here rallying around Kucinich, who most certainly would end the war immediately? Isn't a vote for Obama, Edwards, or Clinton, who you know won't end it, a vote for more war? In what way is that different than voting for any of the Republican warmongers?

[research]

Yes, Why isn't Kucinich leading? Kucinich is the true mainstream values candidate. In a "blind poll" Kucinich gets 8 times the votes any other candidate gets!

http://www.dehp.net/candidate/stats.php

[Republicnotademocracy]

Just goes to show you how misleading polls are. To answer your question, Mr. Kucinich has the misfortune of striking people as "elfin".

[Rowland]

Al Gore, speaking of the objective, recently said [about our goal]: "To get our troops out of there as soon as possible while simultaneously observing the moral duty that all of us share — including those of us who opposed this war in the first instance — to remove our troops in a way that doesn’t do further avoidable damage to the people who live there."

Congress needs to first begin a debate on a resolution on the question of abandoning the goal of forcing the Iraqi Parliament to pass the Iraq Hydrocarbon Law and the expected Production Sharing Agreements that would greatly favor American oil companies. They can easily have a national consensus about that.

Democratic candidates must begin demanding that the United States tilt in favor of the Sunnis to handle the oil revenues of Iraq. They, the Sunni, would then have to work out the sharing arrangements with the Shia and Kurds to get the oil out of the ground.

The matter of reconstruction, reparations and infrastructure building must be in the hands of the Shia and Kurds. Their goal must be to build a true nation there that will homogenize the people and end sectarian tensions.

By bifurcating efforts we can expect a self-interest balance among the warring factions.

The United States must then withdraw to guard the six oil pipelines and the banking in and out of the country so that the oil money flows through the Sunnis. We have seen that the Shia cannot resolve to treat the Sunnis fairly and this will otherwise perpetuate the civil war contrary to the method suggested by Gore.

The United States must then turn over the tasks the new strategy entails to the UN and get out.

[BillZBubb]

Your heading is very misleading. Win the war? That is not a realistic option for anyone but the loony right. The only way to "win" in Iraq is to redefine the word to some watered down nonsense.

The best we can hope for is a stable government of some sort that can prevent terrorists from using the country as a base of operations. There will not be any stable government in Iraq until after the Iraqis fight it out for power. US troops just delay the inevitable.

[timm0]

"There will not be any stable government in Iraq until after the Iraqis fight it out for power. US troops just delay the inevitable."

BINGO!

[Justtellthetruth]

Yes, I concur completly.

We need to vote out every sitting senator and congressman, on both sides of the aisle, whose actions seem to indicate a desire for endless war in the middle east. They must be shown the door, and only we, the people can do it.

[thinkbig]

Do you really think the democratic candidates are the warmongers that the republicans are? I believe they want to end the war, but they are more afraid of being *tagged* as weak and against the troops. It's an inane arguement, but you can't argue with the fact that the mouth-breathing electorate would likely buy such an arguement and cost them the election in another fit of parinoia.

[professormoriarty]

Whether they are as great in the warmonger department or not does not seem to matter--they are keeping us in the war just as much as the Elephants are. I am tearing my hair our over whether I can vote for Hillary or not, if she is the Dem's candidate. She supported the war in the first place and she is not backing off it much now. How can I vote for that?

[snaggster]

So then thinkbig, you're saying that the Dems would rather win elections than end the occupation of Iraq? Setting aside the fact that the majority wants them to end it and that their logic is not so good, this is a CHOICE that they have made. They've chosen what they want over what we elected them to do. It does not look at all like they want to end it.

[Doofus]

If the Demos win next year, and we are
still fighting a war in Iraq, the Demos
will either win the War, or they will be
tagged with the loss.

If the Repos win, we will fight on til 'victory'.

Your choice, People.

[Republicnotademocracy]

Yep, Doofus, you nailed it.