The lack of oversight provided from 2002-2006 helped to create much more of a disasterous situation than we faced immediately after 9/11. Key resources that should have been used to eliminate al queda were diverted to rid the world of Saddam. The position we are in now, where we can not respond militarily to threats in other trouble spots, may have forced a change in our strategy from use of force to diplomatic tactics worldwide. While this is a welcome change, it came out of our weakness, rather than our strength, as use of military might became less of a viable option.

Sure. But the Dems certainly haven’t turned into a club of superhumans overnight. Expecting them to solve the Iraq problem in spite of the fact that every reasonable solution comes at the price of the US losing face is a bit much to ask for. Forcing Bush to pull out would be the right thing, resulting in stopping the bleeding of US troops and saving hundreds of lives, but the legislative strong arming the administration could be desastrous for the stability of the US system. It’s only natural that many Dems hesitate in doing what ought to be George W. Bush’s job.

Why? Bush is the ‘leader’, the GOP is controlling the administration

Gray,
There are plenty of Republicans who wish to distance themselves from Bush now (you already mentioned Hagel as one example, and Rudi points out the anti-war Republicans as well). What I’m asserting is that this coalition would be more likely to gravitate to the Dems’ side if the Dems would formulate a coherent and sensible course of action.

I have said all along that no plan by the Democrats will get very far without bipartisan support in both houses. While the Democrats are capable of engendering some support on the opposite side of the aisle, it usually ends up evaporating when their cohorts in the GOP have seen the measures as being too critical of the president, or when the WH has applied pressure. Expectations from the public may have been unrealistic, considering the constitutional limitations of power, and the Democrats thin majorities in both houses.

I say it’s better to argue than to dance a victory dance around a pile of rubble and ashes.

Why? Bush is the ‘leader’, the GOP is controlling the administration. And the most recent news show that the surge is a flop. There’s already a call for more troops, even though many pundits believe it’s already to late for a turnaround. The GOP should have a discussion on how long to support this charade right now. Where are the benchmarks fulfilled, where is the accountability? What next? Those are mainly republican problems.
:-/

Well, that’s what I love about TMV – always surprising new coalitions!
Thx, skippy. And, sry, Joe, but this alleged ‘rift among Democrats’ seems to be THE ‘hot topic’ of the day. It’s all over the opinion pages right now, and the only evidence offered for this is that the Dems have some hot discussions about the right course on Iraq – like almost everybody else in the US (randomly chose two US citizen and you’ll get three opinions on what to do). That’s a bit lame.

And I want to add: At least the Dems have this discussion. What’s happening inside the GOP? They have some rebels, too, but no open debate. To the outside, they just pretend the whole party ‘follows the leader’, as always.

Hmm, CS, tell this to Senator Hagel, for example…

I think the GOP has to be praying that this surge somehow yields something that will allow them to claim “victory” of some sort. Aside from rhetorical flourishes like “defeat at all costs,” they’re mostly keeping as low a profile as possible and hoping nobody notices that they’ve contributed nothing to changing the status quo.

For now, I prefer the Dems’ position, with the caveat that they need to keep moving. There are many institutional Dems that need convincing that taking an occasional political risk is part of what they’re supposed to be doing.

Wars are emotional and highly consequential. We’re supposed to have arguments about the best course of action. We’re supposed to hash out different ideas until we arrive at those that will work. If that’s a sign of the Democrats in disarray, let’s hope for a lot more of it.

A lot of non-Dems noted that Lieberman really was pretty liberal except for this one issue. A secondary response to that was that Lieberman is significantly corporatist in many ways, but the primary response was that this issue is so much more important that being on the right side of those other issues really didn’t matter much.

I’m amongst those responding that way, who have been appalled all along not just at the Administration and their allies in Congress but at the press and at the institutional forces in the Democratic party for failing to notice the warning signs that the enterprise of the Iraq War, largely represented to the public as a sober and sensible undertaking, was anything but. Warning signs from facts on the ground, warning signs from history, warning signs from logic.

It is enormously frustrating the political arena is still largely aligned against us in our attempts to move the government and the electorate in the direction of achieving the perspective that would allow them to see the Iraq War as the rest of the world does. At this point we are still having to convince Democrats that forcing the issue to a conclusion is not only the right thing to do for America and the world but is also probably in their long term political interests, which is where they seem stuck.

So yes, there’s a big split in the Democratic Party on Iraq. It’s a damned shame there isn’t an equally big one amongst the Republicans.

the debate within the democratic party (and it’s not a “split” or a “rift” is when should america pull out…now, or the end of 2007, or the end of 2008.

the publicans, on the other hand, have an actual rift going on: serve fearless leader unquestioningly, or be a traitor. there is no room for moderates in the gop.

there is room for moderates in the democratic party, they just get yelled at a lot. but i’m tired of passionate debate being characterized as a “split.”

if war isn’t something you can get passionate about vis-a-vis your feelings about it, then we are no longer human.

by the way, nice new look to the blog, joe!

There’s unity of opinion that the war should be ended as soon as possible, but disunity about how to go about that. And the various factions aren’t coming together to reach a compromise position; instead, each group is fighting the other because they don’t think that the compromise positions are acceptable.

On the GOP side, people are also upset about the war but there’s more of a feeling that it’s been mismanaged and to the extent that we see corrections being made and we see how disastrous a defeat would be, a lot of us are willing to give the surge a chance; not expecting unqualified victory but attempting to salvage whatever can be salvaged.

On the other hand, there certainly are people in the GOP who are more critical and more likely to support measures to end the war quickly. But that’s why this is more of a Democratic party issue, because if the Dems would unify around one proposal, it might be more likely that the GOP war critics would join them. As long as there’s so much disunity, the GOP seems likely to become more unified around the surge effort in lieu of any reasonable alternatives.