Recently, the United States Senate attempted to add an amendment to Bush's Iraq proposal that would make half of the $20 billion earmarked for reconstruction into a loan made out to Iraq. The idea was to make Iraq pay for some of its reconstruction, since the technology the administration had proposed was better than that of many American towns. It was considered unfair that Bush would spend so much in Iraq when domestic problems raged at home. The House of Representatives urged the Senate to erase the amendment, and it eventually failed to pass Congress.

Why do the Democrats (and 42 of those voting for the amendment were Democrats) feel the need to become the demagogues that we hate so much in politics today? For those unfamiliar with political lingo, a demagogue is someone who tells the people what they want to hear in order to gain power-such as telling the public that we can go into Iraq without spending much money or, in this case, that we can get out of Iraq without spending much money. I intend to vote Democrat in 2004 and I certainly won't be voting Republican any time soon, but I don't think all of the blame for going into Iraq rests on Bush. The bill allowing him to start a preemptive war passed the House and the Senate with more than just Republican votes; remember, this was a time of "solidarity" or, as I like to call it, the death of democracy.

This was also a time when the people strongly supported going to Iraq. Of course, they did so without realizing there was no connection between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein; many still believe there is. In other words, they supported war under false pretenses. But it would seem like our government's job is to be better informed than everybody else. This means that Senators are supposed to educate themselves, not listen plaintively to Bush and say, "Oh, what a good idea." The argument that nobody knew that this could be a bad idea is ridiculous. Most of us knew. The much-despised liberal, elite intellectuals objected, and they were ignored. Not everyone was merely advocating pacifism for the sake of pacifism. Instead, many people were arguing that this war, unlike other wars, was not justified. And, now, look at the mess we are in.

Still, the issue of whether or not to go to war in Iraq has been decided, and politicians may pay for it in the next election. But why, now that the American people see what a blunder Iraq was, does the Senate try to do exactly what the intelligent people of America know causes terrorism by breeding more anti-Americanism? How could we have the audacity to destroy Iraq and then make Iraqis pay for it? We started something, and we have to finish it. Even the more conservative senators would agree that Saddam Hussein, and not the people of Iraq, was the scapegoat for Operation Iraqi Freedom. If our aim was truly to topple Saddam, it isn't right to hold the "free" people of Iraq responsible for our success.

Let's just say I expected more. And I fear that this next election will turn into another display of appealing to an angry public, where the domestic issues at the forefront of American politics are sidelined in favor of the reconstruction of Iraq. So far, everyone but Joe Lieberman has used backlash over the war to gain attention in the Democratic primary. I agree that it's an issue and a good one, because it allows the candidates to attack Bush's international policy. But I want to hear a commitment from someone running that they will give the money and troops necessary to rebuild and restart Iraq. Most of the candidates will give some money, but they will never support Bush's $87 billion package. That is what Americans may want to hear, now that they realize what a drain Iraq will be on more important national institutions, like schools. But it's not what Americans should be hearing. Blame will only go so far. It won't feed Iraqi children, and believe me, they don't care if the U.S. is feeding them or if an Islamic fundamentalist, anti-American regime is doing it. If we don't prevent them from starving, then we can't justify it by saying it was a mistake of the Bush administration.

If the U.N. doesn't step up, it is our job to rebuild Iraq, and if it means a huge domestic drain, so be it. If the Democrats in the Senate have a problem with that, then they should have done some of their own research before voting for the war.

I will not be voting for anyone that leaves Iraq without any support in the next election. We should finish what we start. And maybe next time we'll be smarter and not start something that we'll have to finish.