Joan,

Please don't ever be intimidated by those who want "the whole ball of wax" RIGHT THIS SECOND. The last thing we need, as you said, is a "circular firing squad." The overriding goal is to end the killing, period. Of course I don't like "spineless" Democrats and am quite disappointed. One of my closest friends who I argue with endlessly always winds up saying "If it doesn't play in Peoria it isn't going to happen." You seem to understand that and the fundamental fact that whatever Pres. we elect that gets us into a war---it's almost impossible to stop it once we're there. Therefore, the people that voted for Bush for TWO TERMS, need to reassess the way they vote and check closely for the blood on their hands.

Jim Thurber

Democratic complicity, like the cowardice and corruption which fuels it, is not some rippling mirage constructed in the fevered brains of frothing leftists.

The complicity of the Democratic Party is real. It has been since well before Day One of George W. Bush's Reign of Profitable Terror. Your response to that complicity is to assign liability to the war's architects and enablers as though you are an insurance representative handling a dented fender claim.

Has the Democratic Party done everything in its power to stop this war? We both know the answer to that question, Joan, even if only one of us will answer it. NO. I would add an emphatic far from it. You would likely disagree.

Play all the semantical games you want. It is, after all, your gig. But don't expect the rest of us to play along. Of course, we don't have to so long as there are millions of voters willing to give them another chance. Given the national propensity for self-delusion and magical thinking, the rest of us will always be outnumbered. That's okay, too, because the rest of us are damn tired of being forced into accommodating the rest of you.

One day, perhaps the rest of us will recognize the obstacles to democratic and Democratic reform, then confront them directly without the usual liberal angst. What separates progressives from our ideological ancestors is our unwillingness to make hard choices and take action. Until we overcome that weakness, we will be failures as citizens and as human beings.

The Republican Party sells fear. Fear of terrorists. Fear of liberals. Fear of impoverishment. Fear of oppression.

The Democrats sell fear, too: Fear of Republicans.

Both parties are selling the same can of botulism. Only the labels differ.

I used to think the Democratic Party which so often aided and abetted George W. Bush did not represent the voters who sustain it. Unfortunately, as your commentary increasingly reflects, that party is a fair representation of its rank & file. Talk about an ugly truth. Were it otherwise, there would be a serious campaign to exact a toll on the Democrats who actively and passively promote the NeoCon agenda. Instead, with the rarest of exceptions, their failures are rationalized and excused by the few centrist and "progressive" figures whose opinions are promulgated via corporate media. Funny how that works.

A party which cannot oppose a tyrant like George W. Bush possesses neither the qualifications nor the will to lead America out of the dark valley of fear. That the Republicans are likewise unfit to lead gives me no comfort. A coward is a coward and a crook is a crook regardless of political affiliation.

This Democratic Party needs to be destroyed so that something useful can be constructed in its place. I don't see that happening because, frankly, not enough people give a damn. By the time you're done prostituting yourself for the Democratic Beltway Elites, it is possible Americans will understand that an '08 Democratic "victory" - just like The Bush Years - will have been constructed from a mountain of lies and our own persistent suspension of disbelief.

So, by all means, go ahead and pin your hopes on an '08 White House victory. When the champaign corks are flying and you're signing up to play White House Spokesperson, remember that it will have been "won" by the needless death and misery of thousands of human beings.

Joan I agree with you that Olberman was over the top in making Dems and Bush equally responsible for the war.I share with many of the other writers a deep frustration that the Dems can't all be in the Feingold mold of a statesman or that they can't read the polls and believe that the American people will back them. However that does not make them the equivelent of Bush and his outlaw administration , not by a long shot. There is also the idea of responsibility for the Iraqs who have cooperated with us and the other noncombatents whose country we have distroyed and whose lives we have ruined. It makes you want to weep. Reading the angry comments shows the great level of frustration people have but it also shows immaturity. People want instant answers and instant change. We didn't get into the mess we are in as a nation overnight and it is going to take us a long time to dig out of it, patience will be required and a willingness to work for long term change. We could start with public financing of all elections, free use of public airwaves by canidates, debates that are more than entertainment spectacles, maybe a third party could emerge from such a process. In the meantime our only hope is the Democrats, we are tettering on the edge of the cliff now another Republican would surely lead us into the abyss.

What we saw from the Democrats was not only an amazing amount of cowardice, but also of sheer political incompetence.

The fact is that even after Bush has been in office for more than six years, the Democrats still have no idea how to deal with him. The way the Democrats dealt with the president on the Iraq funding debate was like a poker player folding his hand because the guy across the table looked so dang confident, even though the player had four aces in his hand and was pretty sure the guy across the table had nothing higher than a 5 of clubs.

Going into the funding dispute, the Democrats were like that poker player, they had all the cards in their favor if they wanted to force a withdrawal of troops and a drawdown of the war in Iraq. To wit, the Congressional Democrats had:

1. Support from a majority in both houses of Congress, including the vast majority of Democrats and some Republicans

2. Support from a super-majority (near 60%) of American voters

3. A clear mandate from voters in the 2006 Congressional elections to begin ending the Iraq war

4. The ability to stand pat. The president can only keep troops in Iraq if Congress continues to fund them. Therefore, if Congress refuses or is unable to pass legislation, he HAS to pull the troops.

5. Majority control of both houses of Congress, and with it the power to control which legislation makes it to the floor of either house.

In contrast, Bush looked a lot like the guy across the table with the poor hand. Here's what the president was holding:

1. An overall approval rating of under 30%, the lowest for any president since Jimmy Carter.

2. An American public that by large margins disapproves of how he's handled in Iraq.

3. The need for legislation. As stated before, he can't keep the troops in Iraq without money -- and only the legislature can provide him the needed funds.

4. The lack of a Congressional majority in either house to do his bidding even so far as being able to bring legislation to the floor.

I put those two points above in bold, because they're really the most important ones. The Democrats didn't have to do a DAMN THING. The war can't continue without funding. And only the Congress controls the purse strings. But the Democrats stupidly took that leverage -- the idea that they could sit on their hands and not pass anything -- off the table early in the debate.

Indeed, the only things the president had going in his favor were his steely (some might say delusional) confidence and his history in the (increasingly distant) past of taking a few pots from the Democrats on close hands. The Democrats shouldn't have let either of those intimidate them into giving in to the president.

And yet they did.

Everyone knows this war has been doomed for a long time. Some would argue that we could have never "won" it in the first place, of course. But when the American public has lost faith in the war, that's it. The only question after that is a matter of when we will withdraw our troops and the war will end, not if either of those are going to happen.

With their action to pass the war spending bill this week, the Democrats pushed that day back a little longer. That's why they are complicit, Joan. That's why they deserve our scorn and derision. And it's why they too -- like the president -- have blood on their hands.