The Perfect vs. The Useless

Update [2007-3-15 12:13:28 by Big Tent Democrat]: Matt Stoller says:

Pelosi's compromise is messy, but there's no clean solution here. The public is against this war, but it is not for complete withdrawal. Change is still a very scary prospect.

My question to Stoller and Meyerson is this - what part of the Pelosi "compromise" do they like? What is it that they feel is worth ANYTHING? Specifically, what?

Harold Meyerson jumps on the beat up on on antiwar folks bandwagon:

We're trying to use the supplemental," [Obey] explained, "to end the war." . . . In effect, what the protesters are doing is making the unattainable perfect the enemy of the barely-attainable good. Because Obey is quite right: The votes aren't there to shut down funding for the war. What he and Pelosi and the rest of the Democratic leadership in both houses are about is finding some way to curtail the president's determination to pass the war on to his successor regardless of the continuing cost to U.S. interests and lives.

What Meyerson does is simply repeat nonsense about what some of us are seeking - not the unattainable perfect as he so breezily dismisses it, but the attainable, indeed the ONLY, method for reaching the goal Myerson purports to support-ending the war before the next President is in office.

Consider on the flip Meyerson's views on what the House is doing to gauge just how unserious Meyerson is in this article.

Attaching conditions to the appropriations bill is not a foolproof way to accomplish that, as Pelosi and Obey would readily admit. It is merely the best of the imperfect options to wind down U.S. involvement in Iraq, given the narrowness of their congressional majorities and the presence of George W. Bush in the White House.

First, NO conditions have survived the Blue Dog assault! Bush needs to merely certify that national security demands whatever he asks for.

Then Meyerson writes:

What Pelosi and Obey understand that their critics on the left seem to ignore is that it will take numerous congressional votes and multiple confrontations with Bush to build the support required to end U.S. involvement.

SO that explains funding the war through October 2008? Because that means there will be no more votes on funding. Why not a short term funding bill? Why not the simple provision that was excised from the proposal, no funding after October 2008?

Meyerson continues:

Thanks to the Constitution's division of powers, Congress and the White House seem bound for months of fighting over the conditions attached to any approval of funds for continuing our operations in Iraq.

This is sheer nonsense. The Congress does not have to haggle over restrictions. It can choose NOT to fund the war. What in blazes is Myerson talking about?

Over time, as the war drags on, either enough Republicans will join their Democratic colleagues to put an end to U.S. intervention, or they will stick with Bush, thereby ensuring there will be a sufficient number of Democrats in the next Congress to end the war.

SO that is the end game for Meyerson and the Dem leadership, run on Iraq in 2008. But what happens when there is nothing to point to? This supplemental gives Bush everthing he wants. IT is the DEM proposal. What confrontation is Meyerson talking about?

For the record, this is my proposal:

In reality there are two positions available now -for ending the Debacle or for continuing it. It is that simple. And the choice is binary. Because President George W. Bush makes it so. Bush listens to no one, except Cheney.

Many ask 'so what is a Democratic Congress to do?' With Mitch McConnell promising filibusters to all attempts to revoke the Iraq AUMF, cap troop levels and to cut funding for the Iraq Debacle, what is it I am asking of the Democratic Congress?

Let me explain again - I ask for three things: First, announce NOW that the Democratic Congress will NOT fund the Iraq Debacle after a date certain. You pick the date. Whatever works politically. If October 2007 is the date Dems can agree to, then let it be then. If March 2008, then let that be the date; Second, spend the year reminding the President and the American People every day that Democrats will not fund the war past the date certain; Third, do NOT fund the Iraq Debacle PAST the date certain.

Some argue we will never have the votes for this. That McConnell will filibuster, that Bush will veto. To them I say I KNOW. But filbustering and vetoing does not fund the Iraq Debacle. Let me repeat, to end the war in Iraq, the Democratic Congress does not have to pass a single bill; they need only NOT pass bills that fund the Iraq Debacle.

But but but, defund the whole government? Defund the whole military? What if Bush does not pull out the troops? First, no, not defund the government, defund the Iraq Debacle. If the Republicans choose to shut down government in order to force the continuation of the Iraq Debacle, do not give in. Fight the political fight. We'll win. Second, defund the military? See answer to number one. Third, well, if you tell the American People what is coming for a year, and that Bush is on notice, that i t will be Bush abandoning the troops in Iraq, we can win that politcal battle too.

Understand this, if you want to end the Iraq Debacle, this is the only way until Bush is not President. If you are not for this for ending the war, tell me what you do support. I think this is the only way. And if you shy away from the only way to end the Debacle, then you really are not for ending the war are you?

Meyerson's fantasy scenarios do not change the reality that Dems are now making Iraq their war too.

