Congressional Dems Willing To "Compromise" On Iraq

Comments (36)

Daniel wrote on September 6, 2007 11:15 AM:

Right now, Republicans are in the awkward situation of rooting for three of their members to resign: Doolittle, Stevens and Craig. Says a lot about the state of the party that supposedly wants to protect America from evil.

More at Campaign Diaries

CT Voter wrote on September 6, 2007 11:18 AM:

country is hypnotized next week by General Petraeus

Next week? The country has already been hypnotized into believing the surge is working...or at least, Katie Couric has.

You gotta love this "compromise" stuff. The Democrats will compromise so that Republicans get what Republicans want. Wow. Where have we heard that before? It's like the last six years will never, ever go away, and the election last fall didn't really happen.

Greg wrote on September 6, 2007 11:27 AM:

agreed -- it's truly eerie. I can't account for it

hadenough wrote on September 6, 2007 11:37 AM:

The article is bunk. Levin and Reed did not have withdrawal deadlines. It did have a withdrawal start date:

http://bobgeiger.blogspot.com/2007/07/text-of-reed-levin-amendment.html

At the time plenty of liberals were upset with Levin and Reed because the amendment wasn’t tough enough. So the one dem quoted in the article did NOT change his position. This article is along the same lines as the previous 'dems say surge is working' series. See here for example:

"False New Media Meme Claims That War Critics Across The Board See Progress In Iraq
August 9, 2007
"
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/08/associated_pres_6.php

We do not have a free press. Period.

P J Evans wrote on September 6, 2007 11:44 AM:

There must ba a lot of Dems in Congress who are planning to start new careers instead of running for re-election.

Sagacity wrote on September 6, 2007 12:07 PM:

Does the Democratic Party have a death wish? These guys are really out of touch with the people!

DancingBear wrote on September 6, 2007 1:16 PM:

Why do Dems "need" 60 votes? I never understood this aspect of this issue. Seems to me Reid should be approaching this first from the view that it's the administration that needs the votes to keep funding going. They should have continued to push the proposal that had deadlines that were fully waivable by the President. Let the White House oppose that and let the Senate Republicans filibuster that, and get the message out that "Democrats are trying to get a funding bill through that puts the power into the President's hands to decide when withdrawal occurs, but the Republicans care more about winning rhetorical points than funding our troops."

Anon wrote on September 6, 2007 1:19 PM:

Get something passed, even without a date -- put the Senate on record as opposed to the war -- and then start tightening the screws. It's a crappy strategy, but with the 60 vote problem it may be the only strategy.

It would also be interesting to see how many Republicans would vote against the war if given a toothless opportunity -- pushing the GOP presidential candidates even farther out of the mainstream.

oleeb wrote on September 6, 2007 1:19 PM:

Yes, Sagacity, they apparently do have a death wish. It really is quite remarkable what a pack of poltroons we have masquerading as representatives of the people of the United States isn't it?

I think Reid must be some kind of reincarnation of Gen. George McClellan who is, of course, remembered mostly for being the Union General more interesting primping and preening than in fighting the rebels. Over and over and over again did McClellan refuse to engage the enemy in any meaningful way. Lincoln eventually fired him and put a real General in charge so the overwhelming might of the Union could be put into play and crush the rebellion.

Now we have Reid who, if given the slightest opportunity, will run from a fight with the enemy even if it means more death and destruction for our troops and the Iraqi people in the long run. He much prefers hiding under his desk and waiting for the mean, nasty Republicans to agree to something rather than using his considerable power to achieve a legislative victory. Why does he do this? Political cowardice. Lack of any convictions at all. Simple incompetence. All these, I believe are true and likely shared character traits with McClellan. And like McClellan, I think someone needs to fire Reid and replace him with a leader who has the guts and the gumption to fight and win to stop the immoral war our forces are being forced to fight.

Makes one embarassed to be a Democrat.

oleeb wrote on September 6, 2007 1:25 PM:

And one other point I forgot to mention:

What is the point of non-binding goals other than to allow the most dishonest and dangerous administration in US History the opportunity to tell the Congress to go fuck itself next spring and continue with business as usual? Why even go through the motions when everyone with half a lick of sense understands that "nonbinding" means the legislation is nothing but a toothless, meaningless symbol?

