CAN DEMOCRATS UNITE BEHIND A PLAN TO END BUSH'S WAR? DO THEY WANT TO? DEPENDS WHAT YOU MEAN BY "THEY"

If my career path depended on electing generic "Democrats" to office, then that's what I'd care about, I guess. But the idea of electing anyone under the ill-defined rubric "Democrat" isn't something that should be reflexively embraced by thoughtful progressives. Before I explain why, let me refute my own argument a bit. In the extreme western tip of North Carolina, centered around Asheville, the 11th congressional district had long been home to one of the most reactionary and corrupt politicians in the entire United States, Charlie Taylor. In November 54% of the votes in the district (123,986) went to Heath Shuler, an anti-choice, anti-gun control, anti-gay conservative under the Democratic umbrella. Forget for a moment that even if my suspicions are correct and Shuler-- who immediately upon election joined both the DLC-oriented pro-corporate New Democratic Coalition and the reactionary Blue Dog caucus-- winds up voting with Republican-lite southern Democrats like Jim Marshall (GA), John Barrow (GA), Gene Taylor (MS), Dan Boren (OK), Bud Cramer (AL) and Mike McIntyre (NC), he will be voting substantially better than even the most progressive Republican. Forget that because my point is even more important: just by having been elected as a "Democrat"-- regardless of how pathetic and how reactionary a Democrat, and regardless of how damaging he is to the Democratic "brand" (more on that below)-- Shuler was an automatic vote for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House.

That acknowledged, let's move to the single most important issue facing our nation right now: Bush's occupation of Iraq and the moronic and catastrophic war he is waging against Islam. Most American military experts and most American voters think Bush's course is dead wrong and they want him to change course. He absolutely refuses. In November, voters made their wishes known by defeating more than enough Bush rubber stamp congressmen and senators to give majorities in both chambers to Democrats. Steadfast anti-war progressives like John Hall (NY), Jerry McNerney (CA), Steve Cohen (TN), Carol Shea-Porter (NH), Keith Ellison (MN), John Yarmuth (KY), Joe Sestak (PA), Patrick Murphy (PA), Yvette Clarke (NY), Dave Loebsack (IA), Mazie Hirono (HI), Peter Welch (VT) were elected in the House while in the Senate wild-eyed radicals and warmongers like George Macacawitz Allen (VA), James Talent (MO), Mike DeWine (OH) and Conrad Burns (MT) were replaced by sensible opponents of Bush's Iraq policies (respectively, Jim Webb, Claire McCaskill, Sherrod Brown and John Tester). Not one single Democratic incumbent was defeated in either the House or Senate and not a single open Democratic seat was won by a Republican. The election was a stinging rebuke for the Bush Regime in general and for their universally-hated Iraq policies in particular.

It is the American people, not their representatives in Congress, who are leading the effort to stop Bush. Professional politicians are rarely-- I didn't want to say "never," because there are always the rare exceptions; but they are indeed rare-- lead; they figure out which way the wind is blowing and run to the head of the parade-- after it looks safe enough. That said, there are a considerable number of Democrats sincerely convinced that the Bush Regime policies are dragging our country to disaster and they really do want to stop the war.

So what's holding up the ship? That brings us back to fake Democrats, like Heath Shuler. This morning both the New York Times and the Washington Post reports on the problems Jack Murtha (and Nancy Pelosi) are having in uniting the whole Democratic caucus behind plans to stop the war. According to the Post "The plan was bold: By tying President Bush's $100 billion war request to strict standards of troop safety and readiness, Democrats believed they could grab hold of Iraq war policy while forcing Republicans to defend sending troops into battle without the necessary training or equipment. But a botched launch by the plan's author, Rep. John P. Murtha (Pa), has united Republicans and divided Democrats, sending the latter back to the drawing board just a week before scheduled legislative action, a score of House Democratic lawmakers said last week."

We'll discuss the role of Pelosi's own devious and treacherous leadership team-- undercover pro-war fanatics Steny Hoyer and Rahm Emanuel-- in a moment. First let's look at the dependably reactionary Democrats who tend to vote with Bush anyway. The very first example in the Post of a Democrat parroting Karl Rove's pro-war talking points is, predictably, Jim Matheson of Utah. Although the Post merely identifies Matheson as "a Democrat," even the most superficial look at his voting record on Iraq tells a story the Post might have considered sharing with its readers. The House voted 44 times between the fateful Oct 10, 2002 votes to authorize Bush to invade Iraq and the May 25, 2005 bill to authorize more military activities. Matheson voted with the Republicans and against the Democrats on each of the 4 October 10th roll calls to authorize the attack on Iraq. Of the 44 roll calls Matheson voted with the Republicans 21 times, a disgraceful record matched by a mere 8 Democrats, two of whom-- Jack Murtha and Ike Skelton-- have now, unlike Matheson and the others, realized their trust in Bush was severely misplaced.

