Our Latest Stories:

The new word from the Democratic Party leadership in Congress is that there’s a new goal for Iraq: Not an end to the American presence in Iraq, but just a subtle change in mission.

Remember back to 2006, when the promise was that if the Democrats were elected to a majority control in Congress, the Iraq War would end? Remember back just to July 2007, when we were all told that the Democratic votes against setting a timetable for the end of the occupation was just a tactical maneuver, and that we didn’t have to worry because the Democrats would hold George W. Bush accountable in September 2007, and end the mess in Iraq then?

It was all a load of bull. The Democratic leadership was just spinning an excuse for its adoption of a pro-war agenda like that of the Republicans. Now, we’re hearing once again the same tired justifications that we heard from the Democrats like Hillary Clinton, Joseph Biden, John Edwards and Chris Dodd who voted to help George W. Bush start the Iraq War back in the year 2002: That if the Democrats don’t go along with the Republicans just this one time, the Democrats will lose the next election.

One capitulation to the Republicans, the Democrats told us, and then we’ll be in a position to be strong. The problem was that one capitulation led to another and another and another, until we get to September, 2007, almost five years into the disastrous military occupation of Iraq, and the Democrats in Congress still haven’t managed to actually oppose the Bush policy. They only whine about it, and then do nothing.

There are a few good antiwar Democrats, but the Democratic Party is by no means an antiwar party. In 2008, we have the chance to change that, by electing a genuine antiwar Democrat as President. If Democratic voters fail in that task, and elect a pro-war Democrat as well, then the Democratic voters will share in the blame by sharing in the capitulation.

(Source: Washington Post, White House Watch, September 7, 2007)