Doofus wrote on September 6, 2007 1:26 PM:

More and more, ane especially on the war, the Democrats are becoming Joe Lieberman's party. We are screwed.

Captain Nemo wrote on September 6, 2007 1:30 PM:

Senator Reid should step down as Senate Majority Leader immediately; Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut should be in that position.

SeeDee wrote on September 6, 2007 1:59 PM:

So...with the MSM masquerading as 'liberal leaning', with a large part of campaign financing controlled by donors who are, at least, tolerant of the war in Iraq, with incompetent, duplicitous majority leadership in Congress...what is the solution?

What needs to be done to make the opinions of last fall's voters be recognized and accepted and, most importantly, acted favorably upon?

I find it disgusting that CBS' Couric, just recently dispatched to Iraq to be conducted through interviews (thinly veiled propaganda for the "success" of the 'surge') which try to reverse the public's inherent knowledge that the whole affair is a debacle, is now to be followed by a dispatch of NBC's Matt Lauer to the scene for the same purposes.

Isn't some kind of mad conspiracy afoot here?

Reid, Levin, (and, really Hillary) and other wafflers should be expelled from the Democratic party...to join Lieberman and his ilk as 'Independents'.

tbhull wrote on September 6, 2007 2:39 PM:

One party two faces. Our military currently controls our government.

phil james wrote on September 6, 2007 2:50 PM:

This is pure unadulterated political calculus. Reid and Co. believe they are in a better position going into the Nov 2008 elections with the albatross of Iraq still firmly around Bush's neck. If they somehow force a withdrawal now, they will be blamed as the Defeatocrats who lost the war when Bush just needed a little more time to achieve "Victory". They will be blamed for everything bad that happens in Iraq as we withdraw troops...even though those things are going to happen regardless whenever we pull out, if we ever do. And this last point is really the crux of the issue, because BushCO never intended to get out under any circumstance, stable government or not. We are there to occupy the Middle East and protect our oil interests in perpetuity. Period.

DancingBear wrote on September 6, 2007 3:05 PM:

phil james, hence my comment that they should go with the deadlines waivable by the President. There's no sign that they'd really try to defund the war to force withdrawal, so at least do something that clearly places the responsibility for the decisions on W.

eyeball wrote on September 6, 2007 3:18 PM:

For pete's sake, the country is NOT hypnotized and doesn't have to be. stop playing into their hands with that silly talk. the public wants honest information. Just keep giving it to them - real data on deaths, attacks, political progress, police recruits, battle-ready iraq divisions. people are smart.

also, there's a great dipsy-do here -- if the surge is "working" so well .... then clearly we can go now.

Legalize wrote on September 6, 2007 3:25 PM:

Times like these make me proud to have never called my self a "Democrat." Times like these also make it more likely that I never will. I'm beginning to think that the Dems are just the *good cop* to the GOP's *bad cop* in this whole nightmare. We are literally getting smacked around by the GOP while the Dems get us a cup of coffee and a candy bar.

vlb wrote on September 6, 2007 3:38 PM:

Phil,

I concur.

You would think, however, that the even the congressional Democrats would just for once remember how horrendous the consequences are when they decide to make decisions based on how they figure "political calculus". Their idiotic take on political calculus is what landed us in this war to begin with. They could have prevented all this but were such cowards and pussies they didn't stand up and say no before Bush got the opportunity to start killing and destroying--a role he and his main man Cheney love more than anything else.

Official A wrote on September 6, 2007 6:02 PM:

Come to DC on Sept. 15 and show your disgust with the war criminals running (and ruining) our country AND their Democratic enablers.

http://impeachbush.org

phil james wrote on September 6, 2007 6:45 PM:

"Their idiotic take on political calculus is what landed us in this war to begin with."

