So why should this be brought up? I think it should be brought up because, well, here's a crazy theory. Bear with me. One of the shocking things I've seen is the aftermath of the November 2006 elections. It was clear that the American public voted against the war. Its also clear to me that if the Democrats actually end the war (by withholding funding which they can definitely do) they would probably hold the presidency and the congress for the next 25 years, maybe longer. It would cause a generational shift toward the less ruthless business party, which might be incrementally better. Afterall, the Clinton years gave us the Internets. True, if they had known how important it was I probably couldn't afford to be writing these words and I would be as likely to have a platform on the internet as I would be to hosting my own show on cable television but anyway...
Yet that's not what the democrats have done. I suppose it could be just a dark tactic whereby they think that as the war stalls and burns people will vote democratic party as a reaction. Of course, if people see no difference in the parties on the war it would make the republicans competitive again. And of course, as we've seen the republicans don't actually have to win to be competitive, just close enough so that the courts can call it in their favor. They can destroy the evidence later and throw roadblocks into reform. Its not like the traditional media would write about it.
Well, there is an uncomfortable theory out there, first written about by Alexander Cockburn to his credit. He thought that the Dem recruiters, Schumer in the Senate and Rahm Emmanual (who once volunteered to serve in the Israeli army. Here's a thought experiment: say that Obama once tried to join the Cuban army where would he be politically...? Really. Think about it.) were deliberately recruiting pro war dems. Both Schumer and Rahm, who some have said is Mossad's man in DC, are Jewish. What if they're Jewish and think that the war benefits Israel.
Here's another thought experiment: Let's just assume for a moment that they're more loyal to Israeli foreign policy interests than American interests, specifically the American interest of ending this war. What would they do. How would they behave. They would, and this is just wild speculation, recruit democrats to win back the house and senate but not democrats who have the common sense and decency to withhold funding for the war. Corporatist DLC power elite dems. That would be the deal. We would know that's the deal because democrats won't have ended the war even though its in their power to do so.
Here's a more frightening thought experiment: what if they wanted to thank the republicans. Why would you want to harm the party that enthusiastically spills blood for Israel (and oil reserves but that would be secondary to the Israelis, unless they wanted a cut but who knows...). You wouldn't want a handy party like that eviscerated. In fact, you would do everything in your power to keep them viable. Going slow on ending the war might just do the trick. A Hillary nomination gives the Republicans a pulse for the presidency. Blur the distinctions. That means that everything just keeps getting worse.
A wrench in the works would be the creation of a viable well funded progressive third party. Let's hope Cindy Sheehan, the only candidate I know that wants AIPAC out of congress, widens her efforts.