Compromising Begins on Iraq War Funding
If we didn’t know the Democrats are in the pocket of the Bush-hating, anti-war Left we do now. They’ve backed off on a hard date to being the United States’ retreat from Iraq:
President Bush and congressional leaders began negotiating a second war funding bill yesterday, with Democrats offering the first major concession: an agreement to drop their demand for a timeline to bring troops home from Iraq.
Democrats backed off after the House failed, on a vote of 222 to 203, to override the president’s veto of a $124 billion measure that would have required U.S. forces to begin withdrawing as early as July. But party leaders made it clear that the next bill will have to include language that influences war policy. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) outlined a second measure that would step up Iraqi accountability, “transition” the U.S. military role and show “a reasonable way to end this war.”
Political parties have to manage coalitions. That’s especially so in the U.S. where two parties dominate and strive for 50% + 1 of the vote each election.
The Democrats had to make a bold statement against the war. If they didn’t the netroots would scream bloody murder. Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid can’t handle Kos screaming. So they went as far to the anti-war Left as they could without alienated too many Democrats–especially conservative ones.
“We made our position clear. He made his position clear. Now it is time for us to try to work together,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) said after a White House meeting. “But make no mistake: Democrats are committed to ending this war.”
Pelosi assumes, wrongly, that President Bush and the GOP don’t want the Iraq War to end. Her statement is tinged with insincerity.
Pelosi knows the Democrats have to appear to be able to govern. That’s one reason fickle voters tossed the GOP out of power last fall.
Who will get in the way are two Wisconsin Democrats. Rep. David Obey, chairman of the Appropriations Committee “has repeatedly told Democratic leaders that he would not report a war funding bill out of his committee that he could not support.” Sen. Russ Feingold “said he will vote against the second version unless it includes ‘a binding approach to ending the war.’”
Pelosi and Reid might end up in the uncomfortable position of needing Republican votes to get something passed to demonstrate they can govern in Washington.
Yes, the Democrats wasted time posturing for their supporters, but that’s the nature of party politics. It’s part of the messiness that is our democracy. Pelosi and Reid are the symptoms. Much of the blame rests with the netroots and anti-war activists who reject America’s national security interests in Iraq. To bad for the nation the Democrats have leaders that are as short-sighted.
The Democrats gave in so now the President has too. That’s where Iraqi government benchmarks come in:
Benchmarks have emerged as the most likely foundation for bipartisan consensus and were part of yesterday’s White House meeting, participants said. “I believe the president is open to a discussion on benchmarks,” said Senate Democratic Whip Richard J. Durbin (Ill.), who attended the session. He added that no terms were discussed. “We didn’t go into any kind of detail,” Durbin said.
Just four Republicans supported the first version of the spending bill: Sen. Gordon Smith (Ore.), Sen. Chuck Hagel (Neb.), Rep. Wayne T. Gilchrest (Md.) and Rep. Walter B. Jones (N.C.). But a growing number of GOP lawmakers want language that would hold the administration and the Iraqi government more accountable.
Which means Sen. John Kerry was ahead of his time in 2004. Even a weak, Lefty, flip-flopping, former America basher can be right every once in a while.
It does feel like the Maliki government is plodding instead of leading. Non-military aid reductions for not meeting benchmarks are reasonable without being too threatening to U.S. national security. The Democrats’ initial idea of tying U.S. military presence to the benchmarks would prevent proper action to prevent Iraq from becoming an Islamist terrorist haven like Afghanistan was under the Taliban.
“Democrats Back Down On Iraq Timetable“
Pelosi assumes, wrongly, that President Bush and the GOP don’t want the Iraq War to end.
HA!
Hahahahahahahahaha!!
*pant*pant*Hoooooo man. Wow.
Hahahaha!
OKOKOK i’ll give you this: Bush wants the war to end…after 2009, when he’s out of office, and everyone can yell about how the Dem president “surrendered” and left Iraq to blow itself to bits.
Prediction: watch Bush sign a funding bill with benchmarks, but issue a “signing statement” where he explains how he doesn’t have to enforce the benchmarks because Congress telling him how to handle the war is “unconstitutional” in his mind (which he said in his veto statement).