Congressional Democrats ask me for money all the time. When they ask, I ask myself what have they done for me? More importantly, what is their record on the overriding issue of our time, the Iraq War? I have to tell myself their record is one of missed opportunities, lack of selfless leadership and outright complicity in the regime's war of choice. Yes, we were attacked at home and the attacks traumatized the nation. But a politician with the courage of his convictions and objective thinking should have realized that the invasion and occupation of Iraq is wrong. It is wrong strategically, morally, legally and politically.
When the October 2002 vote authorizing war against Iraq took place, Democrats controlled the Senate under Tom Daschle. Twenty three Democratic senators voted against the resolution. Every senator with presidential ambitions, including John Kerry, voted for it. Hillary Rodham, John Edwards, and Joe Biden voted for war too. Every senator with a close senate race voted for war like Daschle and Max Cleland. They lost anyway. When the Democrats lost the majority, they never had fewer seats than necessary (41) to sustain a filibuster against the yearly supplemental war appropriations. Now that they have regained majority status, albeit by one, the caucus is not capable of passing even a non-binding resolution against the war. The 'nuclear option' is apparently good enough for Senate Republicans to use, and they have already used it twice since becoming the minority in 2006. Mention filibuster to an official Democrat and they walk away or barricade their offices as John Kerry did when Veterans for Peace came to visit. Collaboration is the name of the game in the District of Bizzarro. Perhaps this stealth Democratic war support explains Hillary's unwillingness to make her position on the war perfectly clear to voters.
Republicans have a radical base that demands adherence to their warmongering policy or cause their representatives to suffer political consequences if they do not. Democratic peace supporters are stiffed by their representatives and marginalized with apparent impunity. Upon assuming the Speaker's chair, Nancy Pelosi immediately pronounced impeachment off the table despite mounting evidence of the regime's criminality. The occupation is a failure, yet no one in Democratic officialdom is cutting funding, let alone contemplating using the filibuster as a weapon to end American involvement in what is clearly now a civil war. I recall Nader's tag line in the 2000 election, "there is not a dime's worth of difference between the major parties". There maybe some truth in that. However, creating a third party movement would simply isolate peace activists further from 'the process' as its so fondly referred to in the District. The solution lies not in a third party, but in the peace movement demanding action from our representatives or suffer the lack of their support and funding. The Connecticut Senate race in 2006 was a beginning. The onerous hawk Lieberman was not defeated, but that was more a function of Republican voters crossing over and an ineffectual alternative Democratic candidate than organized opposition by Democrats. Peace activists rose up and resisted a politician that no longer represented their views. The Senator suffered an embarrassing primary defeat, and is no longer considered a Democrat. That's just fine with me. So if a Democratic office holder asks you for money ask them if they still use the "F" word.