Reply #16: We are never going to get total unity, that's largely irrelevant anyway

[TayTay]

The Republican unity is a smokescreen. They have rallied around a banner of not 'cutting and running' in one of the first Congressional tests of the Iraq War. That was the easy part for them. They used this first debate in the Senate since Oct 2002 -- and it was the first real debate over the war since then, btw -- to show 'unity' to ahm, something. (But what exactly? Nobody knows.) This is a false unity and is not very strong.

Republicans have rallied around a slogan, not a war. Remember that. They are opposed to the slogan of 'cutting and running' and they fear that anything they do to bring this occupation to a close will look like surrender. That is the box they have put themselves into. They had no choice but to march in lockstep with a policy that has unilaterally and wholly failed. (They know this. They may bellow about all the hope and sunshine they see in Iraq, but don't be fooled by this empty rhetoric. They know the policies of the Bush Admin in Iraq have utterly failed. They know this.) They have pinned their future to a war that cannot be won. They will pull out the '02 and '04 playbook of 'but the other guy is worse and is indecisive' and attempt to sell it to the electorate. They will get a short-term bounce of about 4-6 percentage points out of this as they squeeze the last measures of hope out of a public that desperately wants to believe that the US did the right thing in going into Iraq. But it won't last. It can't, it isn't based in reality and the public wants to see something concrete achieved or it will stop hoping and stop believing in the Republican falsehoods.

The Democrats are beginning the real debate in the country. As in any other war, no one wants to really be the front man in admitting that the country is off course and has made a mistake. Traditionally, Americans only like courageous truth-tellers way after the fact. (We put up monuments and statues to the brave long after their causes are over. You pick anybody in American history that we now think of as brave and forward thinking and I can show you press clippings of the time that showed they were vilified and harassed for 'rocking the boat.' That is how it works in America. We honor the path-finders, but only when it is safe to do so.) Sen. Kerry is challenging the Democratic Party to stand for something. This is very risky and the Democratic Party would much rather not do this. There are many in the Party who believe this will not further the cause of garnering more votes in Nov and might hinder the take-over of at least one branch of Congress. Of course they are yelling, 'Stop doing this John.' They fear that Kerry's stand will endanger them and make the public angry at them.

Sen. Kerry is making a moral argument to a political body. They don't want to have to make moral choices. Those choices are, by definition, subjective, gut-wrenching and carry great risk. They are angry at him for putting them in this position. They would rather not have to consult with God and soul on what is the right thing to do. They would rather play with the consultants and the money and numbers guys and pick issues that are strategically right or that play well with known polling groups. Kerry has muddied the waters. He is a reminder that there are debates that cannot be avoided and issues that cannot be explained away in a briefing book. I can completely understand why he is resented for doing this. But the good and true Senator from Massachusetts is correct to do this. The Democratic PArty must have this debate, we must thrash out our differences. It matters little what the pundits think of it. It matters that we do it and we will. That much is inevitable.

Remember what Kerry said the other night in the dialogue with Sen. Warner because it's meaningful and will have echoes that the straight politicoes can't see right now:

Years later, we read in Robert McNamara's book how he knew, as Secretary of Defense, while he was sending troops over there, that we weren't going to be successful. Now, from 1968 until 1975, when we left in that dramatic helicopter moment off the embassy, almost half of the people who died were lost in that period of time--for a policy that our leaders knew wasn't working.

I am not going to be a Member of the Senate in good standing and in good conscience and support a policy in Iraq that I believe is going to add people to whatever Iraqi memorial will be created, at a time where I am convinced this isn't going to work for them and it is not going to work for the Iraqis. I believe we have a moral responsibility to those soldiers who died to do our best to get it right, and I just don't believe staying the course, more of the same, is getting it right.

Sen. Kerry and Sen. Feingold are challenging the Democrats to confront reality and to admit in public what they no doubt talk about in private. We cannot stay in Iraq and condemn all these 'kids' to the horrors of war for a cause that is lost. That is salt in the wound and is a terrible thought to bear. But the Dems must begin to see this. And this week, we had a beginning.