BUSH'S IRAQ OCCUPATION AND THE BUILDING DEMOCRATIC VICTORY IN NOVEMBER

Although we haven't broken out the cases of champagne at DWT, you can probably tell that Ken, Adam (and Sadie and Sophie) and myself are all pretty excited about Rahm Emanuel's decision to depart from the DCCC in November. (Had the decision been to depart today, we would all be drunk by now and I wouldn't be writing this morning.) Our disdain for the chairman of the DCCC is multi-faceted, covering a wide range of tactical and strategic decisions he has enforced that have made the Democrats less likely to compete effectively against Republicans in November.

However, many of his devastatingly bad decisions seem to all come from one place: his steadfast determination to keep the Democratic Party and, far worse, Democratic candidates around the country, from taking a clear and unambiguous position against Bush's war and occupation.

Today the well-respected GarinHartYang Research Group released a paper called "The Political Dynamics of the Iraq Debate" that puts the lie to Emanuel's violently aggressive demand (disguised as timidity-- oh please) that antiwar stands will lose the election for Democrats.

The overriding reality that defines the dynamics of Iraq as a political issue is  that Americans overwhelmingly disapprove  of the way President Bush is  handling the war in Iraq.  Indeed, one of the key reasons for Republicans’ vulnerability in this year’s mid-term elections is that Americans do not  believe that the country will be well-served by having a congressional  majority marching lock-step with the President in supporting a “stay the  course” approach to the war.  The significance of the current debates in  Congress is that nearly all Republicans are reinforcing their position as rubber  stamps for administration policy, while most Democrats are placing  themselves on the record as supporting one version or another of a new  direction for U.S. policy.   

Based on the most recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey,  conducted after the killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, only 35% of Americans  approve of President Bush’s handling of the situation in Iraq, while 61%  disapprove.  By aligning themselves so closely with President Bush’s conduct  of the war, Republicans who are running for reelection this year clearly are  playing the short side of the field.   

Current polling also demonstrates that there is broad support for a  change of course in our Iraq policy, while the status quo “stay-the-course”  position articulated by most Republicans in Congress has become a distinctly  minority position in the electorate.  On the question of our troop  commitment, for example, just 35% believe that we should maintain our  current level of troop strength in Iraq “to help secure peace and stability,”  while 57% say that it is time for the United States to reduce its troop level.  

Significantly, voters reject the contention, oft repeated by Republicans in Congress, that our involvement in Iraq is an important part of the war on terrorism and will make America safer. Indeed by 56% to 33% independent voters conclude instead that out involvement in Iraq is a distraction from the war on terrorism and will NOT make America safer.

On a party-to-party comparison, by a slight margin of 33% to 30%, voters say they trust Democrats in Congress more than they do the Republicans in Congress to deal with the situation in Iraq. Among independent voters, Democrats have a 27%-to-13% advantage-- with more than three in 10 independents volunteering that they do not trust either party and 16% saying they trust both parties equally.

The reality of mid-term elections, of course, is that there are choices between candidates. In this context, the Republican attack that Democrats differ among themselves about how best to change our course in Iraq will be irrelevent. By far the most important dynamic-- reinforced by the current congressional debate-- will be that in states and districts nationwide, voters will face a choice between a Republican who is aligned with President Bush on Iraq and identified with more of the same, and a Democrat who supports an independent approach and new direction for resolving what most Americans think of as a wasteful and poorly planned mess.

Right now, because of obfuscating and confused Democrats, like Emanuel and Lieberman, the Republicans are taking the clearest issue in the minds of voters and turning it into sludge and muck. Rove must have an alter in his satanic chapel with pictures of Emanuel and Lieberman in it on which he burns incense and places daisies daily.

Private polling I've been made privy to for in 6 dozen swing districts shows that a Democrat who takes a firm stand for exit does better than a "mumbler"-- i.e., a Rahm Emanuel type Democrat-- who thinks only "a new direction" is needed. amazingly. That proposition is a HUGE LOSER for Democrats and Emanuel has done his best to make sure mumblers are the only challengers facing Republicans in November-- all the more reason to support real independent-minded progressives like Jerry McNerney, Donna Edwards, Jan Schneider and other House candidates on the DWT ACT BLUE Page.

