New at Reason
Brian Doherty concedes that the War in Iraq moved voters to give the Democrats control of Congress. Now the question becomes, what will they actually do about it?
Comments to "New at Reason":
Lamar | December 4, 2006, 2:06pm | #
Keep the troops in and we have Vietnam, pull the troops and we have Darfur. I don't expect the Democrats to act with any brilliant strategy, but how quickly we forget that the GOPers voted out were nothing more than parrots for the administration. Voting them out sent the message loud and clear "do something."I wish we knew what to do about Iraq, but we don't and that's why you don't engage in wars of choice in the first place.
ed | December 4, 2006, 2:13pm | #
1) Hold the line or2) Come to the perhaps inexorable conclusion that the region is incapable of governing itself as a united Iraq. Set up the partitians, admit to the world that our hopes far exceeded political realities, apologize to the families of the deceased, say we're sorry and we promise never to do it again, or at least not for a while. Withdraw and hold firm when the world experiences the next round of genocide and pleads with us to "do something."
Captain Holly | December 4, 2006, 2:47pm | #
Now the question becomes, what will they actually do about it?Short Answer: Nothing.
The Iraq War was a convenient issue for the Democrats to beat the GOP with, but other than their leftist base most Democrats (and that includes the Sainted Senator Webb) are going to support whatever strategy the President proposes.
They will do this because they don't want to be seen as having contributed to failure in Iraq when the 2008 elections roll around. So they'll vote to "stay the course" while loudly proclaiming their opposition, so if things go badly they can blame it all on Bush.
Lamar | December 4, 2006, 3:11pm | #
"So they'll vote to 'stay the course'""Stay the course" won't be on the menu because Republicans have to elected too.
Juanita | December 4, 2006, 3:14pm | #
We have got to stay the course, regardless of the consequenses. We must fight until mission is accomplished and there is democracy in the middle east. We must attack Syria and Iran next and stay the course there also. We should use nuclear weapons all over Iraq until we have finally won the war on terrorism and got all of the Iraquis that were responsible for 9-11.J
Let's hope the shift to the Democrats is better advised than the Broncos' shift to Jay Cutler.
Congressman Charlie Rangel (sp?) was asked on a news program what the Democratic plan was for dealing with Iraq. He replied, most adamantly, that it was imperative the Democrats NOT produce a plan. He said that war was the Administration's responsibility.
The Old Fisherman | December 4, 2006, 3:25pm | #
Juanita,Reason Bay is a poor spot for trolling.
- The Old Fisherman
Sam Franklin | December 4, 2006, 3:37pm | #
However, if we agree to agree—with some of those complications noted—that dissatisfaction with the occupation of Iraq won the Democrats’ the lovely gift of Congress, two other questions remain: were antiwar voters right in assuming—assuming they did--that the Democratic Party stood unambiguously for severe change in policy in Iraq? And now that the Dems won with this supposed anti-occupation mandate, what are they prepared to do about it? What can they do about it?As an antiwar voter, I have a pretty good idea of the Democratic Congress will do about Iran, at least between now and the next election. Given that, why would I care that much about what they do, if anything, about Iraq.
The Iraq War was a mistake.
fletch | December 4, 2006, 3:37pm | #
fyodor-Let's hope the shift to the Democrats is better advised than the Broncos' shift to Jay Cutler.
It's a very analagous situation. I don't think anyone expected Cutler(the Dems war policies) to be immediately better, but they decided that Plummer(the Reps war policies) had essentially no chance of ever being a success- might as well let the new guy start his 'learning curve'...
Grummun | December 4, 2006, 4:02pm | #
The very least the Dems could do is force Bush to pay for Iraq in the regular budget, instead of giving him 'emergency appropriations.' Of course, that would limit the opportunity for Dems (and Reps) to pass out under-the-radar pork. We'll see.Reason Bay is a poor spot for trolling.
I expect this 'Juanita' is a parody of the real Juanita, who, as far as I know, hasn't posted here in a long time.
