The Democrats and the Iraq War
Despite this valid criticism, though, there is a both a kind of hopeless naivete and an illogical allegiance that underlies the Guardian editorial. The Guardian writes, "Instead of trying to sound like a hawk, Pelosi ought to get on a plane, fly down to Texas, and stand next to Sheehan with an antiwar sign...She and other leading Democrats need to listen  or the Democratic Party will suffer another series of embarrassing losses."
This ought to be the turning point for the Democrats, even those who originally supported or were wishy-washy about the war.And yet, if you visit the Web site of Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the San Francisco Democrat who is House minority leader, you'll see all sorts of statements about policy ("Pelosi Celebrates 60th Anniversary of VJ Day," "Pelosi Statement on 70th Anniversary of Social Security," and the like) but not a word about Sheehan and her vigil. Rep. George Miller, whose Seventh District includes Vacaville, has signed a letter calling on Bush to meet with Sheehan, but Pelosi is not among the 37 congressional signatories.
Telling the Democrats what they "ought to" do implies a concern for reforming what is an irredeemably unreformable party. This is the same Democratic Party whose leadership endorsed the Iraq War back in 2002, which then nominated a prowar candidate for President last year, whose party platform stated that supporting or opposing the war were equally valid positions, and whose gestapo tore down antiwar signs that a group of activists tried to erect at the party convention.
The Iraq War has been the single most important issue of the past three years. Yet, time and time again, the leadership of the Democratic Party has shown its unwillingness to take the moral high road with respect to the Iraq War. Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Nancy Pelosi are all complicit in helping to get us into the Iraq War in the first place.
Frank Rich, in his recent column in the New York Times, does not agree with those of us on the antiwar left who want to end the occupation immediately, and is not of the same camp as the bona fide antiwar left, as represented by people like Cindy Sheehan. Instead, he seeks some kind of measured approach, perhaps endorsing a timetable for getting out or some other position that will seek to perpetuate US interests in Iraq, and which will result in a more drawn out continuation of the slaughter but which would somehow allow the US to get out of the quagmire while saving face. His is more of a practical criticism of the war than a moral one, not unlike John Kerry's position in the last election. This sort of murky, middle ground position that seeks to advance US corporate and imperialist interests is only a half-hearted approach to ending the war. But despite that, it is interesting to see that even he has strong criticism for the leadership of the Democratic Party. Rich states:
With so much criticism being at all sides hurled at the Democratic Party, it is a wonder why it is that so many people from the antiwar side maintain an allegiance to it.
The Democrats are hoping that if they do nothing, they might inherit the earth as the Bush administration goes down the tubes. Whatever the dubious merits of this Kerryesque course as a political strategy, as a moral strategy it's unpatriotic. The earth may not be worth inheriting if Iraq continues to sabotage America's ability to take on Iran and North Korea, let alone Al Qaeda.As another politician from the Vietnam era, Gary Hart, observed last week, the Democrats are too cowardly to admit they made a mistake three years ago, when fear of midterm elections drove them to surrender to the administration's rushed and manipulative Iraq-war sales pitch. So now they are compounding the original error as the same hucksters frantically try to repackage the old damaged goods.
Post a Comment