Denying The People's Will On Iraq

The Nation: Democrats Need To Become Unified And End The War

(The Nation)  This column was written by the editors of the Nation.

---

It's beginning to look like Congress should take lessons in democracy from the Iraqi Parliament. The majority of Iraqi parliamentarians have signed a draft bill that would establish a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. Iraqi politicians are responding to popular sentiment in their country, as reflected by polls that show 65 percent of Iraqis want the occupation to end. Would that American politicians were as responsive to public opinion here; a recent CBS News/New York Times poll found that 64 percent of Americans want out. But the Democratic majority in Congress is so razor-thin that in late May it finally gave up the attempt to pass a funding bill establishing a timeline for withdrawal. The caucus was further undermined by internal disunity, as the defection of Carl Levin, Steny Hoyer and others prevented House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate majority leader Harry Reid from forcing a timeline on the Administration.

At least Pelosi and Reid are voting right. When the House on May 10 considered Jim McGovern's proposal to fund redeployment of U.S. forces and contractors from Iraq on a schedule beginning no later than ninety days from the measure's enactment, the 171 yes votes included that of Pelosi. When the Senate voted May 16 on whether to consider Russ Feingold's plan to set an exit timeline, the twenty-nine supporters included Reid.

Thanks to Senator Chris Dodd, who cut television ads for his long-shot presidential bid that highlighted his support for Feingold's measure — and in clear recognition of public antiwar sentiment — three Senate contenders for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Joe Biden, scrambled to join their colleagues in backing the timeline. But in the face of fears that they would be accused of "not supporting the troops," and with Republicans remaining loyal to Bush, House Democrats dropped the timeline and gave Bush a spending bill with only a few loose benchmarks for "progress," which he will be allowed to waive. As Feingold said, "There has been a lot of tough talk from members of Congress about wanting to end this war, but it looks like the desire for political comfort won out over real action."

McGovern and Feingold recognized long ago, and more and more Congressional Democrats now understand, that only a decision by the House and Senate to use the power of the purse will end this war — a war that, as Stephen Glain's article on the refugee crisis powerfully illustrates, is spreading misery across the Middle East. Iraqis are fleeing not only continuing sectarian bloodshed but, as Nick Turse's article shows, a U.S. counterinsurgency and air war that are taking an unconscionable number of civilian lives.

Pelosi and Reid are right when they say this is not the end of the fight over money for Iraq. Congress will be looking at another spending measure in the summer or early fall. The problem is that there are still prominent Democrats who don't get it. Senate Armed Services Committee chair Carl Levin voted against the Feingold bill, attacking it on the Senate floor in language that sounded like a White House "support the President to support the troops" talking point. Particularly disappointing were some of the new Democratic senators, like Jim Webb and Jon Tester. In the House, majority leader Steny Hoyer was joined by key Representatives like Mark Udall, John Spratt and Ron Kind in voting with Republicans to block the McGovern amendment.

Make no mistake, Levin, Hoyer and others like them in the Democratic caucus are slowing movement toward unity in support of withdrawal. They are undermining the ability of their party to clarify the lines of debate and force wavering Republicans — like Senators Susan Collins, John Sununu and Norm Coleman — to either take an antiwar stand or face re-election defeat in 2008. These unacceptable votes should raise the ire of antiwar activists and the American people, and the members of Congress who cast them must be held accountable for extending the war. Americans must make it clear that when the next chance comes to use the power of the purse, our representatives should follow the will of the people and call a halt to Bush's disastrous war.

[texmexborderswimmer]

Bring our troops home now. If the Arabs swim the Atlantic on their camels we can have target practice for our troops on our beaches, if they should get ashore don't panic they happen to be easy to spot in a crowd. At that point it would be open season on anyone who is middle eastern, they wouldn't stand a snow balls chance in hell of doing much here.

