An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
The Damned Dems Are To Blame, Too
Democratic Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin plans to offer a proposal to officially condemn President Bush and Vice President Cheney for leading the U.S. into the Iraq war.
Said Feingold::
“I think we need to do something serious in terms of accountability.”
To which Meet the Press host Tim Russert countered:
“Isn’t this a futile effort that will simply be described as politics?”
Replied Feingold:
“Let’s see what actually happens . . . What I am proposing is a moderate course, not tying up the Senate and the House with an impeachment trial.”
And an incomplete course as well, for the Democrats are almost as much to blame.
More here.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
23 Responses to “The Damned Dems Are To Blame, Too”
Shaun – As much as Minnesota would like to claim Feingold, the people of Wisconsin might object.
Wisconsin, not Minnesota. Sen. Feingold follows an upper Midwestern tradition of a peculiar sort of populist liberalism. I’ve connected it to the Scandinavian political tradition there. Many of the Northern European immigrants arrived with quite egalitarian/socialist political ideas.
Oops! Fixed.
Good point Shaun, and I think the increased number of independents in this country shows that a good number of people realize the truth.
With the exception of a handful people like Kucinich and Feingold, this is the Democrats war almost as much as it’s the Republicans. If the Democrats gave a damn about our troops, our safety or the Iraqi people, they wouldn’t be pussyfooting around the idea of ending the war. Instead they keep bringing up toothless amendments while spouting rhetoric about changing course.
They have the numbers to force showdown after showdown, but they aren’t doing it because they are worried about 2008. It’s really quite morally repugnant when you think about it.
Feingold is grandstanding and, rightfully, it looks like it’s going to fail. There is plenty of blame to go around and yes, most of it on the shoulders of this Administration.
The Democrats cut funds for Vietnam, and for 30 years have been tagged with the “George McGovern” soft on defense label. Don’t count on them to cut off the troops in the field in wartime, because its not realistic or advisable. But, I believe that the Democrats who voted for it in the first place are to blame as well as the GOP, who are afraid to break with Bush now.
Wait a second – which Dems are as much to blame for these items from Feingold’s censure resolution:
1. Overstating the case that Saddam Hussein had WMD, particularly nuclear weapons, and falsely implying a relationship with al Qaeda and links to 9/11.
2. Failing to plan for the civil conflict and humanitarian problems that the intelligence community predicted.
3. Over-stretching the Army, Marine Corps and Guard with prolonged deployments.
4. Justifying our military involvement in Iraq by repeatedly distorting the situation on the ground there.
Sorry, the only Democrat that could be accused of those things is Joe Lieberman. And he’s admitted to not really being a Democrat anymore.
Now possibly you mean the Democrats were too cowed by the threats of the then-majority party and their cheerleaders to STFU, or face their wrath. If that’s the case then yes, Democrats definitely still have some ‘splainin’ to do.
[...] Clark Link to Article dick cheney The Damned Dems Are To Blame, Too » Posted at The Moderate Voice [...]
Mike P.
Many Democrats voted for the AUMF – something which the current leadership is, for some reason, not attempting to amend. A majority of Democrats have continued to vote for funding the war.
Now, I’m sure someone here will come back and say something like, “well, they had to vote for it and the money or they would have been accused of being weak.” Well, tough. I’m tired of politicians using the excuse of political expedience to justify actions taken they later claim to oppose.
This Feingold thing is another stupid move by the Democrats in a long line of stupid moves that focus on fixing the blame rather than fixing the problem. What exactly will this naval-gazing political exercise accomplish? Nothing. While Feingold and others pontificate on the floor about the evils of GWB and the Cheney satanic cabal, my brothers and sisters will still be dying in Iraq.
Sorry, but what we need from our political class is not more resolutions or the same stupid plan divorced from operational reality that the Democrats bring up again and again and again only to go down in a filibuster. What we need is a real plan – a compromise – dare I say a moderate plan that would bring in a modicum of Republican support. Maybe if the Democrats brought something to the floor (unlike the current steaming pile of doo-doo) that actually identified US strategic interests and explained how the plan would further those interests and provided detailed information on the resource requirements for implementation, we might actually get more than the handful of Republican defections so far.
It’s pretty apparent to me, anyway, that many Republicans are very unhappy with the current state of affairs but so long as the Democrats keep bringing up the same stupid, unrealistic “plan” over and over they will continue to choose the status quo as the lesser of two evils. The conspiratorial side of me might postulate that this is all by design.
[...] Clark Link to Article george w bush The Damned Dems Are To Blame, Too » Posted at The Moderate Voice [...]
