A reader dissents from my post here:
The continuation of the Bush policy has real consequences for real people, and while enabling that policy may provide a certain degree of moral separation from the actual implementer(s) of the policy, it does not absolve the Democrats (or anyone else) of their responsibility to the troops, to the Iraqis, or to themselves. I know you know this, because you said as much in your last post on the subject. But then you follow it with this shocker:
"On reflection, I should have been more precise: the Democrats should support funding this war as long as the critical swing-vote Republicans do."
I understand that not every ideal is politically realistic, and that the president still holds veto power over anything the Congress does. Certainly the Democrats should do everything in their realistic scope of power, and we can't hold them responsible if Bush's power still trumps theirs, but to say that they should take their lead from moderate Republicans, from anyone besides their own moral compass, makes my eyes bleed. As I understand it, your argument is that if they stop "supporting the troops," the Democrats will be giving Rove and company exactly the ammunition they dream about. This may be true, but surely by now America (the part for which we can hold out any hope) has woken up to what Rove's game really is. Surely by now we can stop cowering before the spectre of Karl Rove saying something mean about us. It's time we do everything we can to mitigate the consequences of Bush's hold over this country, and let the legacies fall where they may.