Obey's Responsibility on Iraq
Posted on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 03:39:40 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
KagroX writes a great post on what Rep. David Obey (D-WI) needs to do now in the Iraq supplemental funding bill conference:
With the bill now heading into a House-Senate conference, and rumors floating that the Senate conferees may seek to strip the much-vaunted timelines and withdrawal triggers from the bill, it seems to me that Chairman Obey has a unique obligation to insure that the teeth of the bill -- such as they are -- remain in the final conference report.Nobody, as far as I can recall, was ever pressing Congress to "make it illegal to proceed with the war." While that certainly would be a welcome development, it's an innovation created and touted by Obey, and offered unsolicited by him as a defense against the "idiot liberals" who were working to end the war but were, in his mind, "screwing it up."
To each question the activists posed, Obey's every answer was premised on the same objection: "That's not how it works."
Well, now we're seeing how it does work, Mr. Obey. . . . The burden to make sure it remains "illegal to proceed with the war," at least according to the terms of the bill that emerges from conference, is yours.
KagroX's point is entirely missed by MYDD's Chris Bowers, who had no qualms in whipping the Out of Iraq Caucus to vote for the incredibly flawed House bill, but now objects to KagroX pressuring Obey to hold the line. No one doubts that Obey is a great Congressman dedicated to ending the war. What is at issue is whether Obey's stated strategy will work. As Kagro says, for it to work, the binding timeline, such as it is, must survive conference. If Obey's argument meant anything, then Rep. Obey has to fight hard in the conference to keep binding timelines in the bill. That is KagroX's point. How can that be quarreled with?
It can be quarreled with when you are insistent on cheering certain Democrats no matter what. I have written about this strange regression by the "Netroots" before:
I have a nit to pick with Atrios and the Netroots generally. . . .what are "large numbers of Democrats" doing to get us out Atrios? Lemme guess, 'they don't have the votes' to overcome veto/filibuster/Blue Dogs.But as I have explained, there is a way to do it without dealing with filibusters and vetoes. And Dems will not do THAT.
It is easy to criticize, Lord knows I did it for years and years, Bush, the GOP, the Wise Men, et al., but the Dems deserve some criticsim too on this.
But we get instead from the Left blogs are nasty attacks on Idiot Liberals:
Anyhow, she is doing the best she can walking those halls of power and corruption day in and day out.“The best she can” is not going to cut it. I believe she is doing more harm than good.
The point is the Dem leadership has not tried very hard to get the 218 votes.
Bulls[p]it. Jerrold Nadler — who for years has been one of the staunchest and most reliably progressive members of Congress — believes that if the Dems push too far they’ll get nothing. If Nadler says this, you can take it to the bank.Pelosi is pushing a proposal that she believes has a shot at passage. The proposal may be imperfect, but it’s way better than nothing.
Both of you — go home. Please. Let people who know what’s actually going on walk the halls of power and corruption.(Bolding mine.)
Let the people who know what's going on tell us what to do? Like they told us to go to war in Iraq? And who are these people pray tell Mahablog? The DLC says the same about you.
I thought this Netroots thing was about PEOPLE POWER. Apparently it is just a new version of sit down and shut up. What a terrible thing to write.
And Chris Bowers now tells KagroX to sit down and shut up. That is today's "Netroots." It is not doing the job on Iraq.
| < The Desire to Win v. The Desire for Fairness | Georgia Thompson Decision Released > |