Well, I somewhat agree with Entropy, but think his reasoning is a little one-sided. The Republicans have tried to bring measures to the floor that are just as useless- and do nothing to wrest any of the power for managing the war from the CIC. They have played “See-no-Evil and Hear no Evil” as the deaths mounted and the costs rose- sticking with their party beyond all reason. They have also helped Bush maintain the myth that if we just hang on a little longer the effort will result in a big victory for our forces and for America, when nothing could be further from the truth. A few are finally breaking away, but only because its getting closer to the election, and their terms are almost up. Some have heard from their unhappy constituents which is the cause of their restlessness with the administration’s policy.
I do think Feingold’s measure censuring the president is useless and will fail on the floor, however.
The real problem is that no one is dealing with the complexity of the problem. Those sticking with the president are as delusional as he is if they believe that the surge will allow a political solution by September, or that any of the benchmarks were satisfactorily met this month. The Democrats want timelines but arent facing the likely humanitarian crisis that will follow a sudden withdrawel.
Some in the GOP are now turning to the ISG plan, but it may be too late. The time for that compromise was in January and it may have passed.
Entropy, I agree with you as regards the AUMF, etc. See my last sentence. However, some of the worst damage the Administration is doing is to the Constitution, ie, separation of powers, oversight, etc. That is where a censure motion comes in. I believe, as Feingold notes, it is the moderate thing to do, with the only other recourse being impeachment.
What about the last 7 years (or 9+, if you’ve been paying attention to the antics of the right) lead you to believe there is some magical “compromise” that will bring Republicans, and the Administration together with Democrats on anything, let alone Iraq? Was it fixing minimum wages? Was it Terri Schiavo? Valeri Plame? Medicare? Was it Alberto Gonzalez testimony? They do not compromise. They play games while our brothers and sisters keep dying. That is why a simple majority in the Senate no longer equals passage of a bill.
Censure is largely symbolic, of course, but that doesn’t mean it has no value. It’s some measure of accountability to an out of control Presidency that has yet to face any accountabilty. And each new signing statement, each secret prison, each warrantless wiretap, creates new precedence – and like diamonds, precedence lasts forever.
Kritter,
I would not disagree with that, but too often partisans excuse bad behavior by pointing to the bad behavior of the other party. I expect that on an elementary school playground, but not in the halls of Congress. I am sick and tired of that excuse. I want a solution – not more naval-gazing like Feingold proposes. There is plenty of time to censure or pass whatever meaningless resolution Congress wants once the meat-and-potatoes issue – Iraq – is dealt with. How anyone can prioritize a blatantly political censure motion over Iraq when lives are in the balance is beyond me.
Like I said, the Democrats, as the majority party, control the agenda even if they cannot overcome a filibuster or even get a simple majority in many cases. As such, they are now the ones responsible for bringing a consensus solution to the floor that is not simply designed to score political points. So far they have failed by continuing to bring their “withdrawal” plan that isn’t even withdrawal and is so completely unrealistic that it seems designed to fail. Their arbitrary timelines show they haven’t even bothered to consult a military logistician to determine if it’s even possible to bring 80-100k troops and their millions of tons of equipment home in 120 days (hint: it’s so impractical as to be neigh impossible).
For all their bravado, for all their promises of change, the Democrats have turned around and instead pulled out the Republican playbook from the past six years. It doesn’t surprise me in the least, but then again, I loathe both parties.
Mike P.
The current battle between the Executive and Congress over Constitutional powers isn’t nearly as severe as they hyperbolic left would have you believe. One only has to examine history to see that this “crisis” is a small one that will pass.
OK, let’s ignore the fact that the dem proposal you are referring to required that troop reductions begin within 120 days, not be completed within 120 days.
The fact remains, it didn’t take much more than 120 days to get them to Kuwait.
As a reference to my last comment. The president originally ordered troops to deploy to the region on December 21′st 2002. And of course, the war began on March 19th, 2003.
Obviously withdrawal will be a bit trickier than the initial deployment. But we managed to get around 200,000 troops into the region fairly quickly.
It’s easy to criticize the Democrats, but let’s look at how they are representing their constituents: Only 8% of adult Americans want Congress to cut funding for the war. Call the Democrats spineless if you want, but spinefulness against the wishes of your constituents is not heroic. There is no compromising with the GOP, as Mike P noted, and impeachment (which I favor) would consume the remainder of this session of Congress and the next, with no expectation of success. The Dems rightly perceive fund-cutting as unpopular and impeachment as a waste of time almost certain to end in failure to convict in the divided Senate.
