The common idea is that Bush will veto the House bill. That notion is
central to Markos' argument in support of this bill. And Bush said
today about the House bill:
"I will veto it if it comes to my desk."
But the House bill WON'T come to his desk. Something worse will:
House members will be voting on the bill knowing that the [withdrawal] deadline will almost surely be removed by the Senate when it votes on the measure next week. Senate Democrats were able to muster only 48 votes last week, well short of the 60 needed, for a weaker version of the deadline idea, one that would have set as a "goal" the withdrawal of almost all U.S. forces by March 2008.
What Markos and the Netroots do not realize is that the GOP and Bush are playing politics too. Indeed, on Iraq, Bush has so outmaneuvered Dems since the 2006 election that it is not even funny.
After the November elections, after the Iraq Study Group report, the idea of there NOT being some withdrawal plan was not even one that was seriously considered. Even Bush, everyone thought, including the GOP, would have to face political reality.
We all learned something different. Bush did not provide a withdrawal plan. Bush proposed an Escalation Plan!
Suddenly, we were not debating how fast to withdrawal. The debate became whether there should be an escalation. And after much fumbling and bumbling, the Senate and House made noises that meant nothing politically and policywise on the Surge.
And so it goes with all of the Iraq initiatives. And it will be so with the Iraq supplemental. House Dems and the Netroots seem not to understand how this process has played out and will play out.
The very same pressures that forced the capitulation to the Blue Dogs will force further capitulations along the way starting with the Senate, IF a bill is to be approved. If the goal is to have Bush veto a bill then it was critical to start with as strong a bill as possible so that when the inevitable compromises were made along the way at least at the end Bush would need to veto. The bill, if it emerges, that Bush will see will be utterly toothless. To wit, he will not veto it and the Dems will have funded the Debacle.
The "218, best we can get mantra" is now the baseline. Does anyone think you can retrace those steps? Pelosi went down that road. The Netroots went down that road. The Out of Iraq Caucus went down that road. The funding with next to no restrictions is a
fait accompli now.
All that is left is messaging. The reality is the strategy that id left is what Markos is talking about. This is the only rational justification for supporitng the bill:
The message being sent is that Democrats want out, Republicans want more Americans to die in Iraq. That is the clear distinction we need heading into 2008. Voters will then decide which they prefer -- pullout or escalation. And when we win that battle and hold the White House and Congress, this war is history.
But I do not believe that message can be sent effectively given what will transpire now. But at least there is a level of realism, political savvy and pragmatism in this approach. It won't work but at least we are back on Planet Earth.
The idea that the progressives and the Netroots can now, turn on a dime and stop a weaker bill in the future is pretty much a pipe dream. Better to just concentrate on trying to execute the strategy Markos outlines. That accepts that the war will not end until after the 2008 election. And that is the consequence of the House Iraq supplemental. That's why I so vehemently opposed it.