< March Madness 8 - Who Can Win It All? | March Madness 9 - Early Scores >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    What's bizare (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 10:51:34 AM EST
    Is that Republicans are presenting even THIS bill as "defunding the troops." I think the Democrats are scared of their own shadows.

    What's bizarre is (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 10:57:39 AM EST
    Seeing LEft puindits doing exactly what they spendt 6 years criticzing Right pundits for - mouthing the talking points of the Party they sdupport.

    Harold Meyerson needs to watch this video: (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Noor on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 11:04:44 AM EST
    Page down to "Biden to Bush:  'You're leading us off a cliff.  Stop!'"  (I would have included the entire link, but it wouldn't fit within the page.)

    This is what's at stake.  Biden just told Bush that military's done in Iraq.  And, to use a cooking metaphor, when the turkey's done, you yank it out of the oven before it is totally ruined.

    And I'd sure love to be a fly on the wall when -- if -- Meyerson has the nerve to tell Biden he's being unreasonable to push for a vote that McConnell will filibuster.  

    I find Meyerson;s entire article (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 11:07:07 AM EST
    simply bizarre.

    Yep! (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by vcmvo2 on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 12:39:26 PM EST
    Bizarre is the word I'm looking for. It's eerie because it sounds like something pundits were saying before the election in November. Now we won the election, but our majority is too narrow. What will be the reason that people will vote to increase our majority if we don't end this war, if we don't stand up to this President?

    I know when behavior is too extreme for the general public. I'm pretty moderate myself. I don't really care for confrontation. I wish we could work it out together. But I am also a realist and this war needs to end by hook or by crook. I actually would think it's a pretty conservative value to not throw good money after bad; and that is what is happening in Iraq. You'd think that if Republicans or blue dogs can't think in humanitarian terms, then they could at least think in financial terms. They are all becoming the war party. I'm pretty disgusted right now...


    Enough to make me think Republicans want to (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by PaintyKat on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 11:45:15 PM EST
    keep the war going to hold up the stock market which has been bleeding.

    It all seems so simple when BTD breaks it out, simple as one, two, and three.  Yet, it seems like  so many contingencies have their own oxes to gore.  Aside from the fact we want the war to end yesterday, it can't happen immediately, but this plan does seem to be a way to make the Republicans own their own war and a way for Democrats to make a firm date and I like the continual reminders that the date for defunding is coming.

    Will the media pick up on these warnings as easily and reliably as they did the useless manipulation of the public through usage of the color codes terrorist threat malarky?  

    If a committee can be compared to a two humped camel when it comes to decision-making, trying to juggle the various interest groups in the House must be insanity, trying to bring about some kind of consensus or compromises.

    Btd, just keep putting it out there and hope they bite.



    The media is asleep (none / 0) (#12)
    by vcmvo2 on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 07:49:17 AM EST
    at the switch! We will get little help from the MSM. I think the only one that really helps is KO. But is he considered the MSM?

    BTD has just got to keep pushing this- because someday when the Dems are finished bashing their heads against Repub intransigence, they are going to need a plan...


    Exactly. (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Edger on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 12:53:40 PM EST
    If you are not for this for ending the war, tell me what you do support. I think this is the only way. And if you shy away from the only way to end the Debacle, then you really are not for ending the war are you?
    Well put.

    Like so many Dems (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Che's Lounge on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 01:40:25 PM EST
    Myerson is just plain scared. They are cowards. Send them to Baghdad. We replaced chickenhawks with chicknes**ts.

    ChickenHawks with ChickenS**ts... (none / 0) (#9)
    by sean mykael on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 07:35:11 PM EST
    Sums it up nicely

    I heard that somewhere (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by LarryE on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 08:25:02 PM EST
    So that is the end game for Meyerson and the Dem leadership, run on Iraq in 2008.

    Ego prompts me to say that I said just that a few days ago:

    This plan isn't about opposing Bush. It's not about stopping the war. It's about saying you oppose the war while at the same time running away from any actual responsibility for doing anything about it. It's about, bottom line, positioning for the 2008 campaign and who gives a damn about the lives, American (and allied) and even more Iraqi, ruined in the meantime.
    Meyerson just makes it clearer.

    Meyerson has lost it (none / 0) (#5)
    by Dadler on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 12:32:20 PM EST
    His piece does make no sense, except in the context of old progressive gone soft in the face of real action.  

    The defunding angle is sound, bold, and says the to American people we are serious.  If the repubs come back with their bullsh*t about not supporting the troops (when one of their own, a f*cking general for heaven's sake, just denigrated who knows how many gay soldiers in combat), then the dems simply get their time and rationally explain why it has to end and now, how they are for fully funding WITHDRAWAL, not continued funding of this fiasco.

    There is no real courage on the hill, anywhere.

    Which leads me to believe, logically, that there is little political courage in the populace as a whole.

    So I am to blame, as are we all.