61% of Americans want a timetable for withdrawal, including 41% of Republicans. 13% of Americans want to stay the course (Make no cutbacks in U.S. troops.)
The grim news for Republicans is that Independents are nearly as sick of the war as are Democrats. 90% of Democrats and 75% of Independents disapprove of Bush’s handling of Iraq. 84% of Democrats say the surge is a failure, and 60% of Independents.
So Americans don’t want to pull the funding plug, but they DO want Bush to bring our troops home, which he won’t.
You know what? I’m glad the Republicans are following their
SOBGOP leaders into disgrace and defeat.Davebo,
WRT to withdrawal, even Joe Biden said tonight it would take at least a year. Add to that, from the latest issue of Time:
The fact is that the requirements for what we’re doing now are far different than those for conducting kinetic combat operations in 2003. It takes orders-of-magnitude more stuff to plant roots for an occupation rather than conduct a mobile force-on-force battle.
The Democratic plan calls for the withdrawal to be completed about 8 months from now which is frankly impossible unless one wants an uncoordinated, chaotic and bloody route out of the country.
Greendreams,
The fact is that the Democrats will not consider any Iraq legislation – much less allow it to be debated – unless it contains the withdrawal timetable that even Joe Biden agrees is impossible to meet. Reid prevented a bipartisan measure endorsing the ISG recommendations from even coming to the floor. Now, I don’t support the ISG recommendations (at least not all of them), but I think they should at least be openly debated. No one but Kucinich and that slim 8% of Americans support cutting funding, but it’s not as if the only two options available are the fantasy-land Democratic timetable plan or cutting funding – there are many other options out there, many of which deserved to be aired in an open forum for the American people. Unfortunately, Reid won’t allow alternatives to the impossible-to-meet withdrawal plan to the floor. Is it any wonder the Republicans would filibuster that? There are enough moderate Republicans available to get a compromise that could survive a filibuster, should Reid so desire it, so maybe someone could explain why he hasn’t even tried. Many moderate GOP Senators are desperate for a compromise, but the Democrats seem more interested in politically sadistic quid-pro-quo than in actually engaging moderates on the other side.
I have yet to see any Democrat other than Lieberman commit the cardinal sin of Republicans and constantly conflate Iraq with Al Qaeda (As opposed to the new organization using the name that now exists there.).
I would agree that many in the GOP conflate near-war AQI with far-war Al Qaeda, but what does that have to do with what we’re discussing here, which is Senate resolutions on Iraq?
There’s not going to be a solution that comes without a very high cost to us, the Iraqis and to our reputation around the world. Since it will be so difficult, I expect the partisan spinning, finger-pointing and blame game to continue. Unfortunately the issue will haunt us as Vietnam has. The reason we may not get a reasonable solution quickly is that first of all there isn’t one, and second of all neither side wants to take the blame for the cost of this mistake. Bush will pretend that victory was subverted by a party trying to ensure defeat, and the Democrats will still keep blaming him. The Republicans will flip-flop when we get close to the election, depending on how the war is playing in their districts.The end won’t be pretty or even rational in all probability.
As I said before, Bush should have forgone the surge and accepted the ISG’s recommendations. To decide not to revealed his stubbornness, and willingness to sacrifice American lives needlessly to preserve his legacy. It would have been the right thing to do for the country, and could have gotten bipartisan support.
Entropy,
America is weary of this war, and there’s no victory in sight. I don’t know what sort of compromise you think is possible, but I haven’t heard any indication that Bush or the GOP is open to suggestions.
We have a stalemate. Americans want a timetable, and the Dems are right to press hard for one. No one wants to keep pouring good soldiers after dead ones, but that’s exactly what Bush intends to do until he leaves office, dragging his party down with him. What arrogance!
Commenters, let’s please try to avoid pasting labels or classifications on other commenters. Labels and classifications usually obscure more than they reveal, often provoke offense, and serve only to distract attention from a debate about the issues.
Kritter,
That’s true and I would agree with the rest of that paragraph though that stark eventuality is something I desperately want to avoid. In my view that are no good options left – only varying degrees of bad – but I think there is a substantive and qualitative difference between outcomes that are merely bad and those that are disastrous.
Greendreams,
Bush may not be, but there are a host of moderate GOP senators who could be swayed and prevent a filibuster provided a compromise with them were hammered out. There are, iirc, 7 vulnerable GOP senators up for reelection next year. When you add in Snowe, Warner, Lugar and hagel you get eleven. Will it be easy? No, and the Democrats will have to compromise as well, but at least the Dems should try.
As for a compromise, there are many options on Iraq including various kinds of drawdowns, complete withdraw, containment and partition just to name a few.