politics over policy??? - Democratic Underground

welshTerrier2

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-25-07 09:51 PM
Original message

politics over policy???

Edited on Fri May-25-07 10:24 PM by welshTerrier2

i've heard all the noise on the web and here on DU after yesterday's pathetic display by the Democratic Party. I might leave the Party because of this. Others say that's moronic and emphasize they are true blue Democrats. Frankly, it's all crap. Focusing on the politics instead of the policy (i.e. i'm leaving or i'm staying) really is not what's important here. but, as long as i'm on the subject (i'll return to my main point in a minute), let me point out that the Dems badly hurt themselves yesterday. no, they didn't hurt themselves because "the left" is going to vote third party. that's the usual level of idiocy discussions on DU frequently rise to. this is not about party fragmentation. what it is about is that the Democrats are seen as not having the same amount of "macho" as the republican party. in 2008, that might even help. people are genuinely sick of war and sick of macho. with the next manufactured threat or attack on this country, they will return to the "strong party". the political damage is not local; it's longterm. but, that's not what this post is about.

what the post is about is that the Democrats were so damned inept and weak that they let bush and the republicans frame the debate over Iraq. the result? hideous policy. what was the framing the Democrats feared so much that the party's "politics before policy" triangulators succumbed to? they let the debate focus on whether the Democrats would cut-off funding FOR THE TROOPS. morons!!!!!!

the war in Iraq is the worst foreign policy blunder in our nation's history. even some of those who voted for yesterday's disgraceful legislation have pointed that out. big deal! if it's the worst foreign policy blunder, then continuing the blunder is unconscionable. what we are doing in Iraq is destroying this country. and any credibility to the argument that "we can't just leave" has long since disappeared. why can't "we just leave???????" what exactly does anyone really think is being accomplished by remaining in occupation? do you believe we're protecting Iraqis from each other? how many more years are you prepared to stay? nothing will change in the civil war whether we remain another week, another month, another year, another five years or another ten years! do you agree?????? what the hell are we doing over there? that's what the discussion should have been about; not about whether we are going to abandon our troops and let them starve naked in the desert with no food and no protection.

in considering a vote on the Iraq supplemental, the only issue should have been whether spending more blood and treasure on this failed debacle makes any sense. but once again, we let a perceived fear of political harm dominate our party. when the Democrats were entrusted by the American people with real power, they chose a false political path over real life and death. they chose political calculation over sound policy.

and none of this, of course, even addresses what the real objective is in Iraq. why did the Democrats not call for a ban on oil profits from Iraqi oil for all foreign corporations? so many of us believe this has all been about oil. wouldn't it make sense to send bush a bill that tells him and his oily friends to keep their greedy paws off Iraqi oil? and just what do you think is going to happen when bush finally withdraws? there will be a bunch of whining about needing to chase down remnants of Al Qaeda to justify keeping some US troops in Iraq (on permanent bases). And, of course, the Blackwater mercenaries will be allowed to remain. it's bullshit. it's all about securing Iraqi oil. remaining troops will be kept there to guard the oil pipelines and the oilfields just as was done in Afghanistan. those troops aren't protecting the people. if the Democrats don't want to be seen as complicit and if the Democrats really believe Iraqi oil should benefit only the Iraqi people, where the hell is that spelled out in any of their legislation? not a word, not a single word. would someone like to defend this blatant imperialism? are the Democrats part of the big oil grab? it sure looks that way, doesn't it?????????????????? you don't agree? tell me why!

Iraq has damaged the US in so many different ways. Blood and treasure grab most of the headlines and perhaps rightfully so. But the longterm effects are going to be devastating. Yes, we really have invited more terrorism. we have badly destabilized the Middle East. With so many troops in place, bush might just be tempted to attack Iran in some way. Or Syria. Or, who knows where else. US prestige is in the toilet. Instead of building alliances, the US has alienated the rest of the world. Alliances help strengthen and legitimize our foreign policy. Do you think we have many friends left in the world after how we've conducted ourselves? And stronger alliances should allow us to reduce our military budget so that we can reduce national spending or channel money into critically needed domestic programs. Continuing a war the rest of the world is so bitterly opposed to has made the US an outlaw nation. That's no way to build alliances.

and so, the last vestige of cowards is the political refrain "we didn't have the votes". pathetic, just pathetic. first of all, you didn't have the votes partly because you allowed bush and the neocons and the corporate media to frame the debate. maybe you would have "had the votes" or at least more votes if you had kept the focus on the real policy issues instead of on the idiocy of leaving the troops in a war zone without food, clothing, shelter and protection. you can't fail to make the key arguments and then whine you couldn't convince anyone. just pathetic.

and not having the votes shouldn't have mattered. the party had full control over what did or didn't come to the floor. the issue should not have been about deadlines in the first place. Democrats should have said that they were no longer willing to fund the insanity. Let me ask all you "true blues": Do you think something positive will be accomplished by the US remaining in Iraq any longer? Answer that question please. What do you believe will be accomplished?

DU's "stop bashing Democrats" crowd only wants to focus on their perception of the politics. Well, if that fits you, you're as bad as the triangulating wing of the party and that is just pathetic. You want to criticize this post? fine. Do it based on real arguments about whether this war should continue or it should not. I'm someone who believes in putting the best interests of the country ahead of partisan political considerations. Condemning more Iraqis to suffer US occupation and condemning more Americans to fight a war that never made sense in the first place and certainly doesn't now is totally unconscionable.

and that is my view of triangulating Democrats and their loyal DU followers: unconscionable. I will continue to support those Democrats who voted against yesterday's criminal violation of international law provided they have also shown real leadership to end the war. To blindly wave the Democratic Party's flag after yesterday's disgraceful vote, however, is a path for those blind to the country's best interests and it is not the way citizens should demand ethical governance from those they elect. Such party before country blindness, as I said, is wholly unconscionable.