You may have missed this wise, impassioned speech in the recent House debate on Iraq escalation.
Clearly, many, if not most, of the Democrats call for withdrawal from Iraq, as do several of my very respected Republican colleagues. And I respect their views, when they are heartfelt. But, Mr. Speaker, since Democrats now control both houses of Congress, why are we not voting on a withdrawal resolution? And that's one of the reasons this is such a sad day. I mean, think about it, Mr. Speaker. How do you look a soldier in the eye and say, "You know, I don't believe you can succeed in Iraq. I don't believe in your mission. I don't believe you can win this war. And I have the power to bring you home, but I refuse to do it. I refuse to do it"? ... If you truly believe in your heart of hearts that our soldiers are needlessly risking their lives, don't you have a moral obligation to bring them home?
What a great question. Why is the majority party debating escalation instead of ending the funding for the Iraq occupation? What about our moral obligations? Take the poll.
I quoted Rep Jeb Hensarling of Texas, who happens to be a Republican. But does it matter? He speaks for a hundred million Americans, and for hundreds of elected Democrats who also take their moral obligations seriously, including more than a hundred who opposed the war from the outset.
What's worse - offering hope that Iraq can be won, or leaving the troops in harm's way in an immoral, unwinnable war?
If we 'object' to Iraq policy but avoid this question, we get what we have now: a system where the majority party - afraid to firmly say it's time to use Congress's power to rescue our own soldiers and the Iraqi people from the U.S. occupation - instead provides moral cover for hawks and Republicans. Articulate Jeb Hensarling would be ashamed to risk the troops' lives for a long shot, except that Democrats - eager to debate non-binding resolutions about escalation - seem like much bigger hypocrites with even fewer ideas. Likewise, Alabama hawk Jeff Sessions takes moral strength and comfort in the lame posturing of Reid, Levin and Pelosi.
I know, since this is an officially partisan blog, I'm obliged to reply, "Oh, if a Republican said that, it must be a trick, even if it's true. And if a Democrat said it, it must be some lefty fantasy that will make us seem radical or unpatriotic and cost us in 2008. I'd better weigh that against those wasted lives..." But let's be human beings for a moment and ask, isn't it just a good question? Isn't it the truth?
What the fuck are we doing? Unless we cut the funding, next month Iraq will become the Democrats' war, and at the same time we'll give Jeff Sessions, Jeb Hensarling, and every voter reason to consider the Democrats cowardly, negligent opportunists who knew better, but sacrificed thousands of soldiers and lives anyway.
Isn't ineffectually debating escalation what Bush and the right wingers want? Our leadership is so focussed on reacting to Bush's latest agenda, it's forgotten the voters'.
If you worry that Republicans are bluffing, raise the stakes: call for a bill like Woolsey's HR 508 or Obama's exit plan to be promptly debated and voted on.
We've got to teach the Dem leadership poker, as David Mamet brilliantly, succinctly analyzes it. Initiative. Courage. If you spot a bluff, don't whine - call and raise. Right now Democratic leadership still only knows how to ante and fold, and we're losing our whole stake.