On October 5, 2006, Senator Warner returned from a trip to Iraq saying:
[Warner] said the military had done what it could and that Congress must make some "bold decisions" if, after three months, progress is not made by the Iraqis to calm ethnic violence and hasten reconstruction.
. . . Warner said he sees the next 60 to 90 days as most critical juncture yet in the war because Prime Minister Nouri al-Malaki is growing into the job and says he is committed to disarming militias. . . . Warner said he was told on his latest trip that, at the earliest, U.S. and Iraqi forces may have an agreement at the end of the year outlining when and how responsibility could begin to be transferred to the Iraqis.
240 days later, and Congress has made no bold decisions; no agreements on an Iraqi takeover of security have even been broached. Indeed, what we saw instead was a "surge" of American troops into Iraq. What did Senator Warner say about that? Why he torpedoed the NON-binding resolution condemning the Surge.
Recently, Senator Warner torpedoed the NON-binding timelines in the Iraq Supplemental; his NON-binding benchmarks proposal became the final version of the bill.
What Broder and Rich propose is what I have termed the Waiting for the Godot Republicans strategy. Mr. Rich knows the reference:
Democrats and anti-war groups that are waiting for Republicans to move to end the Debacle now sound like this:
Vladimir: Well? Shall we go?
Estragon: Yes, let's go.
They do not move.
One final point. Mr. Rich was kind enough to link to my post, but I think he misstates my views, and more importantly, the views on ending the war of Senators Reid, Feingold, Dodd, Rep. McGovern and all the other supporters of this approach when he writes:
On the Democratic side, the left is furious at the new Congress’s failure to instantly fulfill its November mandate to end the war in Iraq. . . . It’s not exactly clear how a legislative Groundhog Day could accomplish this feat when the president’s obstinacy knows no bounds and the Democrats’ lack of a veto-proof Congressional majority poses no threat to his truculence.
. . . What the angriest proselytizers on the left and right have in common is a conviction that their political parties will commit hara-kiri if they don’t adhere to their bases’ strict ideological orders. “If Democrats do not stick to their guns on Iraq,” a blogger at TalkLeft.com warns, there will be “serious political consequences in 2008.” In an echo of his ideological opposite, Mr. Limbaugh labels the immigration bill the “Comprehensive Destroy the Republican Party Act.”
First, Reid-Feingold is not "instant withdrawal." The Reid-Feingold framework is not instant withdrawal. From my post:
This is a preemptive post, because I am positive that the naysayer will trot out the same critiques about the NOT funding the Debacle approach that was used when Feingold first proposed his Not Funding plan in January. To wit, we don't have the votes, McConnell will filibuster, Bush will veto. My response remains:
I ask for three things: First, announce NOW that the Democratic Congress will NOT fund the Iraq Debacle after a date certain. You pick the date. Whatever works politically. If October 2007 is the date Dems can agree to, then let it be then. If March 2008, then let that be the date; Second, spend the year reminding the President and the American People every day that Democrats will not fund the war past the date certain; Third, do NOT fund the Iraq Debacle PAST the date certain.
Some argue we will never have the votes for this. That McConnell will filibuster, that Bush will veto. To them I say I KNOW. But filbustering and vetoing does not fund the Iraq Debacle. Let me repeat, to end the war in Iraq, the Democratic Congress does not have to pass a single bill; they need only NOT pass bills that fund the Iraq Debacle.
But but but, defund the whole government? Defund the whole military? What if Bush does not pull out the troops? First, no, not defund the government, defund the Iraq Debacle. If the Republicans choose to shut down government in order to force the continuation of the Iraq Debacle, do not give in. Fight the political fight. We'll win. Second, defund the military? See answer to number one. Third, well, if you tell the American People what is coming for a year, and that Bush is on notice, that it will be Bush abandoning the troops in Iraq, we can win that political battle too.
This approach is perfectly consistent with the so called "short leash" plan, where the Debacle will be funded in 3 month intervals. But it is only consistent if BOTH are done. The intention to NOT fund the war after March 31, 2008 must be made the Dem position now.
The short leash must be pulled to a stop on March 31, 2008.
Say it now so you can end it then. If you do not say it now, then you can't end it on March 31, 2008.
Second, I can't say Rush Limbaugh is right in his characterization of Bush's immigration initiative, but it seems clear that the Republican Party is in deep turmoil over it. Similarly, the Democratic Party is in some disarray on Iraq. And yes, I do predict that the Democratic Party will suffer in 2008 if it is not viewed as having made a principled stand against the war. Certainly I could be wrong, but I think the view I espouse is not an angry one. It is a considered one.
But, to be frank, ending the Debacle is more important to me than the Democrats' fortunes in 2008. I won't be pulling my punches on the issue with the 2008 Dem fortunes in mind. Does that make me an "angry prostyletizer?" Well then, so be it.
