In search of Democratic courage

By Michael J.W. Stickings

So it seems that Senator Chris Dodd of the state one drives through to get from New York to Boston has, according to WaPo, "introduced legislation to cap the number of troops in Iraq at roughly 130,000, saying that lawmakers should take an up-or-down vote on Bush's plan to send additional troops to the country and not settle for the nonbinding resolution several Senate leaders prefer."

On the preference for binding over non-binding, I agree. Democrats need to stop Bush, not just talk about stopping Bush. But on the troop cap, also promoted by Hillary Clinton of the state with Buffalo in it, I agree with Drum:

Legislation to get us out of Iraq would be a fine idea. Legislation to reinstitute the draft and send 200,000 more troops to Iraq would be a horrible idea, but would at least have some internal consistency. But legislation that essentially locks in place the status quo? That really makes no sense at all. If there's anything we can be absolutely sure of, it's the fact that the status quo isn't working.

Democrats should either go the political route and pass a nonbinding resolution, or they should pull up their socks and support legislation that defunds the war and sets a timetable for withdrawal. There's really no way to triangulate out of this.

Ah, triangulation. How nice.

Last time I checked, seeking a middle option when the other side is completely insane is, well, almost as insane.

Courage, Democrats, courage!

**********

A better legislative start, it seems to me, flows from the bipartisan efforts of Senators Joe Biden of the state better known as a corporate tax haven, Carl Levin of the state with all them cars, and Chuck Hagel of the state also known as Nebraska. The three of them have "[put] forward a resolution that describes Bush's troop buildup in Iraq as 'not in the national interest of the United States.'" (See WaPo link, above.) Which seems obvious enough. It isn't.

But let's have more than mere rhetoric. Bush has neither popular nor political support for The Surge, his "new way forward" in Iraq. Doesn't that mean anything? Let me repeat: The president is without popular and political support. The country has finally turned against him and his disastrous misadventure in Mesopotamia.

What more do Democrats need to stop him? Are they waiting for his approval rating to slip into the teens?

Enough already. You won. Now go for it.

**********

It looks like Barack Obama of the state crazy about Da Bears will soon introduce "phased redeployment" legislation.

If only John Edwards, my preference, were back in the Senate with a bill up his sleeve. Or maybe not. Let the good senators jockey for position in the legislative pit. Edwards has the toughness and the vision to stand firm against the warmongers. And his candidacy, I believe, will prove it.

**********

But let me be clear about something: Whatever their differences, now is not the time for internecine strife among Democrats. There will be time enough, come the primaries. Now, right now, the objective should be -- must be -- to stop Bush from flushing it all, whatever's left, down the toilet.