Jason Ligon | December 4, 2006, 4:17pm | #
I'm interested to even see what the rhetoric will be. As the opposition, the Dems just had to complain. They positioned the problem as being a failure of policies. Okay. That sort of implies that you'd be doing something different with your super special reality based decsion process, right?R C Dean | December 4, 2006, 4:25pm | #
He replied, most adamantly, that it was imperative the Democrats NOT produce a plan. He said that war was the Administration's responsibility.So we can expect him to STFU, right?
Lamar | December 4, 2006, 4:34pm | #
"That sort of implies that you'd be doing something different with your super special reality based decsion process, right?"Yeah, like not going into Iraq in the first place. You can argue that the Dems voted for war, but it was clearly the President's war, and Al Gore would never have invaded Iraq. We are in a GOP created mess. Rangel is right, this war is George W.'s baby. They need to keep the pressure on 24/7, but W is supposed to be the idea man. I like how Republicans now blame Democrats for not being able to bail them out.
Tom | December 4, 2006, 4:37pm | #
"So we can expect him to STFU, right?"Perhaps you will do us a favor and lead by example?
ChicagoTom | December 4, 2006, 4:39pm | #
Let's hope the shift to the Democrats is better advised than the Broncos' shift to Jay CutlerI dunno if that's a fair assesment. Cutler did well enough considering he is a true rookie (he hasn't had years as a backup ) coming in this late in the season. Cutler kept them in the game and was good enough to tie it at the 2 min. mark.
Do you really think Jake the Snake would have produced better results?? Do we just ignore past his past performances?
Lovie Smith | December 4, 2006, 3:30pm | #
Right. We must stay the course at all costs.
OK that was fucking funny!!!
ChicagoTom | December 4, 2006, 4:45pm | #
I'm interested to even see what the rhetoric will be. As the opposition, the Dems just had to complain. They positioned the problem as being a failure of policies. Okay. That sort of implies that you'd be doing something different with your super special reality based decsion process, right?I'm curious...
I see sentiments like this a lot but how much can the dems realistically change??
Bush still is the CinC right? Congress doesn't have any power to redeploy or pull troops right?
Other than oversight and probes / hearings into corruption and exposing potential lies an criminal activity, isn't the only real power they have the power of the purse? In reality, what can the Dems really do when the CinC keeps insists on staying the course??
And does anyone here really think that a game of chicken between the WH and Congress with the money needed to fund the war and our operations in Iraq is a good idea (wouldn't the armed forces really be the ones who suffer in such a scenario??)
And can we at least wait until the Dems actually take control and are seated in leadershoip positions before attacking them as being useless?? Last I checked, even thought the elections are in November, the new Congress/Senate doesn't actually start until Jan? Can we at least wait until then before declaring this bunch of losers just as worthless as the old ones?
lovecat | December 4, 2006, 4:52pm | #
The Demo's should take the intelligent position that the anti-American regimes in the region would, if left to their own devices, most likely do no worse with improving conditions in Iraq than our troops, and pull them out.Bush is sort of like John David Booty in the USC game against UCLA. The opposition's defense is better than he thought.
Maybe we ought to elect a good NFL coach as our next President.
Alan Vanneman | December 4, 2006, 5:02pm | #
What will the Democrats do about Iraq? By winning the election, they have already forced the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld, along with Mr. Moustache, aka John Bolton, formerly of the UN. Remember that two weeks ago Bush was demanding Bolton's approval by the Senate. The Democrats have control of both congressional investigations and approval of presidential appointments. In the current atmosphere, "trivial" incidents, like the apparent coverup of the killing of an American soldier by friendly fire, possibly by Polish troops, can become PR nightmares.From the beginning, the Democrats have followed the frequently ignoble policy of giving President Bush all the rope he needs to hang himself. They are likely to continue that passive/aggressive policy. Ultimately, Bush will be getting the message, not from Democrats but from Republicans, that the war is over. Bush is saying now that the U.S. won't leave. Before the election he was saying that Rumsfeld wouldn't leave. Bush will never admit that he can be broken, but he can be.
fyodor | December 4, 2006, 5:04pm | #
Do you really think Jake the Snake would have produced better results??As bad as Plummer's been this year, he's rarely been THAT bad. So my answer to your question would be, "Probably."
