As Glenn Greenwald pointed out before he moved, wasn't the whole reason we elected Democrats because they'd do something about the nightmare quagmire that is the occupation of Iraq?
Here's part of what he has to say about it:
It is, I think, very hard to deny that there are some valid points lurking here. Most Bush critics accept these two premises: (1) Congress has the power to compel a withdrawal of troops from Iraq and (2) a withdrawal -- whether immediate or one that is completed within, say, six to nine months -- is vitally important. It is important in its own right and, perhaps even more so, because it is our presence in Iraq which enables all sorts of future disasters, including a looming confrontation with Iran.He brings this up because of a post on Politburo Diktat 2.0, wherein Commissar writes:
Yet the Democratic-controlled Congress is clearly not going to attempt to exercise its power to compel the end of this war -- at least not any time soon. And, with some exceptions, there seems to be very few objections over that failure, very little clamoring that they do more. Why is that? What accounts for the seeming willingness -- even among more vocal war opponents and bloggers -- to give Democrats a pass on actually ending the war (as opposed to enacting symbolic, inconsequential resolutions)?
Those who disagree with the war in Iraq should be opposing it every day, almost to the exclusion of other topics. When the Netroots get wound up, they can hammer something endlessly (e.g. about 10 posts in 3 days from MYDD on the Edwards/Marcotte affair.) Why not pile on the pressure on Congressional leaders to stop funding the war? What would a patriot do? Why did I vote Dem in 2006? Your side has the power, guys. How about a Vicious Rant and Important Action Alert?Generally, I do anti-torture, impeachment, and loss of civil liberties. That said, you have a point, Commissar.
UPDATE: Commissar, Glenn - looks like Congresswoman Lynne Woolsley (D-Petaluma) has your answer.
Here's her reminder on Daily Kos.