Dionne writes:
To understand the importance of the vote, one need only consider what would have been said had it gone the other way: A defeat would have signaled House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's powerlessness to create a governing majority from a fragmented Democratic membership. In a do-or-die vote, Pelosi lived to fight another day by creating a consensus in favor of withdrawal that included some of her party's most liberal and most conservative members.
So this is about Pelosi? Not Iraq? Not even Dems? Here's a question, why did Pelosi put the darn thing up for a vote if it was going to be do or die for her and for nothing else? The next time we go to the mat on something, I hope it is not Pelosi's prestige. Why put it in jeopardy for NOTHING?!?!?
Then Dionne must be anticipating this bill going down in flames:
The vote is only the first of what will be many difficult roll calls potentially pitting Congress against the president on the conduct of war policy.
This bill sets a withdrawal date certain I was told. IF that were true, then there would be no more voting. IF Dionne means Bush vetoing a bunch of bils, well, we'll see. And if he dies we'll see how that plays.
It confirmed that power in Washington has indeed shifted. Bush and his Republican congressional allies had hoped Democrats would splinter and open the way for a pro-Bush resolution of the Iraq issue. Instead, antiwar Democrats, including Web-based groups such as MoveOn.org, discovered a common interest with their moderate colleagues.
This is true - everyone rallied to defend Pelosi's "prestige." That they harmed the cause to end the Debacle is secondary. EJ NAILED it here.
Andf finally the ultimate in getting played by the GOP:
Oddly, the president's harsh rhetoric against the House version of the supplemental appropriations bill to finance the Iraq war may have been decisive in sealing Pelosi's victory. "The vehemence with which the president opposed it made it clear to a lot of people that this was a change in direction and that it was significant," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Tom Matzzie, the Washington director of MoveOn, saw the Bush effect rallying his own antiwar membership. "Bush is our worst enemy," Matzzie said, "and our best ally."
Bush played them like a fiddle. Now Bush will get a "bill that will pass" out of the Senate which will take out any remaining teeth in the bill, threaten veto to get even more concessions and end up with his funding and having to listen to annoying rhetoric.
On the substance Bush has won already. Turn out the lights. It's over. The other day, Atrios wrote:
[T]hings are a bit different now that the message isn't everything.
Exactly. Substance actually affects the MESSAGING. Atrios apparently thought this bill did something substantive. It is obvious it does not. Does he think the bill will lead to good messaging come 2008, when the Dems have funded the Debace, via a toothless bill that made noises about direction in Iraq but then did nothing about it?
As quoted by Atrios, Peter Beinart makes the key point in all this:
The real danger for Democrats in the Iraq debate isn't that they'll oppose the war too aggressively; it's that they won't oppose it aggressively enough. . . . If the public doesn't like what you stand for, then you should probably adjust your views. But if the public doesn't believe you stand for anything, then you had better show them that you do. That's the problem the Democratic Party faces today. And the solution is to end the war in Iraq.
E.J Dionne concludes his piece:
Bush might still win this Senate vote and a reprieve for his war policy. But the president's refusal to acknowledge that the country has fundamentally changed its mind on the war makes it impossible for him to work with Congress on a sensible approach to a withdrawal that will happen some day -- with or without a constitutional showdown.
The American public already know about Bush. And they are coming to know that a Dem Congress won;t do anyting push comes to shove. Withdrawal will come one day, but not on the watch of this Congress that will not take on Bush on the war in the one way that will end the Debacle - by use of the Spending Power; by NOT funding the Debacle after a date certain.
