The House Iraq Supplemental Funding Bill: Differences
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.
< Rethinking National Security Letters | Move On's Disingenuousness > |