When Democrats were elected as the majority party in Congress last November, I was under no illusions that we would be out of Iraq as soon as they took power a couple months later. But what I did expect was for strong congressional measures to be taken towards making progress on withdrawing our troops from Iraq. The first supplemental bill that the White House vetoed - HR 1591 - had such a timeline. The Reid-Feingold bill demanded a full withdrawal of American troops by the spring of 2008. In the end, while we were unable to pass legislation with a binding timeline the first time around, it seemed that Democrats were going to be able to force through a bill at a later date - presumably the next time a spending bill came up on Iraq (now) - that would end the occupation of Iraq.
Instead, we see congressional Democrats begin to capitulate to one of the most unpopular residents of the White House in American history before legislation is even being debated.
Why?
What compels congressional Democrats to start talking like this?
After short-circuiting consideration of votes on some bipartisan proposals on Iraq before the August break, senior Democrats now say they are willing to rethink their push to establish a withdrawal deadline of next spring if doing so will attract the 60 Senate votes needed to prevail.
Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, said, "If we have to make the spring part a goal, rather than something that is binding, and if that is able to produce some additional votes to get us over the filibuster, my own inclination would be to consider that."
Who in their right mind thinks that giving this administration another FU to lie to us and tell us progress is being made in Iraq? Progress is not going to be made in the country by keeping our army on the ground. Today, a new report says that we should be reducing our military presence. American troops continue to be killed at an increasing rate relative to last year - and the years before that. The number of Iraqis killed in this conflict continue to increase at an exponential rate, with the true number who have died senselessly probably being in the hundreds of thousands.
And yet we have Harry Reid, supposed master strategist and Senate Majority Leader, openly talking about passing bills with no timetables of any kind:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said Democrats would renew their push for changing the direction of the Iraq war. In a conciliatory move, he did not say Democrats would necessarily insist on specific timetables for withdrawing troops as they did earlier this year.
Why do Democrats feel that when, faced with Republicans intent on stymieing their every move, always cede ground? It's happened before, most notably when it came to discussing the 'nuclear option' in the Senate of removing filibusters. Now it's happening on Iraq. The only time congressional have ever held firm on anything in recent memory was on Social Security. On Iraq, the party has continued to capitulate over and over again, even as Bush's approval ratings drag his administration and his political party into unplumbed depths.
So instead of standing up to the GOP - which is presumably why Democrats were elected to power in Congress - our party has instead chosen to be slammed repeatedly whenever any legislation on Iraq comes up, followed by meek submission to the wants of Bush. Our leaders choose to avoid standing up on the biggest issue of our time - and for what? If it's because they're a bunch of spineless cowards, then they are not true Democrats. Look at Andrew Jackson. Look at Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Those men didn't become great presidents because they subscribed to the whimpering, pathetic version of the present Democratic Party. They were great because they said what they meant, and they stood up for it. Sure, not all of their actions were the right ones. But as Robert F. Kennedy once said, "Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly."
And right now, the Democratic Party seems content to barely try - and fail - instead of striking back and truly making a difference in the disastrous direction of our country. Congressional Democrats have already given up. Our leading presidential candidates both support leaving a large residual force in Iraq, despite previous assertions that they will 'end' this war. Instead of standing up and demanding accountability after 4+ years of neverending lies from this administration, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama seem content to do nothing now and obfuscate their true intentions about Iraq should they be the lucky one to inherit this catastrophe.
The Democratic Party has not failed us totally yet, but they are working towards it. There aren't any other viable political options, which means that they will continue to receive our votes, even if they move ever closer to the scumbags across the aisle. But they continue to betray the trust that the voters put in them and that we grassroots activists put in them. How can we be expected to believe in a political party that hardly seems to believe in itself?
We shouldn't. And if we don't hold each and every elected Democrat in Washington, D.C. accountable for their actions (or lack thereof, as it may be), then we have failed ourselves.