And the point of my approach has always been that the votes are not there for a positive action on ending the war. The action must be negative. Instead of convoluting this simple approach with benchmarks and other provisions susceptible to challenges of micromanagement and uncontitutionality, stick to the approach EVERYONE agrees is legal and principled - do not fund the war.
And votes are not needed for this approach. Fortitude from the House leadership is what is needed. Present a clean funding bill to the date certain. No distractions with benchmarks and Presidential certification. JUST a DATE CERTAIN. And then the LEADERSHIP, preferably in the House, states bluntly that no more monies will be provided. The Dem LEADERSHIP will not put forward legislation funding past the date certain. There is nothing objectionable in the bill itself, so no basis for attacking it EXCEPT because it sets and end date to the US military combat presence in the Iraqi civil war.
And then a couragous leadership does what is necessary to hold the line. IF the Blue Dogs bolt, then THEY own the war, but mainline Dems do not. I think the Blue Dogs would not bolt when the time comes - say March 31, 2008. A year from now there will be MORE support for leaving Iraq, not less. A better chance to end the war and play smart politics.
What has transpired is an unmitigated disaster, and in the Sirota post I link to he is forced to damp down expectations after overselling the House bill:
I want to reiterate one point when everyone watches the Senate debate over Iraq: The U.S. Congress at this moment in time has a pro-war majority. I know people don't like to hear that. But it's simple math. In the House, the entire Republican Conference is pro-war, and about 20-30 Democrats are pro-war. . . . In the Senate, it's the same thing: The entire Republican Conference is pro-war, as is Joe Lieberman, giving them 50 pro-war votes. . . . We certainly need to change that, whether through pressure right now on the pro-war members and/or through the 2008 election. However, at this moment, the Congress's pro-war majority is an unfortunate fact of political life - it's not a fantasy.
Therefore, getting any binding legislation to end the war out of a majority pro-war legislature is akin to a Houdini-esque magic trick - and if we can do it, it's a major accomplishment, even if we have to swallow some things we hate, and even if what ultimately comes out isn't 100 percent perfect. . . .
David is telling you already, the strategy he endorses will NOT work. And then he descends into red herring namecalling:
For the purists out there, just remember: purity is not a legislative strategy, and having a legislative strategy isn't "selling out" purity, either.
A hopeless approach is not a legislative strategy either David. PLEASE STOP WITH THE PURITY NONSENSE! Most of us oppose your strategy because we think it is a bad one, harmful to the cause and harmful politically. Stop flattering yourself as the pragmatic ones. We think you are utterly UNpragmatic. Honest to goodness, we think your strategy really really not smart. We could be wrong, but please, argue the merits. Maybe we are the dumb ones. But the little purity namecalling is really really annoying. Just stop it.
David says:
Getting a legislative body with a majority against our antiwar position to do something that supports our antiwar position is a huge challenge that requires more than a little strategy. If we are successful, it would be a huge step forward.
Sure David. But your strategy has ZERO chance of success, policywise or politically, imo. THAT is why we object to it. Not because of purity. I think the strategy I outline has the best chance of working, precisely because it is PRAGMATIC. It understands the impossibility of getting the necessary votes to execute YOUR strategy.
Markos' take is much superior to yours. He does not pretend possibility of success. He argues from the perspective of trying to win the votes necessary in the 2008 election. At least his approach is not a pipe dream. It could work. I think it is a bad strategy, but not lacking in pragmatism, politically savvy and a measure of intelligence.
It is an argument that deserves respect. Your strategy seems, at best unrealistic, at worst, harmful. But mine is an opinion, I could be wrong. But my opinion does NOT spring from "purity."
