The vote for the war supplemental may have been the actual gutsy one for Democrats

[Karmadillo]

This 2007 article is useful to remind us that it is always possible to rationalize the Democrats' funding of illegal wars. The Democrats want to end the wars! Their complicity isn't complicity! It's part of a plan! They are leading up to something or other to be revealed soon! Don't be cynical! Don't give up! Have faith! Fight!

Or we can being stop being silly and follow the path of Cindy Sheehan and stop pretending behavior that has been constant for years is suddenly going to change. It doesn't lead to easy solutions, but it might help start us on the way to finding real solutions. Those suffering and dying under the boot of empire would probably appreciate a little less rationalizing on our part and a little more common sense.

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_moment_of_disillusion

The Moment of Disillusion
The anti-war movement's outrage at congressional Democrats is understandable -- but the danger of over-reaction is serious.
Terence Samuel | June 1, 2007

<edit>

The GOP claimed victory; the media declared a capitulation by the Dems, and the Stop-The-War crowd is still howling mad at Democratic leaders. In an excoriating letter to the Democratic Congress, Sheehan denounced them for complicity with George Bush and spineless political expediency. "You think giving more money is politically expedient, but it is a moral abomination and every second the occupation of Iraq endures, you all have more blood on your hands," she writes.

She is apparently not aiming for balanced analysis here. She isn't just burning bridges; she is blowing them to bits. She ended the letter thusly: "We gave you a chance, you betrayed us."

Who can blame her? She put herself on the line and got in the president's face when he was a lot more popular than he is today. She gave voice to a movement that was desperate for one, and then that movement delivered -- Democratic control of the House of Representatives for the first time in a dozen years and nine new Democratic senators. And what does she get? A compromise with a weak and wounded president.

<edit>

The war is obviously unpopular, and President Bush's job approval rating is at historic lows -- it would be tempting to just play the strongest available hand. That would be to force him to keep vetoing bill, and to force unpopular votes on the GOP in Congress. That would be easy, but it wouldn't end the war. The vetoes would be sustained, and at any rate wars don't end at the conclusion of a roll call vote. It will take Republican votes to force the president into the corner. Those are starting to come; cutting off funding would turn back that support.

So even though the supplemental compromise had the look of past weak-kneed Democratic surrenders, there was a strategic rationale to it that should make the opponents of the war, if not proud, at least hopeful. The slow build from a series of failed non-binding resolutions last summer to a presidential veto this spring shows a level of persistence -- and strategery -- among Hill Democrats that would make the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue proud.

Considering the public mood and the president's approval numbers, the vote for the supplemental may have been the actual gutsy one for Democrats. Admittedly, that may just be the optimistic view.

[MisterP]

1. we must be wise and moderate and calm, just like the Dems who, uh, took us to war with the IWR

not only is war peace, but cowardice and abject servility wisdom and courage!

[nosmokes]

2. Voting against funding the goddamned idiotic useless war no more puts troops

in the lurch than does putting them in an untenable situation in the first place.

How much longer do we hafta continue with this debacle before we wise up?

[inna]

3. yeah, it was pretty "gutsy" to threaten veto and destroy 140,000+ teachers' jobs.

Beyond disgusting.