Robert Parry: Are Democrats Afraid of a Myth?

[babylonsister]

http://www.consortiumnews.com./2007/031207.html

Are Democrats Afraid of a Myth?

By Robert Parry
March 12, 2007

Over the next few weeks, the congressional Democratic majorities must decide how scared they still are of George W. Bush and his right-wing attack machine. Or put differently, can a weakened President still intimidate Democrats by questioning their patriotism or doubting their support for the troops?

Bush has thrown down the gauntlet with his demand for another $105 billion in war funding without “strings” attached. He also has warned that he would veto any measure that seeks to limit his discretion over how to fight the war in Iraq.

Two to five years ago, the Democrats – then in the minority – would have been quaking in fear about crossing Bush, the self-described “war president.” They knew to expect a barrage of insults from Washington’s influential right-wing and neoconservative pundits and a hefty GOP investment in 30-second attack ads in the next campaign.

But now with most Americans critical of Bush’s conduct of the war and after disclosures about neglectful treatment of wounded veterans at Walter Reed and other medical centers, the political calculus has changed. Indeed, it’s possible that Democrats would face more heat from voters by giving Bush another blank check.

Those two alternatives – “strings attached” or “blank check” – are likely to become the stark legislative choices in the weeks ahead since the House Democratic leadership has decided to put forward a compromise plan to start a phased withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq.

more...

[laststeamtrain]

1. Good question from Mr. Parry:are you a (Hu) man or a mouse?

"stark legislative choices in the weeks ahead".

I'd sure like to see some more 'leadership' in getting the US off the disastrous path we're on.

[yurbud]

2. Democrats need to go on offensive by investigating REAL reasons for the war instead of listing Bush

offenses.

Cataloguing all his impeachable offenses is important as well, but Democrats have a chance to reframe the debate completely away from the bullshit, fairy tale "war on terror" terms Bush has used.

It doesn't require any complex argument or belief in so-called conspiracy theories.

Simply say, "We were attacked on 9/11. Rather than see that as a problem to be fixed, the Bush administration saw it as an opportunity to exploit our fear to enrich his friends. In the process, he has made us far less safe."

Then prove it.

Incidentally, most people already believe this. The Democrats reticence is not based on fear of the public but of the business interests behind Bush.

[Usrename]

3. We need to fight for a Constitutional Amendment.

We need to make war profiteering unconstitutional.

Until we fight the right fight, we will just continue to get absoulutely nothing for our troubles.

[struggle4progress]

4. So? Attach strings to any appropriation. Let the hawks take the heat for stopping funding ...

... or let W veto it.