Well the political landscape then was much different than it is now. It made much more sense to back Bush then with no firm idea of how badly he and his gang might botch the whole thing. It was a crapshoot whether you really believed all the hype about WMD or not. And the Adminsitration's thugs had made it very clear who they were going to call a traitor. The landscape now is far more in the Dems favor. Bush's poll numbers are extremely low, the general public wants out, the 2006 election was clearly a repudiation of all things Bushian. But still the Dems act in fear. Why? I guess because they can't ever seem to figure out that you don't bring a knife to a gunfight. Thugs hit you, you hit back harder. Thugs hit you harder still, you hit back even harder. This is the only game the thugs will ever play. This is a game the Dems have no clue how to play.

Gandhi wrote on September 6, 2007 7:11 PM:

It looks like the DNC does not deserve the support of all the Independents.

If they give in again to the neocons I will stop voting for Democrats unless they have a proven anti-war record.

Rahm Emmanuel and his mentor (or should it be mentrice?) need to be ousted. We don't need dinos.

Ferruge wrote on September 6, 2007 7:59 PM:

after the country is hypnotized next week by General Petraeus

That's bullshit. The "country" is not and won't be hypnotized by General Betrayus, and polls clearly have shown that over the past several months. The people who *are* hypnotized are in the media, and the Democratic leadership, who apparently continue to do the bidding of the Republican Party all the while thinking that they are 'bucking the system'.

Jinchi wrote on September 6, 2007 8:47 PM:

Democratic leaders are now willing to reach a compromise?

I thought the complete capitulation to George Bush's demands on the original Iraq Supplemental was a pretty big concession. What more could they possibly give up?

VLB wrote on September 6, 2007 9:25 PM:

Okay Phil, but it is simply immoral in my opinion to try and be calculating on these kinds of issues since the actual lives of real human beings are at stake. Had the Democrats NOT been calculating in the run up to the war we would never have entered it which is a damn site better than what has occured no matter how many times the thugs scream "traitor!" I wholeheartedly agree with your fight analogy except that with this group of limp wristed wonders it really makes no difference whether they come to the fight with a gun or not since they always capitulate and give in prior to the start of the fight because somebody might call them names! Very frustrating that the only Democrats that don't see how idiotic the congressional Dems are is the Congressional Dems themselves. It's embarassing.

stephen wrote on September 6, 2007 11:26 PM:

Makin deals with the Devil....They are such fools and they have not learned their lesson so no they are complicit in every death that occurs and thats what happens when yo make deals with the Devil. FUCK EM ALL the Cowards

Stephen wrote on September 6, 2007 11:29 PM:

Cowards all of em. They have no courage to do the right thing. I'm voting for Ron Paul!

Joe wrote on September 6, 2007 11:52 PM:

I was among those who didn't trust Bush and co. in the lead up to the war, including when many showed that war was not compelled and in fact was a somewhat iffy proposition. Since war should only be gone into when it is compelled, this made it pretty easy for me, honestly. I still think that.

As to Dem leadership never really for firm withdrawal date etc., the point is that the Dems still have let the other side spin the message. Who's to blame for this? The MSM only in part.

Joe wrote on September 6, 2007 11:54 PM:

Ron Paul? Who didn't think it necessary to vote when the FISA amendment bill came up and who caucuses with the Republicans? Who wants to make abortion a political question? Whose libertarian beliefs includes a number of things that are anti-progressive?

Well, hey, he's against the war, right? So is Dennis Kucinch. Vote for him.

Alice wrote on September 7, 2007 12:08 AM:

--I thought the Democrats promised to end the war, said Alice.
--Indeed, Indeed they did, said the Mad Hatter.
--Then why has Harry agreed to fund the war with no conditions? asked Alice.
-- Because he needs 60 votes to put in a requirement to withdraw, and there are not that many Democrats in the Senate, said the Mad Hatter.
-- Couldn't he just refuse to do anything? asked Alice.
--Why of course he could, said the Mad Hatter.
--Then why does he agree to fund the war without limitation? asked Alice.
--Silly girl, said the Mad Hatter. Because if he didn't, the Republicans would accuse the Democrats of ending to the war.

