The Nation: The GOP's Iraq Problem

[babylonsister]

The GOP's Iraq Problem

by ROBERT DREYFUSS



All spring and summer, the Republicans ducked the question of what to do about Iraq. Their mantra was: Wait for General Petraeus. Among Washington insiders, it was no secret why: The hugely unpopular war was largely responsible for the party's massive defeat in November 2006, and as party officials scanned confidential internal polls, things weren't looking any better for 2008. Rather than answer questions about the need to change course in Iraq, the GOP hoped and prayed that the general--dubbed by some "Petraeus ex machina"--would fly in from Baghdad with good news to report, so Republicans could relax.

He didn't, and they can't.

Though the new Republican mantra is that the surge is working and that Petraeus needs more time, there is little evidence the American public was swayed by the general's report that the war in Iraq is turning around. Four and a half years into the grinding conflict, public opinion has decisively shifted against the war, and it isn't going back, according to GOP pollsters and consultants. "The American people have turned the page on Iraq," says Kellyanne Conway of The Polling Company, a GOP firm.

George W. Bush's damn-the-torpedoes determination to stay the course in Iraq has thus created an excruciating dilemma for the GOP. By sticking with the White House, Republicans in Congress can block the Democrats' efforts to end the war, either by filibuster or by upholding an almost certain veto of any bill challenging the war. But any such victory will be Pyrrhic, costing them dearly in next year's election. Between now and then, they'll remain trapped between a White House that isn't ready to give an inch and a Democratic caucus in the House and Senate that can force them to cast vote after embarrassing vote in defense of Bush's war over the next thirteen months, in full public view.

Although Democrats have the stronger hand, Iraq poses a significant challenge for them, too. Having largely adopted an antiwar stand, the Democrats can look forward to 2008 secure in the knowledge that public opinion is overwhelmingly on their side. Still, since they don't have the votes to force a shift in the war, they may find themselves caught between their disappointed, left-leaning antiwar base and a GOP attack machine describing them as "Defeatocrats." Even with public support, it will require some real political skill for the Democrats to highlight the White House's sorry record in Iraq--from the rigged intelligence that justified the war to the mismanagement of the occupation to its enormous cost in lives and treasure--while insuring that the Republicans pay the price.

more...

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20071008&s=dreyfuss

[spanone]

1. How long will the rethuglicons cling to their sinking ship?

at some point, and soon, i would guess, they will have to distance themselves from the totally failed policies of our corrupt government

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. Here's the rotten part from the same article.

In the wake of Petraeus's testimony, Harry Reid and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi have declared their willingness to water down the Democratic antiwar bills, or perhaps to support more modest legislation, in order to attract additional Republican support. But it's a risky strategy, since by doing so they're certain to infuriate hard-core antiwar Democrats on the Hill, with no guarantee that whatever emerges as a result can survive an almost certain presidential veto. In addition, the atmosphere on the Hill is so poisonous that compromise is exceedingly difficult. "The degree of partisanship is so high, the trust so low, that it's really hard for either side to move toward each other," says a staffer for a leading Democratic senator.


The war isn't about killing and dying..it's about party political scheming to attain power.

Disgusting.

[spanone]

3. mission accomplished

[babylonsister]

5. Or, they're trying to find some way to compromise, naively thinking

the rethugs might have a change of heart. What, pray tell, would even allow them to think that? It's obviously not going to happen. I think the only way to stop this occupation is to cut the funds and take the heat.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. Which is exactly what they could do, if they weren't playing politics.

The miserable catastrophe in Iraq and the region are going to go on and get worse because the politicians are trying avoid taking the blame for an obviously, and irredeemably, lost war.

[patrice]

8. Thank you for that "***could do***"!!! nt

[patrice]

7. This is exactly the OPPOSITE of what they should be doing.

And what's even sadder, I, and my cohort, are called extremists for saying so.

I'm a pro-Labor liberal who has lived with middle-class Red-staters ALL of my life. I taught public highschool. These experiences have fine tuned my social defenses to read what they ARE feeling. THEY WANT ***OUT*** OF THIS MESS.

Congressional compromises WILL be scorned by BOTH sides.

[patrice]

4. What the Democrats NEED to do is get out here and actually, for real,

**talk** WITH **us**.

Unfortunately, all of us are in situation now in which we can't trust those whom we DON'T KNOW!

[babylonsister]

9. They know how the majority of this country already feel. Why they don't

act on that is the question that baffles me.

[patrice]

10. They don't act because they don't trust us to support them and

they don't trust us because they don't KNOW us and we don't know them.

They f----g MUST get away from their professional handlers and spend more time with real people (but they're tooooo busy raising money to stay in office). "Gods" I HATE this situation.

[SteveM]

11. Good points. And Bush considers GOP's fate as secondary...

The long range strategy of the Far Right is to weld a U.S. military presence to the Middle East. So, if the GOP takes some lumps in the short terms (next election), it is well worth it; in fact, Cheney's intent to attack Iran (and perhaps Syria) WILL go forward as this furthers the Far Right's long-term imperial agenda. And if things go bad in the next few years (as they will), they can blame the Democrats (who never felt a telegraphed sucker punch they didn't like), and then re-take the Whitehouse & Congress.

The Democrats (and progressives here) need to understand: the Far Right is highly organized, splendidly financed, very well educated, sublimely aggressive and know how to win. They work while we sleep. They know their long-range goals and are not the least bit afraid if anyone finds out about them (hence, no conspiracy). They know the best things to happen to the Far Right (which controls the GOP) are: (1) the Democratic Party (no longer a party in terms of standard political sciency terms); and (2) the Internet. The Internet has no community and hence no means to confer legitimacy around a "movement." As dated as 60s-style mass demonstrations, sit-ins and disruptions were and as limited the coverage the Big 3 media performed in covering them, this form of change was effective and community-based. Even now, if a some breathless posting in General Discussion crops up, it is quite often stems from glomming on to an established old-line news organization which has both community and legitimacy.

The Internet provides neither method nor legitimacy. We are left to blowing off steam on keyboards.

[patrice]

12. This particular Deanocrat has a contract with herself for at least

as much time out working face-to-face with others as I spend here. I get some of my ideas for what to do by keyboarding here.

One of my current deadlines (Monday) is with a group of about 15 for a mass fax that we are writing in support of those who voted No on the Cornyn ammendment.