I believe John Edwards is exactly right. Democrats were elected to majorities in both chambers of Congress in order to end this war. Like Edwards has said, if there is no timeline there should be no funding, no excuses. It is a travesty that Democrats are caving before the battle has even begun. We should send Bush a bill that requires a timetable for withdrawal. If he vetoes it, send it back. If he vetoes it again, send the same bill back again and again. Bush, not Democrats, should be the one who is forced to cave. If we stand firm he will eventually cave. Why? Because he can't leave the troops there without funding. At the last minute he would have to accept any funding he could get because of the political pressure that would be placed upon him from the public, and even his party, in such a situation.
There is simply too much at stake when it comes to the war to settle for token half measures. It is time for Democrats to be Democrats; time to stand up for what the American people want, not what Washington consultants advocate.
By Jonathan Weisman and Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, September 13, 2007; Page A01
Democratic leaders in Congress have decided to shift course and pursue modest bipartisan measures to alter U.S. military strategy in Iraq, hoping to use incremental changes instead of aggressive legislation to break the grip Republicans have held over the direction of war policy.
Shift course? How exactly do you shift course when the course you elected to take was the one of least resistance without hesitation before the battle had even begun?
After two days of congressional testimony from Army Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador to Iraq Ryan C. Crocker, the battle lines in the House and Senate over the war have begun to shift, with moderate members of both parties building new momentum behind initiatives that would force the White House to make modest changes to the military mission but not require a substantial drawdown of troops by a set date. Democratic leaders, who have blessed the new approach, now believe that passing compromise legislation is the first step toward more ambitious measures aimed at ending the war, although that tactic is likely to result in stiff opposition from Democratic activists who want a rapid troop withdrawal.
Damn right it will result in stiff opposition from the base!
"I don't think Congress is going to pull the plug," said White House press secretary Tony Snow.
Wow, Reid and Pelosi really stood up to Bush on this! Look at the fear in the White House before any legislation has even been presented!
Read the rest of the article here
Another important point: caving in also damages Democratic chances in 2008. Why? Because whatever mushy, token, half measures Congress passes will give vulnerable Republicans up for re-election in 2008 an easy opportunity to have it both ways. How? They will be able to appease some swing voters who oppose the war by saying they voted for "a change in strategy", "stood up to the failed policy", "worked to help end the war", etc. Meanwhile, they will be able to wink-and-nod at the Republican base by pointing out they fundamentally still support continuing the war.
What advantage is there to "compromise"? It will continue a failed war, further damage American, Iraqi, and global interests; cost the lives of countless more people, cost us billions more in a war without any foreseeable end, and help throw a life preserver to Republicans like John Sununu, Norm Coleman, and Susan Collins.
In particular, our presidential candidates need to stand up for fighting to end this war. I am glad Edwards and Dodd have spoken out forcefully--even before any legislation has been presented; and we all know Kucinich's position on ending the war immediately. Now is the time for leadership. Our party's leading voices should be singing out in chorus advocating that Democrats unite behind a bill that has a binding timetable for withdrawal in it.