We are driving in neutral.  We are taking baby steps that are repeatedly stalled by our allies and foes.    We are in the midst of chess-the key stakeholders keep deliberating and promising a course of action, while moving the pawns and slapping the clock.  There is no strategy or thinking steps ahead.  They are hoping for a stalemate hoping the clock will run out circa 2008...

Disagree with the tone of this. Dems may not be accomplishing as much as we want or as much as they should, I would argue that.  But I hope we aren't really hanging the continuation of the war on them exclusively.  Yes, Congress can be more aggressive, but these aren't the people responsible.  It's all the folks who won't vote for aggressive legislation, not the leaders who can't talk them into it.

I still cant figure out why us liberals constantly cry for an immediate withdrawal and defunding of the war.  We would be decimated in the next election, and if you're too foolish to realize this maybe we deserve to be in the wilderness again.

I'm still mystified that Democrats are following along with the "defund the troops in the field" debate. Start talking about authorization, not funding. Congress has more power over war policy than just the power of the purse.

over Hillary, Steny, Rahm or the blue dogs. If we want a progressive Democratic party that's going to stop playing in the GOP "Democrats are weak" sandbox and actualy grow a spine and lead, these are the ones we have to stop blindly supporting.

I agree that defunding hands the Republicans a pretty big stick to beat us with.  And there seems to be alot of division, or at least wasted effort, on defunding vs deauthorisation vs mandated withdrawal.

Of all of these, mandated withdrawal seems to me the most pro-active and least vulnerable of the strategies.  Why is there not leadership on rallying behind one of these options and letting the others rest?

Also, having read the front page Perhaps it's Time for The New York Times to Retake Congress 101 here this morning I am wondering if we have mixed signals on what are reasonable expectations of Congressional Democrats.  I must admit I am puzzled and increasingly frustrated by the lack of unity and progress.  It seems to be letting the Republicans off the hook.  But I am only coming to terms with what I don't understand about the de facto legislative process; which is to say plenty.

I have very much appreciated the posts from skeptic06 on these points but wonder if we are uncertain what the electorate must think about all of this?  Seems like we have to keep up the pressure on our representatives and I am wondering what the best vehicle to do this might be.  I have been sending emails to my representative and senators but what should I be advocating beyond do something?

This diary is non-realistic, given the razor-sharp division in the Senate.

Particularly this comment is nonsense, amongst others:

Hillary Clinton, who argues that the war won't end until the next President takes office and so she won't take a public position that Congress should use their financial leverage to end the war.

Looks like bunk to me.   Here is a report from just today:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070218/ap_on_el_pr/iraq2008

In New Hampshire, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., told voters that the nonbinding resolution amounts to a vote of no confidence in Bush and his policy.

"This is the beginning," Clinton, a front-runner for the Democratic nomination, said before rushing back to Capitol Hill.

She said it was important to get GOP senators on record objecting to the policy "in order to have them as possibly the core of Republicans who will stand with us to cap troops or cut funding."
...
Two Democratic candidates not in Congress -- John Edwards, the former one-term senator from North Carolina, and Tom Vilsack, the former Iowa governor -- have demanded that Congress take stronger action by cutting off money for U.S. troops. Vilsack proposes cutting all funding for the war, while Edwards says funding should be cut for Bush's troop increase and the force capped at 100,000.

In Dover, N.H., Clinton argued before the vote that such calls fail to acknowledge the legislative reality that Democrats hold a slim majority in the Senate.

"I understand the politics of this. I could very easily stand up here and say, 'I'm all for cutting off funding,' knowing we don't have the votes," Clinton said. "We have to end this war and we can't do it without Republican votes."

------------------------------------------------

So, let's get this straight:  HRC said that the resolution today was important as a vote of no-confidence for Bush.  Then she claimed that it was only a beginning, but was an important element to get everybody on record, including Republicans, and start working on a core of Republicans who will "stand with us to cap troops or cut funding."

The reality of what is actually being said stands in stark contrast to what the writer of this diary claims.   At the very least he is being unrealistic.  

Her remarks are also on the money about those who "demand" immediate funding cuts while failing to convey, either ignorantly or with full knowledge of the real facts, the reality as it exists in the Senate today.  For that matter, the writer of this diary does the same thing.   We don't HAVE the 60 votes in the Senate.  Sad, but true.  Bashing any of the Senators for talking about the realism of that fact (and trying to find other means of stifling the surge which go beyond simple symbolism) is probably popular here, but not very helpful to get something accomplished.  

From the first day of the session, it was pretty clear that the Dems were never going to able to pass any worthwhile legislation on Iraq in the 110th.

The numbers simply aren't there.

