US in Iraq Forever

Has anybody noticed that the top three contenders for the Democratic Party nomination for president have refused to commit themselves to have all troops out of Iraq by the end of their first term of office, in other words, 2013, six years down the line.

I don’t know about you, but that doesn’t sound like withdrawing from Iraq, or anything similar to what the great majority of Americans desire in that regard. Neither does it reflect in any manner what they voted for in the last election. Anyway, the top contenders as well as Congressional leadership is talking strictly about withdrawal of combat troops, which constitute less than half the total. It’d be one thing if the Iraqi people actually wanted the US there, but when nearly 80% want you to leave and 57% approve of attacks on American forces, then hanging around is absurd and nonsensical.

None of that seems to impress the Democrats. They really want to be non-controversial, non-contentious, non-divisive, non-confrontational nice guys and hand Bush his heart’s content on a silver platter. Impeachment is just so messy. Better to let him see how much damage he can do before the next election so they can use his ongoing catastrophes to improve their political chances. Trashing the constitution, spying illegally on Americans and anybody who’s internet messages happen to pass through America, lying to start a war that’s resulted in untold damage, turning the US into a torturer - lowering it to the same level as some of the world’s worst political regimes - seemingly unimportant to the so-called opposition.

They say they want to get on with the business of governing, that impeachment would only be a distraction… so what have they done? Minimum wage… ok, that’s fine, though not of earth shattering importance, but what else have they accomplished that would’ve been hindered by impeachment proceedings?

In fact, one would have to conclude from their actions that they are trying their best, going out of their way, to capitulate on every important issue. Bush authorizes illegal wiretapping, the Dems are in the process of making it legal. He wants a lot more money to fight his wars: don’t fight, don’t make a fuss, just give it to him.

The majority of Dems are intent on enabling his next colossal misadventure, attacking Iran. Only 22 Democratic senators voted against the recent “get tough on Iran resolution” which labeled Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, an integral part of its military establishment, a terrorist organization. That’d be equivalent to saying the US Army is actively fomenting terrorist plots… (well, now, it might not be appropriate to couch it in those terms: but; napalm, agent orange, cluster bombs, depleted Uranium shells which will bestow their legacy of radiologically derived cancer for decades, the only country to use nukes….)

They didn’t really give Bush the implicit go-ahead to attack Iran, only backed him politically and encouraged his recklessness. In any case, the emperor doesn’t really care what anybody, least of all Congress, thinks: he’s going to bomb those Islamofascist terrorists if he damn well pleases.  Just to demonstrate what a terrible idea it is for Iran to have nukes, Bush’ll nuke ém. A little bug gets up his ass and poof goes Tehran.

And who’s to stop him? The opposition? Hardee har har har. The leading Democratic contenders are bought in to the “all options on the table” attitude towards Iran - real warmonger talk - a country which by all rational analysis, is virtually no threat to the US. How is it they’re so keen to keep all options on the table for Iran but not for stopping Bush? Impeachment, the only action that might restrain him has been off the table since the Dems took over.

Here’s a rhetorical question for ya. What happens to the attitude of a ne’er-do-well who is never punished for his transgressions? He gets bolder, of course. He feels like a king, maybe even divine. No matter how bad he gets, they all keep kowtowing and enabling, so why not go for broke? Paraphrasing Nixon: if he does it, it must be legal. And if he wasn’t acting appropriately then somebody would try to stop him, wouldn’t they?

The one good thing about Bush being so bad is that he is virtually guaranteeing a total rout of his party at the next election. The Dems, ever adept at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, will have to plumb the depths to lose next time.

So what will the US get? Hillary? Great friend of Rupert Murdoch, owner of Fox News, etc., who’s a committed thrasher and trasher of every good progressive idea? There are only two reasons I can think of why Murdoch would hold a fundraiser for Hillary. Either he expects to get tangible benefits in the form of legislation, or he thinks she’d be easier for a Repug to defeat.

Most importantly, if she cannot bring herself to apologize for her craven, calculating vote to authorize the Iraq invasion, I can’t bring myself to vote for her. I promised myself after the Kerry debacle - when I actively supported him and talked him up, to my later extreme embarrassment and regret - that I would never again support a Democrat that didn’t express my true politics. If she’s the nominee, I hope she wins because she’d undoubtedly be better than any of the Repugs, but it won’t be with my vote. Edwards, Obama? Marginally better… remains to be seen.