While Murtha and Skelton are trying to solve the problem, Blue Dog Democrats of the Matheson ilk are pandering to the far right: "If this is going to be legislation that's crafted in such a way that holds back resources from our troops, that is a non-starter, an absolute non-starter." Matheson knows better than to insinuate that Jack Murtha, the military;s best friend in Congress, would endanger our troops and "hold back resources" from them. But Matheson and the Blue Dogs are so accustomed to bending over for Bush and Cheney that they automatically pick up on the White House directed/Fox propagated rhetoric meant to confuse and deceive the public. "Matheson and other Blue Dogs said the Democrats should concentrate on oversight hearings on Iraq policy, while refraining from binding legislation on the war." That would suit Bush and Cheney just fine.


Murtha will take his plan to the Democratic House leadership on Wednesday where Emanuel and Hoyer will do all in their power to undermine him and wreck his approach. The Times points out that "the ideas Mr. Murtha has floated over the past month-- attaching restrictions to the financing, and requiring the Pentagon to meet clear standards on readiness, training and equipment for troops about to be deployed to Iraq-- have already drawn substantial criticism. Mr. Murtha has argued that his approach both protects American forces and makes Mr. Bush’s troop buildup plan impossible to sustain." Hoyer and Emanuel, who did all they could to prevent the nomination of anti-war Democrats in last year's primaries, while pushing Republican-lite Dems like Shuler and Tim Mahoney, represent a significant number of Democrats who are as enthusiastic about destroying Iraq (and Iran and Syria) as are Bush, Cheney and the Neocons.

The largest single caucus among House Democrats-- in fact among all members of Congress-- is the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Alas, it is far from the most effective. More freshmen joined the reactionary Blue Dogs and New Democratic Coalition caucuses this year than the Progressives. The new freshmen members are Yvette Clarke (NY), Steve Cohen (TN), Keith Ellison (MN), John Hall (NY), Mazie Hirono (HI), Hank Johnson (GA), Dave Loebsack (IA), and Peter Welch (VT). Nancy Pelosi left when she became Speaker and two prominent members, Sherrod Brown and Bernie Sanders were elected to the Senate. Unlike the two reactionary Democratic caucuses, the CPC wants to end Bush's war in Iraq. Many of these people have embraced Murtha's On-the-Road-to-Damascus-like change of heart and are trusting him to get us out of Iraq. But not everyone.

Murtha's strategy is viewed warily by some progressives and by many reactionaries and by the otherwise liberal warmongers. Hoyer and Emanuel feel certain they can exploit these divisions to keep the Congress from taking any meaningful action against Bush's Iraq agenda.


UPDATE: SIROTA MANAGES TO MAKES SENSE OUT OF ALL THIS MESS

David Sirota takes Jonathan Weisman and Lyndsey Layton, the team who wrote the Post article I was quoting above, to task out to the woodshed for poor journalism. You have to get through 14 paragraphs of all their blather before there's any substance offered regarding Murtha's Iraq proposal. Why are so many vested interests against us getting out of Iraq. The Bush Regime (of course), almost the entire Republican caucus in Congress, and all the most reactionary and warmongering Democrats have jumped all over him. Some right wing activists have been demanding he be tried for treason. Well, this is what the traitor had to say:

"To be sent to battle, troops would have to have had a year's rest between combat tours. Soldiers in Iraq could not have their tours extended beyond a year there. And the Pentagon's 'stop-loss' policy, which prevents some officers from leaving the military when their service obligations are up, would end. Troops would have to be trained in counterinsurgency and urban warfare and be sent overseas with the equipment they used in training."

Is there something wrong with Murtha's proposal? I mean I can understand why people who hate the troops and hate America might be against it but why are Democrats and the media buying into this nonsense? Murtha, a decorated ex-Marine, has been the best friend the military has had in Congress for decades. He's always stood up for their interests-- always. Now suddenly the media is listening to the spin from chicken hawks like Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and George Bush|? The support these people have offered the military is on display at Walter Reed.


UPDATE: REGARDLESS OF EMANUEL, HOYER AND THE GOP, MOST AMERICANS SUPPORT MURTHA'S SUPPORT FOR REAL LIVE AMERICAN SOLDIERS IN IRAQ

Huff and puff all they went, the Inside the Beltway Establishment hasn't fooled the American public this time. We know Murtha's plan is the right thing to do. Sit on that Steny Hoyer and John Boehner-- and spin. Although the Washington Post somehow neglects to mention it in their anti-Murtha propaganda barrage, it's their own polling that shows these results:

Would you support or oppose Congress trying to block Bush’s plan by creating new rules on troop training and rest time that would limit the number of troops available for duty in Iraq?
Support: 58 percent
Oppose: 39 percent
Unknown: 4 percent