[ananar]

That's a pretty interesting comment, Grumpas, Bill Clinton "ignoring" terrorism for eight years. Well, we weren't employing invading armies to fight global Islamic terrorism during Clinton's two terms in office. But anyone who wishes to keep informed did know that Clinton did not "ignore" terrorism. Could he have done a better job of dealing with it? If the intelligence services and the Military top command weren't wetting their pants over the idea of dealing with Al Qaeda effectively. That's what I read. And that's what stymied Clinton when it came to Al Qaeda.

Now about GW. For about 9 months he made little to no public mention of the threat of terrorism. He made no move to address the U.S.S. Cole tragedy. Under his watch, we were seeing disasters striking of any size, shape and magnitude, including a submarine hitting a Japanese fishing boat that had a lot of students on board. February 2001, a 6. something magnitude quake, epicenter Seattle, Tacoma, Olympia... One could go on and on about GW's particular dismissiveness, domestic policy wise of how to treat Americans who elected him to office. Literally, his contempt for the sort of good government that the general American citizenry ought to be able to depend on. Katrina woke people up. But the earthquake in Western Washington was the first true warning sign of worse things to come in this administration. The "I don't care about you" Bush administration. That included ignoring terrorism until 9/11/2001.

[grumpas]

Despot like Bush, you guys have the despot team, hil and bill. So, just what is the dem plan for terrorism? I know, ignore it like bill did for 8 years. Take money from the Chinese, sell goods to Iran and so it goes.
Posted by janem4

I know it's hard for right wing nuts like yourself to grasp the basic's of politic's! But, what has Bush's method done for terrorism? Literally nothing! Except make it 1000% worse! He has two wars going now that he is losing. The whole world hates our guts! We were safer in 2001 than we are today. Bush has diverted funds from protecting the US to his ill gotten war in Iraq. Because you Chickenhawks can't get it out of your muddled brains that a shooting war doesn't solve the terrorism problem! It just adds to it with more hatred and venom for the US. We are more vulnerable today than we were then. And still people like you don't get it! Clinton fought terrorism like it should be fought(and if Bush had a brain in his empty head he would)! Not with an Army but intelligence, law enforcement, courts and etc. That is literally the only way terrorism will be solved. But, I realize if all you Chickenhawks don't have a war that someone's getting killed in going. You don't think anyone is doing anything! Unless you see the body bags come home! So, when I hear one of you Chickenhawks spouting off I just consider the pathetic source it's coming from!

[bluestardad]

WE HAVE BEEN DRAWN INTO IRAQ OUTSIDE AMERICAN NATIONAL INTEREST!

This can be proven and America can and should arrest Bush and Cheney their Entire Administration, Israeli NEOCONS TOO, and put them on trial for War Crimes just like we did the Nazis after WWII.


CHECK OUT THOSE REPRESENTATIVES THAT VOTE FOR THE WAR! If you follow the money trail you will find that most of those elected officials who support the war in Iraq are under the influence of AIPAC. AN ISRAELI POLITICAL LOBBY GROUP!

HERE ARE SOME OF AIPAC DEMOCRATIC SUPPORTERS! CONTACT THEM!

Levin, Carl- (D - MI)
Class II
269 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
[phone]
Web Form: levin.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm

St
eny Hoyer
http://hoyer.house.gov/contact/


READ AIPAC BRAG ABOUT THEIR INFLUENCE ON AMERICAN POLITICIANS!

http://www.aipac.org/for
ms/join_aipacClubs.htm

REMEMBER THE AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE IS RUN BY PRO ISRAELI GROUP! THEY ARE THE ONES WHO CAME UP WITH THIS SURGE IDEA!

EVEN AS AMERICAN MILITARY AID LANDS IN LEBANON, President Bush is funding Al Qaeda in Lebanon with funds from Iraq! http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/ar
ticles/070305fa_fact_hersh

50 years of American involvement in the Middle East ENOUGH it has nothing worth one more American Life!

THE STATUE OF LIBERTY STANDS IN NEW YORK HARBOR AND IS NOT KNEELING IN THE MIDDLE EAST!

[formrusmcsgt]

Hmmm, Parliamentary system anyone?

