The Beltway's Disconnect on Iraq

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 08:49:05 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Pointing to the latest WSJ poll, which Jeralyn posted on earlier, Atrios says:

People Hate Bush And Hate The War
I don't know what it'll take for that to enter the bloodstream of Official Washington.

The answer is nothing will make it enter their bloodstream because of their contempt for the American People. Consider the comment by the Republican pollster who conducted the poll that demonstrates that the American People want Congress to end the war:

Yet Newhouse, the GOP pollster, says that there are dangers for the Democrats if they decide to go too far on Iraq. "The Democrats risk overplaying the Iraq issue by tying the president's hands on funding. Yes, Americans want Congress to put pressure on the president for a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq, but that doesn't mean they want Congress to sidestep the president and do it on their own."

HIS OWN POLL proves that what he says is false. And still he spouts this nonsense. So the simple answer to Atrios' question is this - nothing will ever convince the Beltway that the American People want the Congress to end the Iraq Debacle. Democrats are fools to pay attention to them. They need to pay attention to the American People.

< Taliban Leader: Osama bin Laden Alive, Tried to Kill Cheney | Broder To Remove All Doubt Tomorrow >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

The Beltway's Disconnect on Iraq | 16 comments (16 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Beg to differ (5.00 / 2) (#11)
by Repack Rider on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 10:41:08 AM EST

The $$ cost of the war is not a huge problem.

As a veteran, I take a different view.

I do not agree that the cost is negligible in terms of dollars, and I will point out that you are ignoring the social cost.

Go read Anabasis by Xenophon, which describes an event that took place in 400 BCE. It is the first written account of what happens when soldiers try to reassimilate into polite society after the trauma of their experience. Bottom line, they couldn't.

The people who are now serving their third or fourth tours will pay the price for the rest of their lives, and the impact on our society of these permanently traumatized returning vets will be huge.

But you don't care, because the $$ costs are not a "huge problem."

Your complete lack of sympathy for those you want to send over and over into harm's way is disgusting. The Army was better off without you.

Tens of billions (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by jondee on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 10:51:51 AM EST

spent on a harvest of suffering and chaos. Not "a huge problem".

It's those damned govt entitlement programs. And, no doubt, those envirowackos.

You misread (1.00 / 1) (#2)
by jarober on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 09:23:07 PM EST

Sure, the poll numbers for the President and for the war suck. But you misread things if you think the public is completely up in arms over this - they aren't. Unlike the Vietnam era, there are no massive protests or marches. The public is unhappy and uneasy, but is not furious. The left, on the other hand, is furious - partly because the public isn't in the same place they are. It's neither 1863 nor 1969 - both eras when an unhappy public demonstrated against the wars of their time in large numbers. Today, there's a small number of people who are strongly behind the war, and a small number who are strongly against it. The rest of the public is uneasy and unhappy, but not strongly so.

Pffft (5.00 / 4) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 09:27:27 PM EST

Not worthy of response.


dain bramage (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by Sailor on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 09:46:53 PM EST

Unlike the Vietnam era, there are no massive protests or marches.

Since before the war began hundreds of thousands of Americans have rallied and marched and voted to end the war.

Only a few chickenhawks still swallow ... the kool-aid.


Who writes this stuff (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by Edger on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 12:46:06 PM EST

for you to post here, jarobster?


And who writes it (5.00 / 2) (#14)
by Edger on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 12:48:57 PM EST

for you to post there?


: Good Ole JR (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by squeaky on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 05:50:57 PM EST

Shoulda guessed.

Hmm (1.00 / 1) (#10)
by jarober on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 08:12:55 AM EST

The $$ cost of the war is not a huge problem. If you want a huge problem, then look at the growth of entitlement payments, and the demographic crunch heading at those payments. There's a huge $$ problem that the Congress could do something about, and which actually falls within its purview.

I won't hold my breath.

As to your attempt at the "chickenhawk" argument - I tried to go the West Point as a high school graduate. I had the Congressional nomination, but was rated 4F due to myopia. By the time Lasik came along to fix my eyes, I was over the age they take.

: wrong as always (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by Sailor on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 02:17:26 PM EST

The $$ cost of the war is not a huge problem. [...] There's a huge $$ problem that the Congress could do something about, and which actually falls within its purview.
How can anyone say that $420,521,553,045 is not a huge problem!? BTW, the war budget falls EXACTLY IN congress' purview.

I don't see an issue here (none / 0) (#1)
by Coldblue on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 09:19:22 PM EST

The Democrats have mostly lined up with what the American People desire, albeit in a very broad sense. Your concern is better directed at Republican politicians that are getting a false reassurance from the Beltway, wouldn't you agree?

You have not been reading me obviously (none / 0) (#3)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 09:26:48 PM EST

I disagree.


: Correct me if I'm wrong (none / 0) (#7)
by Coldblue on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 09:50:59 PM EST

but you have embraced defunding as the best (and possibly only) method to end the war.
I don't believe that the American People have adopted that position.

Any other Republican President (none / 0) (#6)
by andgarden on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 09:48:15 PM EST

would quickly sign this supplemental. I sure hope Pelosi has contingency plans.

Sigh (none / 0) (#8)
by jarober on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 10:39:21 PM EST

The bill passed by 10 votes. It will get vetoed, and one w/o stupid conditions will get passed.

As to protests, the pro-choice and pro-life demonstrations attract an order of magnitude more people than anti-war demos - the last anti-war demo in DC attracted somewhere in the low tens of thousands, with the counter-protesters numbering in the low thousands.

Whether you like it or not, most of the country simply is not that engaged - in either direction. If pressed, they will express dissatisfaction - but that dissatisfaction doesn't translate into anti-war action. Where I live - which is a solidly Democratic area of Maryland - local meetings on school or road issues attract more people than town meetings on the war. That's just the way it is.

: I'm thinking (5.00 / 2) (#9)
by Repack Rider on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 12:29:34 AM EST

that if this is true...
Whether you like it or not, most of the country simply is not that engaged - in either direction.
It's because the president is hiding the credit card bills where only the kids will find them.
Just so we're clear, are you ready to pony up your $5000 share of the expenses? And $5000 for each member of your family?
Are you encouraging anyone you know to enlist?
I guess you are opposed to the war too then.