Matt in Costa Rica wrote on September 7, 2007 1:25 AM:

I am an Obama supporter, but that will change real fast if I don't see some leadership from him on this issue. I can understand why Clinton won't fight on this issue, but Obama's silence mystifies me. If he were to do a one-man filibuster just watch his poll numbers rocket up! Come on Obama do what most Americans are fucking PLEADING our leaders to do: Lead Goddammit!

gyc wrote on September 7, 2007 3:33 AM:

It should be obvious by now that our Dem leaders DO NOT WANT to leave Iraq. I don't know which is more annoying: the Dem voters who still believe their representatives listen to them and will work to end the war OR the Dem leadership who are purposely dragging their feet & stalling in order to keep this war going. Don't for a minute think that the '08 elections will change anything. Once the Dems gain the presidency, the war will continue. It's going to take a revolution...

bjobotts wrote on September 7, 2007 3:58 AM:

Dems are playing victims..."We can't get enough votes to withdraw our forces from Iraq..60 votes...WAAH"...
When it should be seen that senate republicans cannot get enough votes to continue funding the occupation...100 votes.

The Dems have what Bush wants...not the other way around. They don't have to give him the funding unless he agrees to withdraw the troops...immediately!.

The Dems claim "this is Bush's war" but they won't make him deal with ending it. They are being set up for a 2012 loss of the WH as republicans are sure to blame them for any and all withdrawal problems. Make Bush deal with ending this fiasco he has created.

It's the Republicans who can't get enough votes to continue funding the occupation and because it has failed miserably by any standard, why should they want to continue funding it? It's political suicide...but not when the Dems take the pressure off by not taking a stand. People will remember in 2012 how weak the Dems are now

Reid and Pelosi claim that ending the "war"-occupation in Iraq is the most important issue and yet they are unwilling to do what is necessary to end it..stop the funding or impeach Cheney and Bush. No matter what, Bush will not leave Iraq until he is "forced" to leave, yet here is Reid and Pelosi willing to wait until enough Republicans "see the light" or until we get a democratic president because after all ...they just can't get 60 votes. They don't need 60 votes, Republicans need 100 votes to continue the "war", occupation. The dems would be better off if they just shut-up and did nothing rather than vote with the republicans.

Would somebody please make Reid aware of this...please?

guachi wrote on September 7, 2007 8:17 AM:

Feckless.

I gave money to the various Democratic committees last cycle. They are doing a very good job of keeping my money in my wallet this time. I'd sooner take a pile of one dollar bills and light them on fire than donate.

DrBB wrote on September 7, 2007 8:19 AM:

It's a mistake to regard the tradmedia, particularly the old Big Three networks, as either liberal or conservative. Like most institutions their behavior is governed by a set of unwritten rules that always trump formal statements of purpose, guidelines for behavior etc.

The big unwritten imperative is to be the Guardians of Propriety. Tom Wolfe parodied this role incisively in The Right Stuff, where he referred to the News Beast as "The Victorian Gent." None of the people involved in the news business actually believe in these proprieties--in fact it's safe to say almost no one in the public does either--but the very hypocrisy makes them all the more rigorous in enforcing the unwritten rules lest they be exposed for the cynics they are.

This system is one the GOP has learned to take advantage of ruthlessly. In the case of "Operation Orwellian Anchors To Iraq!", the pertinent piety is something along the lines of, "Our military are the good guys, doing the right thing, and they never lie." That is the presumptive Truth, and it would take vast forces and energies to move the coverage off that dime.

As long as Betrayus is talking, they will transcribe what he says and weight it and frame it as The Truth, while doing their part for Journamalism by duly noting that there are scurrillous, unnamed and unquoted "critics" who disagree.

The tedious predictability of it all is hellish, isn't it. My only comfort is that what can't go on won't go on. We'll be out of Iraq in a couple of Friedmans. Just in time for the Dems to make it their war and take the full blame for the "failure" I'm sure.

DrBB wrote on September 7, 2007 8:28 AM:

Seems to me there are many ways the Dems could genuinely put the GOP over a barrel if they wanted to. Several proposed here. My favorite: why not propose a tax to pay for the war? Bush wants another $50 billion? Fine. How would he like to pay? Gas tax? Luxury tax? If this thing is going to go on another 10 years, as Patreus and others in officialdom have said, isn't it about time we established a revenue stream to pay for it instead of putting it all on Chinese plastic?

I guarantee Bush would balk. But how can he refuse to find a way to responsibly pay for this thing if it's going to go on indefinitely?

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)