Meanwhile, 4 middle-of-the-road Democratic senators, Levin (MI), Reed (RI), Feinstein (CA) and Salazar (CO) introduced a consensus amendment today calling for the beginning of a phased redeployment-- and bringing an end to the Bush Regime's-- and it's rubber stamp allies in the Republican Congress-- open-ended/open-wallet non-strategy. This clearly tells the puppet regime to either get it together now or face what historically all collaborator/quisling regimes face when the occupying power departs anyway. Regardless of how the GOP propagandists spin this-- they are all ready running hither and thither screaching "cut and run, cut and run"-- here is the exact wording of the amendment:

SA 4320. Mr. LEVIN (for himself, Mr. REED, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. SALAZAR, and Mrs. CLINTON) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 2766, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2007 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to
prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

At the end of subtitle A of title XII, add the following:

SEC. 1209. UNITED STATES POLICY ON IRAQ.

(a) SHORT TITLE.—This section may be cited as the ‘‘United States Policy on Iraq Act of 2006’’.

(b) FINDINGS.—Congress makes the following findings:

(1) Global terrorist networks, including those that attacked the United States on September 11, 2001, continue to threaten the national security of the United States and are recruiting, planning, and developing capabilities to attack the United States and its allies throughout the world.

(2) Winning the fight against terrorist networks requires an integrated, comprehensive effort that uses all facets of power of the United States and the members of the international community who value democracy, freedom, and the rule of law.

(3) The United States Armed Forces, particularly the Army and Marine Corps, are stretched thin, and many soldiers and Marines have experienced three or more deployments to combat zones.

(4) Sectarian violence has surpassed the insurgency and terrorism as the main security threat in Iraq, increasing the prospects of a broader civil war which could draw in Iraq’s neighbors.

(5) United States and coalition forces have trained and equipped more than 116,000 Iraqi soldiers, sailors, and airmen, and more than 148,000 Iraqi police, highway patrol, and other Ministry of Interior forces.

(6) Of the 102 operational Iraqi Army combat battalions, 69 are either in the lead or operating independently, according to the May 2006 report of the Administration to Congress entitled ‘‘Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq’’;

(7) Congress expressed its sense in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (119 Stat. 3466) that ‘‘calendar year 2006 should be a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with Iraqi security forces taking the lead for the security of a free and sovereign Iraq, thereby creating the conditions for the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq’’.

(8) Iraq’s security forces are heavily infiltrated by sectarian militia, which has greatly increased sectarian tensions and impeded the development of effective security services loyal to the Iraq Government.

(9) With the approval by the Iraqi Council of Representatives of the ministers of defense, national security, and the interior on June 7, 2006, the entire cabinet of Prime Minister Maliki is now in place.

(10) Pursuant to the Iraq Constitution, the Council of Representatives is to appoint a Panel which will have 4 months to recommend changes to the Iraq Constitution.

(11) Despite pledges of more than $8,000,000,000 in assistance for Iraq by foreign governments other than the United States at the Madrid International Donors’ Conference in October 2003, only $3,500,000,000 of such assistance has been forthcoming.

(12) The current open-ended commitment of United States forces in Iraq is unsustainable and a deterrent to the Iraqis making the political compromises and personnel and resource commitments that are needed for the stability and security of Iraq.

(c) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress that in order to change course from an open-ended commitment and to promote the assumption of security responsibilities by the Iraqis, thus advancing the chances for success in Iraq—

(1) the following actions need to be taken to help achieve the broad-based and sustainable political settlement so essential for defeating the insurgency and preventing all out civil war—

(A) there must be a fair sharing of political power and economic resources among all the Iraqi groups so as to invest them in the formation of an Iraqi nation by either amendments to the Iraq Constitution or by legislation or other means, within the timeframe provided for in the Iraq Constitution;

(B) the President should convene an international conference so as to more actively involve the international community and Iraq’s neighbors, promote a durable political settlement among Iraqis, reduce regional interference in Iraq’s internal affairs, encourage more countries to contribute to Iraq’s extensive needs, and ensure that pledged funds are forthcoming;

(C) the Iraq Government should promptly and decisively disarm the militias and remove those members of the Iraqi security forces whose loyalty to the Iraq Government is in doubt; and

(D) the President should—

(i) expedite the transition of United States forces in Iraq to a limited presence and mission of training Iraqi security forces, providing logistic support of Iraqi security forces, protecting United States infrastructure and personnel, and participating in targeted counterterrorism activities;

(ii) after consultation with the Government of Iraq, begin the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq this year; and

(iii) submit to Congress a plan by the end of 2006 with estimated dates for the continued phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq, with the understanding that unexpected contingencies may arise;

(2) during and after the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq, the United States will need to sustain a nonmilitary effort to actively support reconstruction, governance, and a durable political solution in Iraq; and

(3) the President should carefully assess the impact that ongoing United States military operations in Iraq are having on the capability of the United States Government to conduct an effective counterterrorism campaign to defeat the broader global terrorist networks that threaten the United States.