Iraq War Split Democrats Before Republicans

The Iraq War may be the issue that causes civil war in the Democratic Party. I am not exactly sure why the Democratic Party is so far behind the curve on the Iraq War. If Russ Feingold had made his statement about withdrawaling from Iraq eight months ago he would have been mercilessly attacked by the Republican Hate Machine and Mainstream Media. This weekend it barely made a ripple. Chuck Hagel is dominating the headlines with statements much harsher than anything Feingold or another leading Democrat is saying. It seems strange that some of the strongest supporters of continuing the Iraq War are estblishment democrats, particularly DLCer's. Has Democratic leadership become so gun shy of being labeled weak on defense that they will continue supporting this war when the American public doesn't?
Now battle lines are being drawn within the Party. Establishment and DLC democrats vs populists/progressives/anti-war democrats. This battle is not only about Iraq but who controls the Democratic Party. It is seen at the local level with the controversy caused by Harold Ford's speech at the U of M last week. It had been building for a while, but that speech may have been the straw that broke the camel's back. Populists/Progressives can not understand why the democratic leadership isn't being much more aggressive with Bush and presenting alternatives. 54% of Americans want to pull out of Iraq, literally, tomorrow. Bush is at 36% to 40% approval rating. There are scandals everywhere on the Republican side. This is absolutely maddening to populists/progressives. It looks like the Establishment and DLC has accepted it's position as the minority party and become completely captive to their corporate masters. Now the populists/progressives feel their stragegy is correct after being led through three election cycle defeats and their positions are supported by polling of the American public. If this isn't the time to fight when is?
I don't understand what the strategy of the Establishment and DLCer's is. But upon seeing the article below, you have to wonder about their motivation. Is the Party headed towards civil war over Iraq. I think so. Populists/progressives are itching for a fight and the other side wants to maintain its control. If intra-party warfare is inevitable, let it start as soon as possible so that it is finnished before the 2006 election goes into full swing. Populist/progressives feel the Democratic Party must be an alternative and in opposition to the Republican Party and its policies.

From David Sirota's Blog:
DLC Helps Spread Claim That "Progressives Destroyed America"

There is a case to be made that Democrats should go on Fox News, even if it is a right-wing network, because the network blasts its content to the general public. But there is no case to be made that any non-right-wing lunatic should take part in an event at the fringe-conservative Heritage Foundation entitled "Did the Progressives Destroy America?" Unlike a Fox News show where you are speaking to potentially swing voters, there is no "general public" audience at this event - it is an event designed to perpetuate among the Washington, D.C. insider establishment the worst right-wing dishonesty. Any participation by our side helps legitimize this nonsense. Yet, incredibly, the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) is headlining the event.

That's right, Will Marshall - President of the DLC's Orwellian-labeled "Progressive Policy Institute" - is lending his name to the event and taking part. I guess we shouldn't be surprised - this is the same Will Marshall who calls war critics "anti-American". Sure, Marshall will disingenuously argue that he is there to "debate" the issue. But he's been in Washington long enough to know exactly what he's doing: deliberately helping to legitimize the worst right-wing lies. If there was ever a question as to whether the DLC is actively trying to undermine Democrats and the progressive movement in general, there shouldn't be anymore. The answer is, yes they are.