What Did the Democrats Know and When Did they Know It?

The following is a letter from a reader responding to the December 1, 2005 WSWS Editorial Board Statement “Bush, Democrats back protracted war in Iraq”, followed by a reply from Bill Van Auken.

To the Editorial Board:

Your article (“Bush, Democrats back protracted war in Iraq”) focuses on the stupid comments of Senator Joseph Lieberman and ignores those of Nancy Pelosi, the leader of the House Democrats. After some fumbling and stuttering, she managed to endorse Rep. Murtha’s call for US troop withdrawal.

In view of this, and comments by some other leading Democrats, including their previous presidential candidate, and, especially, their vice-presidential candidate, the latter of whom actually admitted he made a mistake in endorsing the war, it seems to me that the Democrats, as a group, are in the process of rethinking their stance and are slowly moving in an antiwar direction.

The US antiwar movement has long accused Bush, Cheney and company of “cherry-picking” intelligence to falsely justify their case for war. I accuse you of doing a similar thing—“cherry-picking” which comments you will cite to “prove” that that amorphous body, the Democratic Party, has a single stance on the war. This is faulty journalism.

In addition, it is profoundly unhelpful. If, as you correctly say, “The great advantage that the administration still enjoys is the support for the war from its ostensible opposition—the Democratic Party,” you should be trying to weaken and destroy that Democratic/Republican unity. Therefore, you should be doing the very opposite of what you did: You should be publicizing and encouraging every antiwar voice from within the Democratic Party.

You write further that “the basic unity of the Democrats and Republicans in support of the US occupation reflects the broad pro-war consensus within the financial oligarchy, whose essential interests are defended by both parties.” I predict that there will soon be further erosion of Democratic Party support for the war, and that this will reflect the breaking down of that consensus. It would be good if you could take off your blinders, so that you can see this.

So, I urge you to investigate further for signs that this Democratic/Republican consensus is weakening, and, if you see it developing, to give us your valuable insights about what it means.

EG

***

Dear Mr. G,

You accuse us in your December 1 letter of “cherry-picking” positions put forward by Democrats to falsely portray the party’s attitude toward the war in Iraq, emphasizing the forthright pro-war declarations of Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman, while ignoring the mealy-mouthed, vacillating statements of House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California.

Your attempt to draw an analogy with the Bush administration’s fabrication and manipulation of intelligence in laying the groundwork for the invasion of Iraq falls flat, however. As you well know, the White House lied about nonexistent weapons of mass destruction in order to drag the US into an illegal war of aggression. We are pointing to the well-documented and thoroughly consistent record of the leadership of the Democratic Party in helping the administration do just that, and in continuing to support this war, the latest comments of Pelosi and others notwithstanding.

You may find Lieberman’s comments “stupid,” but they are, in fact, an accurate reflection of the bipartisan policy that gave Bush the authorization to invade Iraq, provided uninterrupted funding for the war, and continues to advocate “victory” in the brutal campaign to suppress resistance to the US occupation.

It is, of course, true that the majority of Democratic voters regard Lieberman’s views with disgust. When he ran in the 2004 Democratic presidential primary—putting forward much the same line on the Iraq war—he never received more than 5 percent of the vote, even in his home state of Connecticut, and went to the convention in Boston without a single delegate. Nonetheless, his right-wing, pro-war policy was adopted by the party leadership as the platform upon which John Kerry ran for president in 2004. Those who looked to the Democratic primary process and the 2004 presidential election as a means of opposing the war—many of them lining up behind Howard Dean—were deceived and betrayed.

What is there to be learned from this bitter political experience? That the next time Democratic politicians begin making critical noises about the war in Iraq, we should believe them, or look to their supposed opposition as a means to combat the war? No!

What are the supposedly hopeful signs that the Democrats are “slowly moving in an antiwar direction?”

First, let’s deal with Pelosi. As is well known, this leading Democratic congresswoman, who represents one of the most liberal districts in the country, first reacted to the call by Pennsylvania Congressman John Murtha for a withdrawal of US troops from Iraq in six months by running and hiding. She canceled a joint press conference with Murtha and insisted that his proposal was merely a personal position.

Then came a particularly revealing episode. The Republican majority in the House of Representatives called the Democrats’ bluff, putting forward a resolution that called for the immediate withdrawal of all US troops from Iraq. Only three Democrats out of the 200 in the House of Representatives voted for the measure, exposing the overwhelming opposition among the party’s elected officials to a demand that polls have indicated is supported by a majority of the American people.

More
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/dec2005/demo-d08.shtml