To what extent are the Democrats anti-war? It varies from politician to politician, but all the major party figures share a reluctance to take a bold stand and demand an immediate withdrawal of American troops.

If one were only paying attention to political rhetoric, it would be easy to get the impression that most congressional Democrats are committed to ending American involvement. Many leading Democrats, like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., have recently scorned the Bush administration for spending money on a futile war instead of expanding health care programs for poor kids. Even Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., who only just recently had the convenient epiphany that her 2002 war vote was a mistake, has aggressively derided the war effort.

Among the top contenders for the presidential nomination, it has become politically necessary to appear to be anti-war. Hence, Ms. Clinton’s recent conversion. An uncritical comment about the war is unthinkable, and this seems to have satisfied most of the anti-war primary voters.

And yet, for all this supposed anguish and anger, policy has changed little. Actually, it hasn’t changed at all. The president’s requested billions have encountered very public groans, but he has gotten everything he asked for. Almost a year after the 2006 Democratic midterm victory, the war criminal in the White House still has all the required money to continue on with his colonial enterprise.

The crucial test for Senate Democrats now is: Will they approve the president’s recently requested $46 billion for military spending in Iraq and Afghanistan? The rhetoric would indicate they will not, but we’ve seen this before. Last spring, following a White House veto on a spending bill with an attached withdrawal timetable, the Senate went ahead and approved the same bill — only this time, there was no mention of troop reduction.

Senate Democrats have the power to end the war — a little fact they themselves will not admit to. They don’t have the ability to pass legislation to such an effect, since they lack the votes to override a veto. They do, however, have something just as good: the filibuster.

It requires 60 votes to end a debate, so the Democrats need a mere 41 senators to block funding for the war. They would have the anti-war public on their side, and the White House would be forced to finally begin withdrawal.

But wouldn’t such a move amount to "abandoning the troops?" If you are asking this with a sincere concern for the welfare of the American soldiers, then I can assure you that the Pentagon’s already-approved billions are more than enough to cover the cost of safely redeploying the troops back home. If you are voicing this concern from a disingenuous or warped right-wing perspective, where expressing a desire to remove the soldiers from harm’s way amounts to being anti-soldier, then, frankly, you can think whatever you want to.

Even the suspect few who still believe the American cause in Iraq is just must concede that things can only turn out badly at this point. If a disgraced American withdrawal is inevitable, the only uncertainty is the date this will occur. In the meantime, the count of meaningless deaths can only go up.

Senate Democrats — most of whom voted for the 2002 war resolution — are complicit in the death of every single American soldier who will die, as it is in their power to end the bloodshed. The demand for a filibuster must become the rallying cry for the anti-war majority. There can be no excuses any longer. If the Democrats are truly against this wretched war, they will end it now.

Kyle Szarzynski ([email protected]) is a junior majoring in Spanish and history.