Escalation

Obviously the Democrats should do everything they can to stop the escalation and redeploy our forces out of Iraq, and this is clearly what the vast majority of the American public wants. So why does the Washington Post insist on pushing the notion that this would be politically bad for the Democrats, when all of the evidence at hand points to the opposite: that the Democrats will pay the price if they don’t end the war?

The bold plans reflect the Democrats' belief that the public has abandoned Bush on the war and that the American people will have little patience for an escalation of the U.S. military presence in Iraq. But the moves carry clear risks for a party that suffered politically for pushing to end an unpopular war in Vietnam three decades ago, and Democratic leaders hope to avoid a similar fate over the conflict in Iraq.

What the fuck is the Post talking about? How exactly did the Democrats pay politically for opposing the Vietnam War? They didn’t. They won big in Congress in 1974, and they won the Presidency in 1976. But this is how the mainstream media operates.

And the headline for this article in the NY Times should be “Democrats and Republicans plan to fight expansion of troops,” since it quotes three Republican senators who appear to be aligning themselves with the Democratic position.