On Dem Leadership on Iraq: What Atrios Said

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 04:01:33 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

As always speaking only for me - BTD

Thanks Duncan [and Jane too]:

[W]hile the Senate Leader is technically Harry Reid, the real leaders of the Democratic party at the moment are Senators Obama and Clinton. They can get press (if not always fair and accurate press) any time they want. They have a prominent platform and a large megaphone which they could use not simply to inspire voters but to browbeat their colleagues, plot a course of action, enlist their supporters into helping push through a legislative agenda, etc. They could, you know, lead instead of campaign. The former might even help the latter.

And they might even see how leading might help campaigning when folks like Move On, Duncan and Markos start pointing out how they are failing to lead on Iraq.

< Larry Craig's Resignation: Live Thread | Sen. Larry Craig Lawyers Up >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

On Dem Leadership on Iraq: What Atrios Said | 24 comments (24 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

It makes no sense... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by garyb50 on Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 04:26:13 PM EST

...For the life of me I cannot figure out why they are so meek, so Republican Lite. What are they afraid of? Is it advisors? Some knowledge we don't have that the sky really is falling? Is setting up a powerful domain in the Middle East such a no-brainer that I'm an idiot to think otherwise? The majority of U.S. voters want out of Iraq and yet they not only think otherwise but agree that acceleration of military action is probably correct.

Baffling & disgusting.

What are they afraid of? (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by Edger on Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 11:35:42 PM EST

Nothing... That's the problem.


I should expand a bit on that ... (5.00 / 2) (#24)
by Edger on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 09:05:27 AM EST

They are afraid of one thing, I think.

They, like the republicans, are afraid of one thing.

They are afraid that the US economy cannot and will not continue to dominate the world economy, and will collapse, unless the US is able to dominate the energy resources of the world, and that cannot be done if the US withdraws from Iraq.

The invasion and the occupation of Iraq was not done to deliver 'freedom and democracy' to Iraq. It was done in the hope of ensuring US economic dominance.

Larry Everest, ZNet, May 10, 2007

What the Bush Regime portrays as a noble effort to make the world safe from terrorism and bring democracy to the Middle East is actually a vicious war of empire to deepen the U.S. stranglehold on the Middle East and Central Asia --a war that is part of a broader effort to create an unchallenged and unchallengeable imperialist empire.
This goal is not viewed as capricious or incidental by those in charge--whether Democrats or Republicans--rather it flows from the deepest needs and drives of their system: U.S. hegemony in the Middle East and global dominance is crucial for U.S. capitalism's ongoing functioning and U.S. global power.
...
So when Bush says, "Even if you thought it was a mistake to go into Iraq, it would be a far greater mistake to pull out now," he's expressing a fear -- from an imperialist viewpoint - that a U.S. pullout would leave the empire weaker. And he is saying this in opposition to other forces in the U.S. ruling class who, also coming from an imperialist viewpoint, now think it's a big mistake for the U.S. not to withdraw.
This whole dynamic of riding the anti-war vote to power, then voting to fund an ongoing war while claiming to be ending it, reflect the conflicting necessities the Democrats face. As representatives of U.S. imperialism, they are committed to maintaining U.S. global dominance. Yet they fear the U.S. is sliding toward a strategic debacle of epic proportions and may already have lost the war in Iraq.

You Must Be Mad, Or You Wouldn't Have Come Here

One of the legacies of six years of the George W. Bush Administration is that America has gone "From $20 trillion in fiscal exposures in 2000 to over $50 trillion in only six years
The United States is Insolvent
© Dr. Chris Martenson
...
The US is insolvent. There is simply no way for our national bills to be paid under current levels of taxation and promised benefits. Our combined federal deficits now total more than 400% of GDP.
That is the conclusion of a recent Treasury/OMB report entitled Financial Report of the United States Government that was quietly slipped out on a Friday (12/15/06), deep in the holiday season, with little fanfare.

: The invasion and the occupation of Iraq (none / 0) (#25)
by Edger on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 11:26:25 AM EST

was not done to deliver 'freedom and democracy' to Iraq. It was done in what is now seen to have been - as progressives and liberals and anyone with half a brain have been saying it would be since before the invasion - an insanely misguided, immorally wrongheaded attempt at ensuring US economic dominance, and is producing the opposite result...

Good points ... (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by Meteor Blades on Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 05:04:26 PM EST

...BTD.

And the American people aren't entirely stupid (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by Militarytracy on Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 07:56:21 PM EST

They would notice if someone started leading us in the right direction on Iraq, they want this, this was THE BIG ISSUE that decided their votes in 2006 and did what many said was impossible. It gave us a majority in the Senate that told Cheney and his tie breaker vote that it could go Cheney itself. I don't know what more the American people can do at this point to make it more possible for our Democratic leaders to lead on Iraq except to NOTICE WHO HAD THE PEOPLE GRANTED POWER AND WAS CHOOSING NOT TO LEAD. That really isn't something I would want the American to start noticing if I were running for President against that Edwards fella!

