PolitiCo-rrAP By: Mark W Adams

Monday: 36 Iraqis Killed, 17 Wounded

Jim VandeHei and John F. Harris penned a conventional wisdom piece at Politico: Democrats zero for 40 on Iraq. Something stood out for me in this otherwise space-filling poll-driven article (for which I have no idea why it would take two people to write).

As such articles are usually wont, it offers little but to document the Democratic majority's failure to stop a war they never said they would be able to stop (despite the authors' conviction that this was indeed what was promised) and note Congressional low approval ratings, while subtly inching up the ratings for "C+ Augustus" over the 30% mark instead of the 20's where he's been all year -- ignoring Bush's Nixonian numbers in disapproval and suggesting that in the near-term this could spell trouble at the polls for the Dems.

Now I don't know about you, but I find it interesting that these two guys can read minds -- and do it badly.

But what the year has mostly highlighted is that Democrats and anti-war activists were in the grip of two illusions after their triumph in the 2006 elections.

The first illusion is that taking power on Capitol Hill was by its very nature — no matter the precise legislation that emerged — something that would alter the basic dynamics of Iraq policy.

Please point me to a speech, or even a sound-byte where a prominent Democratic candidate promised to end the war this year, or even force a draw-down -- or even . . . "alter the basic dynamics of Iraq," whatever that means.

VandeHei and Harris make note that the situation on the ground pushes the policy more than any other factor -- yet imply that this is suddenly revealed wisdom and not something we've been hearing from Republicans and Democrats alike, ad nauseum, for several years now.

Their next strawman is "[t]he second illusion is that Democrats could stall substantively and still prosper politically."

Now they make mention that overall Congress' approval is down, and it's not just Democrats. "Disapproval of the Democratic majority in Congress has risen steadily, albeit with no corresponding increase in enthusiasm for Republicans." So how they make the leap that this should only worry Democratic incumbents is mystifying, especially in light of the vacant seats the GOP are leaving as members announce plans for early retirement.

However, the quote which reminded my hind-brain of something alarming is this:

A few months ago, many lawmakers were saying something like this: “It’s true we can’t force Bush’s hand on Iraq because we do not have veto-proof majorities. But the longer he sticks with an unpopular war, the better it will be for Democrats, and eventually the moderates and war skeptics in the GOP will stage a full revolt.”

Now we're supposedly opting to support a fifth column inside conservative America? Wouldn't it be better to get them to join us instead of standing by while they create a movement of their own. Who? Who the hell was saying this? Gimme a break.

Isn't this exactly the kind of strategy that lost us Cuba? Wasn't the containment theory of engagement with Iraq insufficient to topple Saddam's regime from within? Are we to wait out the conservatives again -- who will try to come back even if it takes another 30 years -- just as we out-spent and out-waited the old Soviet regime; only to see it's transformation into a moderately reasonable democratic partner be abandoned in favor of the standard strong-man rule that has predominated east of the Urals for centuries?

Is anyone suggesting this is the way we should handle Pakistan?

I worry that mere containment of the neocons is enough. I don't think it ever will be. Before we can just start "getting along" with our wingnut cousins for the good of us all, their ideology must be completely repudiated and exiled to the dust heap of failed theories of government along with monarchism, feudalism, communism, and fascism.

They've done so much damage in such a relatively short time, we can never afford to let them be in charge of anything again.