Posted by tbweb at 12:36 AM : May 27, 2007

Another aspect that I admire about the British Parlamentary system is the requirement that the PM face the MP's weekly for their question and answer session.

Dubya would have been laughed out of the docket on the first go around if we had such a requirement.

[book54552134]

Many voters in districts and States that elected Blue-Dog Democrats may want to reconsider whether that is the route they want to take when considering candidates in next year's Congressional primaries.
Of course, in some areas, esp. in the South, Blue-Dogs are often the lesser of two evils so they have little choice.
But a reevaluation is warranted since Blue-Dogs often give the GOP the advantage when writing & voting on legislation.

[bluestardad]

WE HAVE BEEN DRAWN INTO IRAQ AND THE MIDDLE EAST OUTSIDE AMERICAN NATIONAL INTEREST!

This can be proven and America can and should arrest Bush and Cheney their Entire Administration, Israeli NEOCONS TOO, and put them on trial for War Crimes just like we did the Nazis after WWII.


CHECK OUT THOSE REPRESENTATIVES THAT VOTE FOR THE WAR! If you follow the money trail you will find that most of those elected officials who support the war in Iraq are under the influence of AIPAC. AN ISRAELI POLITICAL LOBBY GROUP!

HERE ARE SOME OF AIPAC DEMOCRATIC SUPPORTERS! UP FOR REELECTION CONTACT THEM!

Levin, Carl- (D - MI)
269 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
[phone]
Web Form: levin.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm

Steny Hoyer
http://hoyer.house.gov/contact/


READ AIPAC BRAG ABOUT THEIR INFLUENCE ON AMERICAN POLITICIANS!

http://www.aipac.org/for
ms/join_aipacClubs.htm

REMEMBER THE AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE IS RUN BY PRO ISRAELI GROUP! THEY ARE THE ONES WHO CAME UP WITH THIS SURGE IDEA!

EVEN AS AMERICAN MILITARY AID LANDS IN LEBANON, President Bush is funding Al Qaeda in Lebanon with funds from Iraq! http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/ar
ticles/070305fa_fact_hersh

50 years of American involvement in the Middle East ENOUGH it has nothing worth one more American Life!

THE STATUE OF LIBERTY STANDS IN NEW YORK HARBOR AND IS NOT KNEELING IN THE MIDDLE EAST!

[bluestardad]

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION IS HATED AND SO ARE HIS SUPPORTERS!

Bush administration is Hated outside the bubble of Washington Republicans That is why they are covered in security and only speak at Military bases. If Bush went out in Real Public he would be stoned by the American People! We have been drawn to Iraq for the interest of things other than American National Security Interest?

This can be proven and America can and should arrest Bush and Cheney their Entire Administration, Israeli NEOCONS TOO, and put them on trial for War Crimes just like we did the Nazis after WWII.

CHECK OUT THOSE REPRESENTATIVES THAT VOTE FOR THE WAR! If you follow the money trail you will find that most of those elected officials who support the war in Iraq are under the influence of AIPAC. AN ISRAELI POLITICAL LOBBY GROUP!

http://www.aipac.org/forms/join_aipa
cClubs.htm

REMEMBER THE AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE IS RUN BY PRO ISRAELI GROUP! THEY ARE THE ONES WHO CAME UP WITH THIS SURGE IDEA!

Bush administration is undermining the situation in Lebanon what a hypocrite!

EVEN AS AMERICAN MILITARY AID LANDS, President Bush is funding Al Qaeda in Lebanon with funds from Iraq! Here is the proof Read it, IF YOU DARE!
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/
articles/070305fa_fact_hersh

50 years of American involvement in the Middle East is enough. We Should get out of the entire Middle East! They have nothing worth one more American Life anywhere in the Middle East!

[adian1-2009]

Pelosi said time and time again: "WE will not give him --Bush-- a blank check". Well, they did. Seems that Dems have big mouths, eh?

