Some say it goes too far. Others say it doesn't go far enough. I'm in with Atrios on this one:
I really haven't written about the House Iraq Bill for this reason. It isn't perfect, but the choice isn't between nothing and a pony, it's between nothing and this. From what I understand Pelosi has called in every chip she has (and thrown some elbows) for the Bill. Whatever its imperfections, it's better than the realistic alternative. Let's hope it passes.
Thomas Edsall in today's NYT argues that Democrats in Congress risk getting stuck with some of the blame for this disastrous war by trying to bring it to an end. With all due respect to Mr Edsall, a man whose work I most definitely respect, this is, well... nuts.
The Dems have two possible options before them right now: act or acquiesce. That's it. And yes, they could simply sit back and let the president continue to fail, but what would that accomplish? And more importantly, how would that make them less worthy of blame? Does Edsall really believe that Americans swept Dems into the majority last fall just so that they could head of to Washington and complain?
Yes, of course, I understand that his concern is entirely political. His worry is that by participating in the management of the war, the Dems will eventually be tagged with some of the responsibility for its failure. But there's one huge truck-sized hole in his argument, and it is this:
No matter what bill the Democrats pass, the president is going to veto it.
The Dems have proposed their solution. The president is going to reject it. The war will be, as it has always been, entirely his.
UPDATE: I'm not much for the new front page kids over at Kos, but the headmaster himself is on as always:
The message being sent is that Democrats want out, Republicans want more Americans to die in Iraq.That is the clear distinction we need heading into 2008. Voters will then decide which they prefer -- pullout or escalation. And when we win that battle and hold the White House and Congress, this war is history.
So the particular of the bills matter little. Whatever we pass, no matter how weak or strong, will be vetoed and we won't have the votes for an override. The war will go on until we get some sane people in charge of the joint.
So we use this as part of the message war.
If we can't end the war right now (and we can't, thanks to King George), then we lay the foundation that will ultimately accomplish that goal.
UPDATE II: War and Piece:
173,000 US troops in Iraq. Newsweek's Rod Norland in Baghdad: "There will soon be more American soldiers in Iraq than at any point in the war so far. The incoming surge of 21,500 troops is only part of that picture; in addition, the U.S. commander, Gen. David Petraeus, has asked for an additional Army aviation brigade, as well as a couple thousand military police. Other support troops will be coming in to Iraq as well, and they weren't all included in the original 21,500 estimate announced by President Bush last month. When all this is complete, sometime in July, the grand total of U.S. troops in Iraq will be 173,000, U.S. military officials here confirmed on background, apparently because of the sensitivity of these details. And it's likely that U.S. troop numbers will stay at that level for months more, perhaps even into 2008. That's only part of the picture, however; the total number of U.S. troops deployed into the war theater, that is, Iraq and neighboring countries, may be as much as 100,000 more than that."
Add in the more than 100,000 or so military contractors sent to the region by the Pentagon, and you're closing in on a half million Americans serving actively in the region.
The president calls it a "surge." The truth is that it is an escalation. It's as if we're living the Nixon years all over again.
Subscribe to this blog's feed
