the war is over, if Democrats want it

This week Congress is holding hearings on the situation in Iraq. Representing the Bush administration before Congress is Gen. David Petraeus.

While Petraeus has been portrayed in the media--you know the people who were generally uncritical of the Bush rational for invading Iraq--as being a professional soldier. Glenn Greenwald makes a convincing case that Petraeus is and always has been a guy who tells the media that things are going great in Iraq. (See You Tube below.)

The Bush administration has one solution to all questions economic. Cut taxes on the wealthy. Petraeus is sorta the same one-size-fits-all solution on Iraq. He wants to do what Bush wants to do. And Bush wants to continue the occupation of Iraq indefinitely, or at least until Iraq is the problem of some other President of the United States. Petraeus is a sociopath used car salesman in cammies.

A group of people, many who are bloggers, are organizing to help persuade the Democrats in Congress to not fall for the con game... again. These people created StoptheDCestablishment.com.

Personally, I'm getting a bit peeved at Congressional Democrats.

The U.S. Senate allows the minority to block action with a filibuster, if 40 (of 100) Senators agree to block the issue from coming for a vote.

The Republicans--who want to continue the Iraq occupation as long as it remains profitable for Vice President Dick Cheney's friends at Halliburton--have blocked all the amendments calling for an end to the occupation with the threat of using a filibuster. The Democrats claim they have enough votes to pass legislation calling for an end to the occupation.

What I don't understand is why the Democrats don't threaten to filibuster the money for continuing the occupation until the Republicans allow votes on a timetable for exiting Iraq. Will Bush and the Republicans blame the Democrats for cutting money for the occupation? Yep. Democrats should have the courage to do the right thing and explain that they will allow a vote on funding the occupation when the Republicans allow a vote on setting a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.

Why aren't the Democrats playing hardball?

Possibilities that come to mind:

1. Democrats are intrinsically cowardly.
2. Democrats think the American people are stupid and won't understand the political maneuvering.
3. Democrats believe the American people are subconsciously more pro-war than the surface level polling indicates.
4. Democrats and Republicans are playing a game of "good cop, bad cop" on us, where the elites of the country have decided to continue the occupation and the Democrats are merely creating the illusion of fighting to end the war. (The Republicans have used the same tactic on the issue of abortion. Republicans have run as anti-abortion candidates for decades and done very little to actually make abortion illegal when elected.)

I'm not sure how to get members of Congress to do the right thing, but it irks me that we are wasting money and lives in Iraq when the situation has gone to hell and there's nothing left to do, but let the forces the United States unleashed by invading play themselves out.