What About Iraq?Now that the Ford funeral is over, the celebrations in Washington are about to begin. The Democrats are taking over, Nancy Pelosi will be the country's first woman Speaker, and three days of parties are planned. It's not quite as fancy as what the Republicans did when they took over the House back in 1994, but it's the same idea. And then there's legislation: The Democrats are planning a one-hundred hour burst, in the hopes of passing some crowd-pleasers like congressional ethics reform and an increase in the minimum wage. It's a far more modest agenda than the revolution the Republicans sought in the first days of their "Contract with America," but at least it's a plan. And, make no mistake, it's a Democratic plan. In order to avoid slowing things down, they're leaving the Republicans out of the party. All hail to Gerald Ford's bipartisanship, but not now. All of which would be just fine (actually, ethics reform is better than just fine) except for one not-so-small thing. What about Iraq? We're in the middle of a war. A wretched, failing, losing, killing war. A war in which every day's news brings new death notices. A war whose ugliness pervades even the execution scene, complete with taunts and ethnic antagonism. A war that represents the president's major vulnerability. And he still doesn't get it. The president, turning an absolutely blind eye to what was without question the most important issue in the midterm election, is about to announce a troop INCREASE. And meanwhile, the Democrats are planning parties and mini-bursts of extraneous legislation. I have nothing against political celebrations. Enjoy. Having a woman on top is certainly a welcome change. There's even a tea planned. But the Democrats have to take on the Iraq war. They can't sit by and party while the president plans a troop increase. One-hundred hour bursts for popular pieces of legislation are all well and good, but 3,000 dead is the number to focus on, and a burst of minor bills is no substitute for a concerted effort to take on the president on the war. What are the Democrats planning to do about the war in Iraq? Is there a plan? Isn't that what we should be talking about? From Day One, calling on the administration to account for its disastrous policy should be the Democrats' top priority. You can't leave it for later. You needn't let him go first. Saddam Hussein is dead. Does it matter? The country has turned against the war. But the country can't do anything about it. The Congress can. What's the plan? Corruption was certainly one issue in the last election, and addressing it should be a Democratic priority. But is there any doubt that Democrats wouldn't be in charge right now were it not for Iraq? Democrats have had their problems in the past, coming up with a position on the war that all of them could agree on. Some voted for it, some against; some were willing to admit the mistake, others not. But can unity still be a problem when there is a proposal for a troop increase on the table? Can't Democrats at least unite in opposition to the president's forthcoming expansion of our commitment? As Republican senators begin to weigh in with their own reservations, why is this a hard issue for Democrats? There will be more attention paid to the new Congress in the next three days than in the next three months. That's just how it works. New is news. So why not put Iraq on the agenda at the time most people are watching? To find out more about Susan Estrich and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com. COPYRIGHT 2007 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
|
![]() |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]()
|
![]()
|






















