North Star Writers Group

They rant and rave about everything President Bush has done wrong, yet are either unable or unwilling to do anything substantial about it. And they certainly aren't touching the legitimate constitutional options available to them, preferring instead to try to forcibly take the commander-in-chief role away from the presidency. Perhaps this is getting through to the people in spite of the media's coverage, given that the Democratic Congress's almost microscopic approval rating is less than half of President Bush's historically low one.

There are three choices for the Democrats if they truly want to force a change in Iraq, bring troops home immediately, and so forth.

1.) They can simply cut the funding for the war. Congress has always had the power of the purse strings, and if they de-fund the campaign, that will be the end of it. But the Democrats would then own full responsibility for the consequences of that forced withdrawal. They would be the party of defeat, retreat, surrender and whatever awful things come about as a result of Al Qaeda and their allies no longer being occupied in Iraq. All their manpower, money, material and time that is currently being invested in Iraq would be freed up to be used in planning domestic attacks on the United States. And the Democrats would be culpable for it.

They know this full well, which is why they haven't even tried to cut the funding. They're too politically gutless to accept that responsibility, just as they were too gutless to vote down the resolution authorizing force in Iraq in 2003. So we all get treated to the disgusting spectacle of their attempt to usurp the president's rightful constitutional role as commander-in-chief by putting illegitimate strings and conditions on the funding. And all so that MoveOn.org and others on the far left will be mollified and keep forking over campaign cash.

2.) They can impeach President Bush. If they truly believe that Bush has gone that far afield from what was authorized in 2003, then House Democrats should stand up and pass formal articles of impeachment, detailing precisely what high crimes and misdemeanors have been perpetrated. Political calculations about whether the Senate is likely to actually convict should not enter into the equation. If they feel a crime has truly been perpetrated, then the perpetrator must be indicted.

But, of course, there have been no such offenses committed. All of this is just so much pandering to MoveOn.org and the rest of the Democratic Party base, not to mention more than a little desire for revenge over Clinton's impeachment in 1998. Plus, with a Senate that will be no more likely to convict Bush than it was Clinton, impeachment could only serve to backfire on Democrats at the polls, just as it did with Republicans. So again, with the proper constitutional route not politically expedient, Democrats will instead use their oversight privilege as a vessel for stomping all over separation of powers and executive privilege, and to otherwise stage a never-ending fishing expedition.

3.) They can shut up and help bring about victory. This will never happen, but they could just keep their big mouths shut and get behind the effort. Then, with the enemy no longer able to conclude that dragging things out will eventually result in American retreat, the military can crush the last of the sectarian opposition and come home victorious.

But with the Democrats now depending on the votes of a party base that appears to have gone stark-raving mad, this is impossible. In fact, even doing what they have been may not be enough to satisfy the MoveOn.org crowd. (A truly incomprehensible thought, that.) For better or worse, this is who makes up the core of the Democratic Party, and even as honorable a card-carrying liberal as Sen. Joe Lieberman isn't pure enough for these hard-core peaceniks. And as the unsuccessful primary challenge to Lieberman in 2006 proved, Democrats cross MoveOn.org at their own re-electoral peril. So even if a few are inclined to support the effort in Iraq, they're not about to say that publicly.

To be sure, President Bush has made errors with regard to the war on terror – stubbornly refusing to secure the borders, failing to truly mobilize the citizenry like World War II, insisting on fighting in politically-correct ways (e.g. retreating from Fallujah, avoiding mosques when the enemy hides in them) and being too politically correct to name the real enemy (terror is a tactic, Islamic extremists are the enemy) are but a few.

But none of that justifies the outrageous and unconstitutional things that Democrats are doing. If they want to be seen as a respectable, conscientious opposition, the Democrats need to make their choice and accept full responsibility for the consequences thereof. Cut the funds, impeach or shut up.

Click here to talk to our writers and editors about this column and others in our discussion forum.

To e-mail feedback about this column, click here. If you enjoy this writer's work, please contact your local newspapers editors and ask them to carry it.

This is Column # DKK071. Request permission to publish here.