On Iraq: Something In The Beltway Water

Via Stoller, and Matt, it is good to see you back in first rate form, this story adds to my theory that there is something in the water in DC:

Democrats said this week they would have jeopardized their fall bargaining position if they had insisted on keeping withdrawal timelines in the current supplemental spending bill (HR 2206). Persisting now would likely have resulted in another veto and would have handed Republicans talking points for the Memorial Day recess about which party supports the troops in the field.

Begging the question, if this is true, why did you pick the fight in the House Iraq Supplemental? Did you NOT know this day was coming? Either Dems are stupid now or they were stupid then. They can't have been smart both times.

Look at these quotes:

Democrats were particularly worried about the prospect of Bush declaring at wreath-laying ceremonies that “Democrats have stopped resources for the troops,” said Rep. Artur Davis, D-Ala.

“The problem is that we have to provide money for the troops, and if we don’t, the Democrats will be blamed,” added Rep. James P. Moran, D-Va., a war opponent.

. . . “Obviously it’s a good move,” said Democratic pollster Fred Yang. “It gives President Bush and Republicans one less thing to shoot at” during the upcoming recess week.

Their very serious game is designed to facilitate a collapse of Republican support for the president on Iraq in early fall,” said Thomas Mann, a political science scholar at the Brookings Institution, a liberal think tank. “They remain very much on track to accomplish that objective.”

This is the bizarro world of Washington. What will happen in September? The Godot Republicans will defect? Puhleeeeaze.

The Beltway Gasbags will never learn. If this is the thinking in the Democratic Caucus, we are doomed.

For the record, I do nopt insist on timelines or benchmarks or anything like that. I want a date certain for not funding announced as the Democratic position.

Under Reid-Feingold-Mcgovern, the moment of turth would be March 2008, and it would be without all the bluster, lying, cravenness and delusion that the GOP is going to provide veto-proof majorities.

Wake up Democrats! Stop drinking the Beltway water!

< The Iraq Supplemental: Bringing The GOP Alternative To A Vote | Until September >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I'm so tired (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu May 24, 2007 at 11:15:59 AM EST
    of the dishonesty in the phrase 'money for the troops'. It's money for Bush's war. Say it that way and it suddenly doesn't sound so noble to be giving in to Bush.

    Btw, when did it become 'Reid-Feingold-McGovern'. Recently you referred to it as 'Reid-Feingold-Dodd'. Is Dodd out of the picture? Have you given up on him, BTD? Or is your plan to rotate that third name as a form of encouragement ;-)?

    Today is House day (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 24, 2007 at 11:17:48 AM EST
    So I am bringing in McGovern.

    Dodd is solid on this.


    Dems Refuse To Take Responsibility For Their Votes (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 24, 2007 at 11:33:32 AM EST
    [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/24/washington/24cong.html?ei=5088&en=338405f9efefd65e&ex=1337 659200&adxnnl=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1179986604-OrIhUBsqXWE3kh9liTomBw]

    The leadership has engaged in a bit of legislative legerdemain to ease the pain for Democrats when it comes to the votes on the war money. Their plan calls for two votes. One would be on the war spending and related benchmarks calling for progress in Iraq -- benchmarks that were previously resisted by the White House. That is the proposal many Democrats and Ms. Pelosi intend to vote against. Republican officials said Wednesday they believed their members would back it so the money could reach the Pentagon.

    A second proposal would contain the first minimum-wage increase in more than a decade and $17 billion in new money for agriculture subsidies, child health care, veterans and military health care, and Gulf Coast rebuilding. Democrats intend to line up behind that measure. If passed, the two proposals would automatically be merged and sent to the Senate without a final vote, sparing Democrats a roll call on the war money and Republicans a vote on the spending.

    They don't have the guts to stand up to Bush. They don't even have the guts to stand behind their cowardly votes. They seem to think that hiding the truth and tricking voters is the way forward to victory in 08. I'm completely disgusted with the Dems.

    McGovern spoke a bit ago (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Thu May 24, 2007 at 10:58:34 AM EST
    as might have been expected, he's voting no.

    When are they going to stop with the (none / 0) (#2)
    by Edger on Thu May 24, 2007 at 11:11:58 AM EST
    bullsh*t like:
    "The problem is that we have to provide money for the troops, and if we don't, the Democrats will be blamed," added Rep. James P. Moran, D-Va., a war opponent.
    What's the matter with Moran? He is ignorant. Ignorant either wilfully or not, he is repeating the rethug meme. It it is wilful he's in for a surprise if he thinks people are too stupid to see through it.

    Defunding The Iraq War Is Supporting The Troops:

    The funding is not for the troops.

    When President George Bush claims that the money is for the troops, he is quite simply lying. The funding is not for the troops.

    When Senator Barack Obama or Senator Carl Levin claims to want to pressure Bush to end the war, while at the same time promising to fund the war forever in the name of funding the troops, we are being told something that cannot possibly make any sense. The funding is not for the troops. It is for the war. You can't end the war while providing it. You can't hurt a troop by denying it.

    Alrighty, eighteen benchmarks (none / 0) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 24, 2007 at 11:28:04 AM EST
    Not enforceable though.  So do they plan on using the failure of eighteen benchmarks as their ammunition to insist on redeployment in a September fight?