: I think that (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by Edger on Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 11:33:58 PM EST

They would notice if they saw enough people leading us in the right direction on Iraq... if they heard enough people say to them that they will not vote for ANY Democrats next year EXCEPT Democrats who have been vocally, and by their votes on supplementals, calling for total withdrawal from Iraq.
They would notice if enough people turned the tables on them and used fear to motivate them, instead of voting simply out of fear of republicans.
If they were full of fear that they would lose Congress and the presidency UNLESS the occupation was ended before the 2008 elections, they would end it.

Democrats in Congress... (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by Demi Moaned on Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 10:22:26 PM EST

seem to have been put on notice by Pollack and O'Hanlon. That's the Very Serious Consensus on the Democratic side of the Foreign Policy Community.

(I'm basically regurgitating Greenwald here, but he has convinced me.)

PATRIOT Act (5.00 / 3) (#20)
by Ben Masel on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 02:21:47 AM EST

Remember how, when voting for renewal, both Obama and Clinton promised to return and "fix" it? I understand their ideas of repair would be a smaller increment than mine, or even Feingold's but to date there's been nuthin'.

Blame Game (2.00 / 1) (#5)
by koshembos on Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 05:28:05 PM EST

It seems that the Netroots get immense satisfaction from this blame game. It's not Harry, it's Barrack and Hillary. You see, we the smart guys have figured out, Harry Reid is not the leader of the Senate, the odd couple is.

Guys, you look quite pathetic.

I would prefer the credit game (5.00 / 2) (#9)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 05:55:35 PM EST

Anybody to credit yet?


: sometimes, sanctions are the only answer. (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by Compound F on Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 06:04:07 PM EST

In this case, while I would love to be proven wrong, the Democrats appear to have essentially acquiesced to whatever doctrines Bush lays down, including an impending strike on Iran. Hoping to be able to credit them in the future has no teeth, just like the Iraq funding bill. It's time for tooth and claw. There's no turning back after Iran.

: Feingold.... Dodd.... Kucinich.... Gravel..... (none / 0) (#18)
by Edger on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 12:00:16 AM EST

what aspect of this country (none / 0) (#6)
by Compound F on Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 05:34:09 PM EST

does not look pathetic?


The Country (none / 0) (#7)
by koshembos on Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 05:42:37 PM EST

The country is a lousy shape but has great people, including all of the Netroots, we must finish the war, Bush and the Republicans.


: Do great people endorse aggressive wars? (4.66 / 3) (#8)
by Compound F on Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 05:49:52 PM EST

Do great people abandon their own to catastrophes?
Do great people vote for people like George W. Bush?
I'm not condemning the entire population, but gimme a break. It just doesn't fit the facts.

Perhaps another explanation is that (1.00 / 1) (#19)
by Green26 on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 01:31:22 AM EST

some of you should consider how out of step and/or out of touch YOU are.

: Please expound (5.00 / 2) (#23)
by Militarytracy on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 07:36:08 AM EST

A adore a good single sentence nailing but I have one qualifier, it must have a shred of truth in it.

: You do set a good example. (none / 0) (#21)
by Edger on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 06:16:22 AM EST

whoops. (none / 0) (#4)
by Compound F on Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 05:16:35 PM EST

sorry about that profanity in the quote. That was unintentional and may be stricken, if possible.

Not Baffled, but also Disgusted (none / 0) (#12)
by womanwarrior on Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 07:58:18 PM EST

Didn't that kind of "thinking" give us Richard Nixon? Ronald Regan? Bush? Were those good outcomes?

I don't want it to be too late to stop an attack on Iran. I don't want it to be too late to stop nuclear war.

You are quite right that there is currently no leadership in the Democratic party on the war in Iraq. I am disgusted by Democratic votes on the Patriot Act and its progeny.

Call me naive, if you will, but don't we have to keep working to stop this instead of throwing up our hands? The American People have awakened before. How do we awaken them now?

: I'm taking a game theory point of view. (5.00 / 3) (#13)
by Compound F on Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 09:19:59 PM EST

Tit-for-tat always wins, hawks and doves do not.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/28/203123/690
Democrats have been abominable defectors and need to be sanction if they continue. It's the only way to restore any semblance of cooperative structure.

I agree completely. (none / 0) (#15)
by Edger on Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 11:19:10 PM EST

The evidence states that Democrats are basically on board with Bush.

This has been obvious for some time. Since the supplemental in the spring at least. The FISA Amendment should have been the clincher for anyone who doubted it.

They are not capitulating to Bush. They are complicit with Bush. They are confident that the electorate will capitulate to them next year out of fear of the republicans. They are playing people. They are using the same fearmongering tactics the republicans used so successfully for the past few years.

It's working, too...

And... (none / 0) (#22)
by Edger on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 06:34:20 AM EST

they might even see how leading might help campaigning when folks like Move On, Duncan and Markos start pointing out how they are failing to lead on Iraq.

They might even see how leading might help campaigning IF folks like Move On, Duncan and Markos ever start encouraging them to lead and start by pointing out how they are failing to lead on Iraq.

Instead of being simply cheerleaders.