The House Iraq Supplemental Funding Bill: Differences
Posted on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 02:12:03 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Previously, I noted that the rationale behind the House bill seems to me to be Ending the Iraq Debacle . . . After the 2008 Election. I think this post, along with Move On's ironic ad evidence my point:
In a recent vote, the Republican members of the House Appropriations Committee unanimously opposed requiring that the troops sent to Iraq be properly prepared for their mission and protected with armor. Again.
But does the House proposal "require[] that the troops sent to Iraq be properly prepared . . ."? Uh no, as the SAME blogger aptly pointed out:
At the moment, it appears that the political calculus hinges on what happens with those "teeth." That is, the leadership's math goes like this: they figure they get and keep more Blue Dog votes by removing the ability to enforce the benchmarks than they lose from the Progressive Caucus, who think the president can't be trusted and will game the benchmarks and continue to humiliate and embarrass Congressional Democrats. So as things stand now, the language is out, because by the leadership's count, there were more Blue Dogs at least implicitly threatening to vote against a bill that included it than there were Progressive Caucus members threatening to vote against a bill that excluded it.
The enforcement language is out says this blogger. But we can STILL beat up on Republicans. Dems will end the Iraq Debacle, we are told, but AFTER the 2008 elections.
We "idiot liberals" are told that we should "not let the perfect be the enemy of the good." That this is just a "first step."
The basis for flinging these banal platitudes at us is not readily apparent.
What precisely is GOOD about this bill? Not the benchmarks. Everyone admits they are unenforceable.
The withdrawal deadline of 2008? Well if you believe Congress will not fund the Iraq Debacle in September 2008, amid the shrieks of the GOP about "abandoning the troops" two months before the election that would be true. You would be an idiot if you believed that.
That this is just a first step? Well what is the next step? If we are to believe this bill, the next step is to stand up to Bush and the Republicans in September 2008. As I write above, it takes an idiot to believe that will happen.
So clearly, on the merits, this bill is NOT about ending the Iraq Debacle, at least not before the 2008 Election.
So this is politics. So let's think abour it as politics. Is this smart politics? I think it is idiotic politics. Let's play out the scenarios:
(1) The bill is passed. The Senate passes a bill. Let's even say it is the exact same bill. (Which ain't going to happen. McConnell has the filibuster. At the least, he will wring out more concessions.) No compromising the proposal even further.
(2) It goes to Bush. Two things can happen.
(a) He signs it. Does that mean the war ends in September 2008? Um, no. Bush will issue a signing statement saying he does not agree with the end date language but in order to fund the troops he will sign it anyway. Then we are back at September 2008 again. See above.
(b) He vetoes it. Then what? Dems are prssured to "find a compromise" and "be reasonable." Broderism rears its ugly head. Dems compromise EVEN MORE.
We get to the election in 2008 and some type of uneasy compromise is reached . Bush is in his way out. How do Dems run against the Debacle? They will have funded it.
Someone PLEASE explain to me how this is smart politically? It ain't. It does not end the Debacle. It does not work politically. It is an unmitigated disaster by any calculation.
This is easily one of the stupidest proposals, politically and policywise, I have ever seen.
| < Rethinking National Security Letters | Move On's Disingenuousness > |
