Cave-in, or smart politics? (Guardian)

[Eugene]

Source: The Guardian

Michael Tomasky

Cave-in, or smart politics?

They'll be criticised for doing so, but the Democrats were right
to accept an Iraq-funding bill without a timeline for withdrawal.

May 22, 2007 9:00 PM

There will naturally be disappointment and anger among liberals because
Democrats in congress have broken from their vow (lesson 4,863 on the
value of vows in politics) never to agree to an Iraq funding that doesn't
include timelines for troop withdrawal.

They agreed to such a bill earlier today, giving President Bush what he
wanted - a bill that keeps funding for the war going at full levels through
September 30 and includes no talk of withdrawal. Tomorrow's papers will
all characterize this as a major Bush victory and, in the short term, it is.

But here are two reasons why this "victory" won't exactly ring down
though the ages.

First, this development is completely unsurprising, since everyone has
known for some time that there was nothing else the Democrats could do.
Back in January, it was clear that, whatever the Democrats decided to
do with their new congressional majorities, there was one thing they
could not accomplish: stop funding for troops already in the field.

Iraq is Bush's war and Bush's failure. ...

-snip-

Read more: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/michael_tomasky/2007/05/cave_in_or_smart_politics.html

[Totally Committed]

1. Absolute crap and utter bullsh*t.

But, that only my opinion.

TC

[Phredicles]

2. It's not smart because they talked big and failed to follow through;

The electorate tends to remember when politicians fail spectacularly in keeping promises - recall George the Elder's "Read My Lips". If they knew they'd have no choice why'd they build this up as they did? Now they look both craven and stupid.

[MrPrax]

3. What is it with withdrawal?

The various coalition cabals really hate 'deadlines' regarding this war. In Canada, there actually WAS a withdrawal date and as a result of 'caving in', the deadline was removed.

There are always editorials like this afterwards that completely ignore public opinion as a reference and simply spew 'strategy' and 'process' as if what political parties do, have no consequences.

Very conservative POV from the Guardian. Can't win, don't fight.

These people are quite obsessed with avoiding democratic certification for what they do...

[Demeter]

4. There's a LOT That Democratic Legislators COULD Do

1) Do nothing--they passed a bill, Bush vetoed it, end of game. Also end of war.

2) Pass identical bill, see what the Idiot-in-Chief does with it. A position of strength, a keeping of the promises, a fulfillment of the mandate.

3) Pass a bill without the timetable, but with such a punitively heavy cost in other things W doesn't like, that he vetoes it again. This is called playing with one's food. Win-win. If we got universal health care and a $15/hour minimum wage, he could keep his f*** war for the next month, and we could go right into impeachment.

4) Impeach. Do not pass GO, etc. This would be the surgical strike. It would also be very effective.

But NO, the DLC felt compelled (don't ask by what or by whom, because neither reason, politics, practicality, nor voter representation played a part in this decision) to cave in. And make no mistake, it was craven caving!

The byzantine calculations that went into this decision by the so-called Leadership of the Democratic Party (but I'll miss the Memorial Day picnic!) don't merit consideration. This is people's lives they are giving away for nothing--this is a whole nation and the very concept of democracy that they just destroyed.

[Rydz777]

5. Always nice to hear from our British friends, but we should file

this analysis along with the pile of Bush's analyses of how well the war is going.