[might15]

I didn't like this at first either, but then this bill is only to fund us (I'm a military member) through September which is when Petreus is expected to come back to the table with updates, so we'll have to go through this all over again. And,come Sept, things will be the same if not worse and maybe the decent Republicans will finally start listening to their voters and BAM! we'll see a Veto override and then this mess will start sorting out the way it should have 3 1/2 years ago.

[johnshaft4]

Lets stop paying taxes. Can you hear us now?

[feelfree1]

Thank you Democrats!

I'll be expecting a sharp increase in the value of my 'transfer tube' stocks, as a result of your collective performance!

[endofempire]

The Democrats in congress who just got voted in just got a taste of how tempting it can be to line your pockets with lobbyist gifts... That is the only logical explanation as to why they bent over for Georgie. No morals and no love for America, that was to be expected, but no ideals? God save America when HillBama takes the hill.

[tbweb]

Ananar wrote:

The Nation needs a little reality check... Why doesn't The Nation do some investigating into why the people aren't seeing an end to Iraq as to our participation in it? ...

Posted by Ananar at 11:31 PM : May 26, 2007

The British pointed out that the U.S. President serves term limits whereas the British Prime Minister serves in a Parliamentary system. So according to the British if the U.S. President was serving in a Parliamentary system the last U.S. election where the Democrats won both Houses of Congress would have been seen as a "No Confidence" vote and Pres. Bush would have been removed from office! But since the U.S. President serves terms instead, Pres. Bush stays in power! Interesting observation! Its the way our system of government works so we're stuck until the next election whereas the British would not be!! Hmmm, Parliamentary system anyone?

[ananar]

The Nation needs a little reality check. The people barely created a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress. The people put into office a wide spectrum of Democrats holding differing political views. The people did not create a supermajority in Congress where a unanimous group of Democrats could pass veto proof legislation. Because of how the people voted in 2006, Bush has some leverage to use against their most ambitious agenda. And the GOP, well, they love to lay guilt trips on the Democrats by way of "surrender dates" and the failure to support the troops. Why doesn't The Nation do some investigating into why the people aren't seeing an end to Iraq as to our participation in it? In a local paper, the Spokesman-Review of Spokane, Washington, a local editor made note in his "Smart Bombs" column certain NAMED members of the Iraqi government where one commented that the Iraqi agenda is not the same as the American agenda.

Under the circumstances, where is there any chance of a "clear victory" if the Iraqi government itself doesn't wish to do the job of healing the country?

Gary Crooks of the Spokesman-Review could dig out that comment, why couldn't The Nation? Too busy attacking the Dems, I guess.

[walt1944-2009]

The Iraq vote among Democrats shows how fragmented the Democrats really are. Unlike the GOP, the Democrats don't have an iron-willed despot like Bush to keep them in line. LBJ was the last Democrat to keep his party in line and ram through Congress almost everything he wanted. A shrewd dictator like Bush knows this and uses it to help him get what he wants. As long as the Democrats don't have someone to rally around who will whip them into line and won't be afraid to "hit below the belt", the Republicans will still be in the White House in 2009 and re-take Congress.

SIG HEIL, BUSH!

[tylenol6]

Is anyone aware the decider quietly signed in a bill
called NSPD-51??? It stand for Nation Security and
Presidential Directive. What it does in case of a
national emergency it institutes MARTIAL LAW!!!!!
The deciderer does not need any more POWER!!!! The
implications of changing the posse comitatus act are
ENORMOUS

[justinel]

The President is no Evil, he's just a puppet at the end of Its string. Yet there's no excuse for him to use the troops as hostage to get the tax payers money for his false war.

[caldwellptr]

"In his radio address President Bush urged Americans to use Memorial Day to rededicate themselves to fighting for freedom around the world and to pray for the safety of U.S. troops serving overseas."

Nope, nothing new here but war.

[i-tack]

It is always easier to get into a war than it is to get out.

The Democrats have made a wise choice in accepting the current bill since they have been able to hold onto the message that they want out, yet they are not willing to leave at any cost.

Clearly, a timeline-based bill would have been vetoed.