Democrats and the War

Democrats were elected this past November for several reasons, the largest of which was to lead the way out of Iraq. How's that going? They're not exactly having the easiest of times there. That can mostly be blamed on the President's sudden post-election decision to escalate the war and remove Congress from the loop even more than before. Still, a debate is raging as to how Democrats must proceed now.

Glenn Greenwald says Democrats need to wake up and actually do something.

For a different take, I want to highlight an email Talking Points Memo received yesterday (which in turn was a reaction a Washington Post op-ed by William Odom, a retired Army lieutenant general who worked in both the Carter and Reagan administrations, in which he said it's time to turn things around).

The reader argues that the political climate still doesn't favor Democrats enough that they could actually do anything (and as a personal sidenote from me, I'll note their Vietnam-era majority was much larger). His basic argument is that Democrats' focus then should be to keep the heat on President Bush and the GOP as a whole (moreso the latter, as the former doesn't have anything real to fear from the political consequences of continuing the war), while simultaneously reminding the public over and over the ways in which the Bush crew has created and formented this disaster. This would, he surmises, increase the pressure from the public and force their hand.

Where do I stand? My passions and my principles lie with what Greenwald says. But from a more practical standpoint, I understand where the TPM reader is coming from. But where I think all sides agree here is that the Democrats need to do more than pass non-binding scolding resolutions and they need to be forceful in confronting this war. Voters are paying attention. More importantly, there are lives at stake too.

[PS- Speaking of non-binding resolutions, the House is rolling out theirs this week.]