The closest we come is a defunding rider in an apps bill which passes the House and triggers a GOP filibuster (in the modern sense) which the Dems either face down, or they don't.

Followed by a similar battle with the prez.

And, so far as I'm aware, there has never been any sign that any significant member of the Dem leadership group in either house has contemplated that strategy.

Why? Because they don't think they have a snowball's chance in hell of beating the media onslaught that would follow. (And I rather think they're right there.)

Bear in mind that, right now, all they've managed is to pass (just in the House) is a nonbinding res in opposition to a surge that's well underway, and will soon be complete.

It's not the cowardice of leaderships, I'd say, but the reluctance of their troops which is holding them back.

And - I'm very much afraid that, failing a catastrophe, there's much that can be done to change that.

That in the minds of some Democratic politicians and 'advisors' it would be advantageous to still have the war in Iraq going strong in Nov. 2008.  That the war is a winning issue for Democrats and we don't want to end it too soon.

I hope that isn't the case, because in my mind, the vote in Nov. 2006 was the referendum on the war in Iraq, and if it is still going on in 2008, voters are going to decide that Democrats had their chance, squandered it, and elect a GOP president and throw out all the incumbents in other races.

Sure, it is hard to get something done in an evenly divided Senate.  But our leaders, and those who aspire to be leaders, need to be doing everything they can to turn things around now.  Lead , dammit!  Think outside the box!  Try to find a way.  There may not be another chance in 2009.

Maybe we have been too League of Women Voters and not enough Saul Alinksy.

Maybe it is time for a Netroots blogswarm aimed at those who are pimping this war. AIPAC? The American Enterprise Institute? Blackwater Security?

Perhaps we should go through Waxman's hearing and pick a target?

Is there something we can do through the FCC? Can we lodge complaints against networks who invite comentators who are known to traffic in false allegations?

Is there some proceedure whereby ordinary people can bring a concern to the International War Crimes Tribunal? Has someone already brought such a suit that we can support?

Maybe it is time to turn our sites from Capitol Hill to the other institutions responsible for getting us into this war.

I disagree about Harry Reid. He's come a long way. I watched him speak on the resolution today, and he made it very clear what he thought of Bush's strategy and the Republicans who support him. It's hard being the Majority Leader with a majority of one.

There are not enough votes. That is reality.

The Democrats in the House and Senate have yet to demonstrate that they have anything more going for them than that they are not the Bush Republicans.  All in all, their performances to date have been disgraceful.  Apparently, their strategy for 2008 is to push more Democrats into voting for Nader.  Let's see them take away the motivation to vote Nader or to vote green by clearly, unequivocally, vigorously working to end these wars.  Until, we shouldn't hear anyone bemoaning those who refuse to vote for these weak-kneed Democrats.

Here's the problem with the Democrats' resolution.  They oppose the surge, but not the war.  They promise to keep funding the troops, which is tantamount to promising to keep the war going.  No reason to support this lot the way they're going.

What do you want them to do?  They passed the resolution in the House, but there just are not enough votes in the Senate for it.  Im assuming you all think that it would be fine if Republicans were still in charge of Congress and rubberstamped everything.  Well, if they were in charge not only would the war not end, but we would see Social Security abolished and tax increases for the poor and middle class to pay for more for billionaires.  

If the Democrats don't have the votes, they might as well lose on a real resolution that opposes the wars.  But no, they're losing the votes on resolutions that oppose only the surge.  This is gutless nonsense.

This is THE issue of our times.  The blood of thousands of dead and injured American troops, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis (oh, wait, we aren't supposed to give a shit about THEM, they're the ENEMY (children?  "Nits grow into lice," Col. John Chivington, Sand Creek Massacre)) is on the hands of EVERY Democratic Party Representative and Senator who voted for the AUMF.  Funny how 20+ % of us ordinary citizens could see through the bullshit and KNEW, yes, KNEW FOR A FACT that the Cheney Administration was lying about WMD; while the MOCs were "misled" into voting for the AUMF.  Or, like Clinton, they somehow thought that Bush wouldn't USE the authority granted by the AUMF!  Bullshit again!

The continued US presence in Iraq is not only fiscally and diplomatically irresponsible, it is IMMORAL.  To paraphrase Gary Hart, there are some things more important than winning your next election.  There is courage, and morality, and conscience.  This Democratic Congress, to the extent that they continue to fund this immoral war, are full complicitors.  

This is a bright-line issue for me. If the Democratic Party fails to use every resource at its disposal to stop this war, then the Democratic Party is exactly what many of us Deaniacs suspected back in late 2003--a bloated and fetid corpse.  Or, to put it another way, Sirota is right--our Party has been hijacked by big money, which continues to profit from this war.  Thus, the Clintons and Reids and Schumers of the Congress prefer to put up meaningless "resolutions" opposing the surge, all the while refusing to attempt to take any real action to stop the war.  That way, they satisfy the 63% of the American public who opposes the war, while avoiding any backlash from de-funding the war.