As far as the analogy to Iraq and politics, I guess Bush's "record" in Iraq was probably closer to 3 and 8 than 7 and 4, and I think we can safely assume he's lost more than two in a row! Meaning the nation probably had better reason to change course than Shanahan did!
Oh, and, thanks for the advice, Lovie! :-)
Jason Ligon | December 4, 2006, 5:09pm | #
ChicagoTom:That's why I'm interested in what the rhetoric will be. The Group of Non Partisan Wise Men came up with, what, I don't know, but it wasn't 'leave now'.
ChicagoTom | December 4, 2006, 5:59pm | #
That's why I'm interested in what the rhetoric will be. The Group of Non Partisan Wise Men came up with, what, I don't know, but it wasn't 'leave now'.Jason Ligon,
In my opinion, the rhetoric will be something along the lines of : the CinC needs define to some tangible goals, not vague "we must succeed" BS. And once those goals are accomplished start gradually withdrawing troops. In fact many democrats (sadly though, not the most high -profile ones) are already calling for a phased withdrawl. (It seems that the Group of Wise Men said something strikingly similar -- except they were careful not to use the same words). In fact lots of Democratic rhetoric has been exactly that. Set up some milestones (even fluffy feel good ones) declare "victory" and then start handing the country to the Iraqis and their security forces and get the hell out of dodge.
But at the end of the day, no matter what the rhetoric is...what do you do when the Decider has already decided that they are going to stay there until the job is done...and only the Decider will decide when the job is done? What can they do other than threaten to defund the war (not really likely or realistic is it?)??
At a certain point reasonable people have to accept that this is Bush's war. He is running the show. The Dems can point out how bad he is doing so or how stubborn he is....but reasonable people can not blame the Dems for not getting us out of Iraq. Only the President can do that, right?
R C Dean | December 4, 2006, 7:01pm | #
Perhaps you will do us a favor and lead by example?Perhaps if I was in a position of power and had just disavowed all responsibility for an issue that had contributed mightily to my being in said position, I would.
R C Dean | December 4, 2006, 7:03pm | #
The Dems can point out how bad he is doing so or how stubborn he is....but reasonable people can not blame the Dems for not getting us out of Iraq. Only the President can do that, right?If the Dems are serious about getting out of Iraq ASAP, there is a lot they can do in the next few years.
They can revoke the authorization to use force, and they can defund the war, to name just two of their options.
Great. All we'd accomplish at that point would be to replace one idiotic decider with a bunch of deciders.
Chad | December 4, 2006, 8:05pm | #
The problem never changes. The war in Iraq sucks. So do all the alternatives. It was that way before we went, it is that way now.Indeed, we were having essentially the same debate before the war. Democrats rightfully critized the thought of war, but couldn't come up with a viable alternative. Now the gripe about the war, but don't really have a better plan this time, either.
I am a bit leary of "talking", in the sense that Democrats tend to mean. How do you have a conversation with irrational religious zealots? How do you compromise with them? Only let them kill half the Jews? I am sorry to say that before the war, I greatly underestimated how utterly irrational the Arab world really is. To this day I am astounded lack of self-criticism, conspriracy-mongering, and the deep wounds that they bear from their self-inflicted failures.
I am still waiting for the day I see any non-Westernized Muslim criticize Palestinian behavior. Not once have I seen it - not ONE SINGLE TIME, EVER. On the other hand, I have seen countless Americans, Europeans, and even Israelies criticize Israeli behavior. That should tell you something.
anon | December 5, 2006, 6:35am | #
Withdraw and hold firm when the world experiences the next round of genocide and pleads with us to "do something."Let's not pretend that the invasion was to "do something" about an ongoing genocide. The rate of killing now far exceeds what it was under Saddam.
Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!! Stay the course!!!
MainstreamMan | December 5, 2006, 12:03pm | #
"I guess Bush's "record" in Iraq was probably closer to 3 and 8 than 7 and 4"I can't come up with 3 wins...
Saddam ousted = 1 win
What were the other two?
If ousting Saddam was a win, it was a win in which we lost our quarterback, both receivers, all linebackers, two down linemen, a safety, the running backs and all kickers, plus we found out that our cheerleaders are cross-dressers.