People said they're leaving the Party. Bloggers were furious. Money was cut-off. It got really ugly and it got really ugly in a hurry.
Some have argued the anti-war wing of the Party is a fairly small but vocal minority. They argued the progressive wing made a ton of noise but was not important in an electoral sense. I've even seen a few "we're better off without them" posts.
One thing I've never seen is any evidence that the anti-war left wing of the Party was wrong, ever wrong, about Iraq.So, the Democrats sold out their anti-war voters and the noise in response was deafening. It didn't mean anything would change. Party leadership heard the message loud and clear. The question on the table now has been whether it mattered.
The Party, since before this war began, and I'm talking here about Party leadership, not the rank-and-file and not even all elected Democrats, has done some horrible things regarding Iraq. Put another way, they've lacked vision and courage from before day one. With Democrats controlling the Senate in 2002, they brought the hideous IWR to the floor. They did NOT have to do that. To their credit, when you combine the votes of Democrats in the House and the Senate, a majority of Congressional Democrats voted AGAINST the IWR. I commend those who did.
But those calling the shots brought the bill to the floor. And it passed. And the fate of perhaps a million Iraqis was sealed. The fate of more than 3400 American troops was sealed. Add another 50,000 American troops seriously injured to that number. But, Democrats had many more chances to get it right. No, until this year, they did not have the power to stop the war. But they could have at least demonstrated they understood it. They failed to do that.
Instead, we've seen almost nothing but capitulation. We've seen almost unanimous votes for more and more funding. Giving more funding in year one and year two and year three and year four and now year five of this insane war and occupation was wrong before the invasion and it has been wrong every time since. Democrats kept investing and investing and investing and investing and investing. What they invested in, as viewed by the anti-war left, never made any sense. We saw the invasion as a push for oil. We never believed in bush's stated motives. We saw imperialism; the Democratic Party saw incompetence. Progressives believed that nothing would be accomplished in Iraq because bush never really planned to accomplish anything beyond setting up a puppet government and stealing Iraqi oil. The Democrats kept investing in bush. They gave him more money and more money and more money and so on.
But, until this last vote, they had no real power. Although they should have spoken out against the absolute immorality and hopelessness of the policy even while they were in the minority, they could not have stopped the madness. This time was different. Democrats allowed bush to frame the issue. Either they agreed with bush or were just incredibly politically inept. Neither is very appealing. They allowed bush, a totally unpopular failure in this country, to make the Iraq funding all about whether Democrats "support the troops." When you're deciding whether to provide more funding for a war and occupation, the right framing should have been whether the war and occupation made any sense. You do NOT continue to invest in a venture that is totally bankrupt. The Democrats couldn't have overridden bush's veto; they could have prevented a funding bill with no conditions or timetables from ever coming to the floor for a vote. They caved. Completely. It was wrong. The anti-war left told them it was wrong. The anti-war left has always been right about Iraq. We were right before the IWR vote. We were right with each and every new funding bill. We were right with this last funding bill. The Democratic Party ignored us.
Well, friends. It might just be that we finally have been heard. It might just be, for whatever reason, that the Democratic Party has finally come to agree with us. It might just be that we are about to see the birth of real opposition to the war and occupation of Iraq. It is long past time for immediate withdrawal. It is long past time to stop talking about "residual forces". It is long past time to believe any progress, even an iota of progress, can be made with the US remaining in occupation in Iraq. We need to get out and we need to get out as quickly as troop safety allows. Finally, after almost five years, those we had hoped would represent us may have gotten the message.
source:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-hayden/democrats-likely-to-harde_b_50424.htmlDemocrats Likely To Harden Anti-War Stance As "Surge" Fails and Election Year Approaches by Tom HaydenSeeking to keep pace with public opinion, key Democratic leaders will soon be considering a peace initiative including full withdrawal from Iraq, revision of the United Nations authorization, and a diplomatic offensive to engage other countries in assisting Iraq.
The proposal represents a sharp difference with the Iraq Study Group -- and current Democratic -- suggestion that combat troops be withdrawn by next spring while leaving tens of thousands of American troops to train the Iraqi armed forces. The notion of "training" a largely-dysfunctional and sectarian Iraqi army, in the absence of a sweeping overhaul of the Baghdad government, is viewed increasingly as unrealistic. The pressure of the anti-war movement and restless public opinion is also propelling these strategists to recommend a stronger withdrawal position than the Congressional majority and presidential candidates currently are taking. <skip>
The new thinking rejects the unconvincing mantra that the US troops will "stand down" when the Iraqis "stand up". The new realism starts from the premise that the US, whatever the intention, has fostered, trained, equipped and armed a majority-Shi's sectarian state whose security ministries are riddled with militias engaged in brutal repression, torture, ethnic cleansing and even death squad activities. Under these conditions, it is deeply unlikely that the current regime will liberalize itself or meet the benchmarks set forth recently by Congress. Who will the US troops be "training" then? <skip>
Changing the current paradigm dominating the media and most Democrats will not be an easy matter, however. It will take place in the form of internal presentations and dialogues over the summer months, with results expected by September at the latest. Currently the presidential candidates and Congressional leaders are locked into the model that only combat troops may be leaving, sooner or later, while other troops will be left behind to fight al-Qaeda, train the Iraqis, guard the embassy and visiting dignitaries, and hunker down on a smaller number of bases. <skip>
The persistent pressure of the peace movement is having an effect, though more slowly than the morality and patience of many can bear.