Why is it that even many readers of this site continue to believe that the war could continue, at all, if Congress cut off funding?  Does anyone really believe that US troops would remain in Iraq, in danger, if funding was cut off?  

History, I feel, will judge us harshly.  We sat on our fat American asses speculating about who fathered Anna Nicole Smith's child, while thousands died unnecessarily and unjustly in Iraq.  I take very small solace in the fact that I will be able to tell my children and grandchildren that my wife and I were NOT "good Germans" when it came to this issue.

Time to start taking the Corporatocracy out of the Democratic Party.

Even if you didn't know that Cheney et al. were lying about WMD and the rest, you still should have opposed the war.  The United States has WMD and is the only country to have used them (remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki?).  Who argues that this is a legitimate reason for another country to invade the US?  But if having WMD is a sufficient reason to invade another country, other countries should be invading here.  Let's get over this phony argument that Cheney and Bush misled us into supporting the war and if only we had known, etc.  The war should have been opposed even if Cheney, Bush, etc. had been right about WMD, etc.  No guts then and no guts now, that's the story of the Democratic Senators and Representatives.  Screw opposing the surge.  Oppose the wars!  Until the Democrats in Congress can do this, we should withhold our support of them.  They force us to vote for Nader or someone else.  

The posturing here is pathetic and nonproductive. None of these people in congress are perfect but hey, that's democracy. Deal with it.

Vain moralizing wont save one more life. Get serious about politics.

I appreciate your concerns about the caucus Chris, but my take is that actually the Democrats did a very bold move and actually won. You see, my understanding is only "Independent Democrat" Lieberman voted not for cloture. Otherwise you had 49 Dems and 7 Republicans voting this thing in. And even if Tim Johnson magically recovers next week, that would be two short still.

So why do I say the Dems actually won this round? One, the GOP is hiding behind the excuse they were not allowed to offer a "killer amendment". But the problem with that strategy is that on a nonbinding resolution that rings hollow to even the most casually informed American.

And also, I was struck by McCain's comments in Iowa. He ditches the vote and says it's meaningless. Well if so, why did the GOP try so hard to avoid the vote? Why did they actually get dressed and perfumed on a Saturday and not simply skip town like McCain? And if McCain represents the "War Party" faction with in the GOP...they look wounded after this. Chuck Hagel, Giuliani, and Romney must be chomping at the bit after this.

The Republican position on Iraq is in tatters even if they are too afraid to stand up and prove it in a vote. Now the challenge for Pelosi/Reid is how does an "activist" Congress remedy this? There's a reason the President is Commander in Chief.

yep,all those new dems we helped elect are turning out to be just like the republicans.more americans get to die becouse are polititions and many of the people at this blog are cowards who are more worried about elections rather than the lives of the innocent.but hay,thats okay becouse you all believe in god right,and sertanly he would aprove of your actions.

In Minnesota we have two biggies in 2008: Norm Coleman and Michelle Bachman. Both are obviously vulnerable and IMHO that's where our collective energies will be focused.

Think globally, act locally still works. If we succeed, that'll be another black eye for the bad guys in lower house of Congress and a really serious blow to the much more adept crew in the Senate.

Note also the sigh of partisan relief out here when the GOP governor survived the night of long knives in 2006 and the preview of coming awful attractions as we gear up in the Twin Cities for the onslaught of the GOP national convention next summer.

Fred Markus

I do not trust this president.  If we start defund this war he will keep sending the troops over there without the equipment they need.  

I feel like I am as liberal as anybody here, but I would rather not play a political game of chicken with this president because he will win, and even more troops could die.

It is depressing, but that is where I think we are.

Seems like this post falls into the same old trap and is exactly what Republicans like to see. Divide and conquer is still alive and we don't help things when we play into it.

Instead of castigating Democrats, who don't have enough votes (at least in the Senate), to really do much at all, the castigation should be saved for the votes that really do matter at this point - the Republicans who won't vote for anything even minutely resembling a change in course.

So keep the pressure up on Democrats, but I don't think posts like this help. Keep the pressure up on Republicans even more until they have no choice but to follow the will of the American people.

    The Democrats aren't moving on the war because they believe it will be a replay of the Vietnam War, with the Republicans calling the Democrats traitors and the public voting Republican. People voted against the Republicans because of Katrina, Foley, corruption and the Iraq War. But on Iraq, their vote was WE HATE LOSING, not LETS GET OUT. Two very different ideas.