12-10-07, 10:05 am

There are the people's interests and there are the interests of the military industrial complex [MIC] and those who benefit from US imperialism or think they do. With respect to the war in Iraq, the majority of the American people are on record as wanting to end it and they do not support the military industrial complex and its imperial designs. The Republican party (with the exception of Ron Paul) is firmly in the hands of the MIC and can only be described as made up of pro war jingoists and sub rosa racists. The American people gave the Congress to the Democrats to end the the war. So, are the Democratic leaders working for the American people, or for the MIC?


Saturday's New York Times [12-8-07] may provide the answer. The answer may be in Carl Hulse's front page news article 'Budget Makers Plan Tradeoff For War Funds.' It seems that a $ 500 billion budget is in the works which will give Bush 'unfettered money for the Iraq war in exchange for new spending on popular domestic programs.' The subtext here is obvious. The Democrats will do the bidding of the MIC in return for goodies to take back to the voters to try and get reelected. They will try and make the American people moral accomplices in murder. Daycare funding will be paid for with the blood of Iraqi children.

The Democratic leadership knows that the base of the party is anti-war and that the majority of the Democrats in Congress are also. How can the leaders serve the MIC in a situation such as this? Their plan is to give Bush so much for his war that 'the final war spending total would produce enough Republican support to offset defections by House Democrats.' That's right. Pelosi will run the House of Representatives not with the Democratic majority that was sent there in 2006, but by a combination of right Democrats and Republicans so that the MIC can keep its war going full steam ahead. This cynicism could cost them the election in 2008.

This plan is already a done deal in the Senate, but it has to get through the House. 'After the measure returns to the House for a final vote,' the Times reports, 'Democrats opposed to the war are likely to vote against it but may not be able to stop it.' What can be more clear than this. Democrats at the top of the party, the leadership, crafted this dirty deal and, no matter what they say, they are NOT opposed to the war and the MIC and the spread of US imperialism. Everyone of the candidates running for president should be asked to a take a position on this measure so we can separate the sheep from the goats. It is not likely that any of them will be quizzed on this issue by any representatives of the MIC allied mass media in this country.

The fact of the matter is that giving Bush all the money he wants AND a free hand 'without a deadline or goal for withdrawal would represent a major concession by Democrats. They had earlier said [evidently just for show- tr] they would not send Mr. Bush any more war money this year unless he accepted a change in Iraq policy.'

Hey, the Democrats have all the cards. The people are with them and the president is an incompetent lame duck with no real credibility. Why do they have to make this concession? The answer is they don't. They are making it because the top party leadership is just as financially dependent and beholden to the MIC as are the Republicans. The Democratic base has to raise Hell with their representatives to replace this compromising traitorous leadership with real representatives of the people's will. It can be done but it will take a lot of effort and hard work, but the future of the country is at issue.

Not only are the Democratic leaders selling out on the war for domestic goodies to try and bribe the base with, but they are only getting half of the money they originally planned to spend on domestic issues. This is because they cut funding to attract Republicans to the measure for which they knew they could never get many of their own members to vote.

Bush doesn't even know what a great deal he is being offered. He and the Republican leadership are demanding all the war money AND no conditions plus no goodies for the Democrats to take back home! 'The White House issued veto threats against the spending measures and rejected a major health [sorry kids], education and labor bill.'

He has got to be realistic. He can't expect the Democrats to sell out their base for free. He has got to toss them some scraps. Its the holidays. Democrats want to go home They 'are hopeful that he would accept the developing plan,' the Times says. 'They would like to wind up the spending fight and break for the holidays...,' no doubt we will see pictures of a few of them over in Iraq eating turkey with the troops (the last meal for some).

--Thomas Riggins is the book review editor for Political Affairs and can be reached at