Blood for Votes?

The Democratic leadership in both the House and Senate caved this week on the issue of funding for the war in Iraq. President Bush offered up his usual bull-headed stern gaze – always an amazing feat with his head stuck so far into the sand – and both Senator Reid and Congresswoman Pelosi blinked. The President, of course, wants the war to drag on so that it will not come to its inevitable, sad, bloody conclusion on his watch. His hope is that somehow, historians will grow delusional and blame the entire mess on his successor in the White House, rather than on him. That Bush values both America and its soldiers so little is a given now, apparent from his every action since 9/11. I expect this from him. From the new Democratic leadership, however, I expected more. My naive expectations appear to have been just that.

Leaving Iraq will not be good for America in the broadest sense, but it will still be better than staying. To put it another way, staying will hurt us far more than leaving. At least in leaving, young Americans will stop dying in an unnecessary, misguided war. The vast majority of Americans recognize this. Some do so through careful analysis of the strategic realities of the conflict and its negative affects on our standing abroad. Others simply are tired of seeing both the funerals of more dead Americans and the daily bombings of civilians in Iraq. Regardless, they have made their voices heard, both in the midterm election of 2006 and since. The Congressional leadership of the Democratic Party sold these voices out this week.

Perhaps they did so fearing that the public would see them – as Bush has worked to cast them – as putting our troops in harms way through lack of funds. Troops being in actual jeopardy – well, additional jeopardy anyway – through a lack of funds as orchestrated by previous Democratic bills is a fallacy. That this is so doesn’t, of course, prevent the public from believing the Administration’s lies. Even if the lies prevailed, should not Democrats, who profess to be against the war, place the lives of Americans and the standing of the nation itself above political standing? Above votes? And if this scenario is not sickening enough, what if in the dark recesses of their minds they want the war to drag on through November of 2008. Maybe history through some misguided snafu will blame our 44^th president for the final calamity of this war. Maybe that president will even be a Democrat. Who cares? That will be after the election. For now, however, the war is an albatross around the Republican Party’s neck. Democrats have a much better chance to increase majorities in Congress and take the White House with a war still being fought. (Something else Republicans should consider as their president sells their party down the river.)

The Congressional Democratic leadership will put a bold face on this. They will say it is yet another nail in the coffin of the President’s Iraq policy. They will speak of political realities and a coming shift in the fall. And I believe that they are buying votes with blood.

I hope that I am wrong. I hope that they have some real, honorable strategy that will end the war as soon as possible, a strategy that I simply cannot see. If I am correct, however, I hope that the Democratic base will apply pressure and make its voice heard. I hope that rank-and-file Democratic Senators and Congressmen will vote against the measure. And if necessary, I hope that the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate will be replaced.

Postscript: Watch for the reaction of the Democratic presidential candidates. This caught most of them off guard. I believe that their reactions and – for those who are currently in office – their votes will greatly impact the coming race. Keith Olbermann presented the equivalent of an Op Ed on his program last night and indicated as much. His words were an effective indictment of Pelosi and Reid et al as well.

Postscript 2: You will also note that in spite of the need to “fund the troops quickly,” Congress found time to pack the legislation with enough pork to sink a battleship. Pay-as-You-Go Democrats and No-Big-Government Republicans alike packed it onto their plates. All politicians in DC want “big government.” It buys them votes and it buys them power. What else is there?

Postscript 3: It is also worth noting that the Democratic leadership sold out its base recently on the issue of free trade. In that agreement with the White House, it went so far as to allow the Administration to write the final language and may even allow such legislation “fast track” status. Regardless of your views on the issue of free trade, let me assure you that this was done for one and only one reason… to fill Democratic coffers with campaign money from corporate America. When the Democratic Party is in bed with Wal-Mart and the American Chamber of Commerce, you can bet that money is the name of the game… and the only game in town.

24 May 2007