When it comes to the High Broderism, nobody gets the job done like the man himself. Today's column takes the view that even though Democrats are right about Iraq and Bush is wrong, in light of Bush's stubborn intransigence, the Democrats should basically give in to Bush's demands, in exchange for which Bush will continue to implement Bush's war policy absent formal fetters but will suddenly start doing so in the manner of a mature, serious person rather than, say, George W. Bush. That the premise of the compromise was Bush's supreme stubborness and that this makes a sudden conversion to reasonableness unlikely seems lost on Broder.
« Why Not Both? | Main | The Ross Plan »
Accept no Substitutes
10 Apr 2007 07:15 am
Comments (35)
Overlooked howler:
In 2004, a year and a half after President Bush began the war of choice to change the regime running Iraq, his policy was challenged directly by John Kerry . . .
In 2004 Kerry completely supported Bush's Iraq policy, while claiming he would do a better job of implementing it.
I read today's Broder earlier this morning and shook my head -- even for Broder, the inanity here is profound. I know high school students in Brooklyn whose grasps of the difficult and complex situation in Iraq are more sophisticated than his. Forget the pro-Bush spin: Broder's summary of the basic facts-on-the-ground is disturbingly simple-minded.
What a hack.
In 2004 Kerry completely supported Bush's Iraq policy, while claiming he would do a better job of implementing it.
To be fair, I'm still not sure where Kerry stood on the war.
Cripes. Direct quote-- '... [Bush] should say he is willing to enforce on our Iraqi allies'... etc. Not even 'Bush should enforce' or (heaven forfend!) 'Bush must enforce'.
My favorite:
Congress has the power of the purse and, in theory, could cut off funding for the troops he has deployed. But few Democrats are prepared for that drastic a step. Instead, they would like to redefine the mission to one of support and training for the Iraqi forces . . .
Redifine the mission from what? What is the mission currently? Broder never tells us. My guess is that the mission is "victory," whatever the hell that means.
To be fair, I'm still not sure where Kerry stood on the war.
Agreed.
If the Democrats are not willing to suspend funding, per Harry Reid, what options are open to them?
As for Bush, why on earth would he agree to this deal, and if he did, why would anyone expect him to honor it?
Frankly, the Democrats won't take a stand because they fear looking bad. Problem is, all they have as a tool per the Constitution is a blunt instrument. If they won't use it, this war is going to be fought until January 19, 2009.
The Democrats are too concerned they will be blamed if we withdraw from Iraq if they can't, somehow, make Bush pull the trigger. The American people, other than the 30% of the people "you can fool all of the time", accept that Bush is both foolish and stubborn. If the Democrats actually take a stand and refuse to fund the Iraq War, they will win the argument. Any other type of confrontation, they will lose.
I find Broder's column less objectionable than y'all. But that's because I think Broder has evaluated the willingness of the Congressional Democrats to take a stand on defunding the troops, and found it lacking.
how soon they forget this last election..
if withdrawl of troops doesn't begin before the 08 election democrats will lose across the board, including the whitehouse.
"if withdrawl of troops doesn't begin before the 08 election democrats will lose across the board"
What the heck are you talking about? If, given the voters' opposition to the war, the Democrats don't succeed in forcing Bush to withdraw troops, the electorate will punish them by voting for Bush's party?
I hadn't known that drug use was so prevalent among the elctorate . . .
Re "To be fair, I'm still not sure where Kerry stood on the war. "
-------
I know -- that's why I collapsed from laughter when Broder stated that Bush was "challenged directly" by John Kerry.
Kerry can't tell you what time it is without an incoherent jumble of qualifiers, baffling explanations, and excuses.
The voters wanted to dump Bush back in 2004, but they (rightfully) couldn't see how the USA could fight a war -- or even manage a competent withdrawal/retreat -- if the Commander-in-Chief was someone whose orders would leave the Generals scratching their heads in utter bewilderment and muttering "What the fuck did he mean?"
Politically, the Dems are playing this exactly right. They are making a HUGE stink about setting deadlines, getting the troops out, not going along w/Bush . . . while at the same time signalling that OF COURSE we would never cut off funding for "the troops."
(You can see what they're doing by the fact they keep saying how they'll never cut off funding for "the troops." If they had the slightest inclination to actually defund this debacle, they'd be talking about cutting off funding for "the war.")
No matter what happens -- we pull out, we go forward, we do the same stupid shit all over again -- Iraq is only going to get worse, and the Dems know it. So, next year -- election year -- all of their ads will say "We tried to end this, but Bush and the Republicans insisted that it go forward, and we weren't about to play chicken with the lives of our brave men and women in uniform. Bush and the Republicans are the only ones to blame for America's national humiliation."
In this, the Dems are just as cynical as John McCain, only smarter. McCain figured he could call for something that would never happen (20,000 more troops) and then run in 2008 saying "if only they had listened to me." McCain never figured Bush'd be stupid enough to take McCain's advice (further evidence McCain is an idiot: he actually thought there was an end to the stupid shit Bush is capable of doing).
The Dems are doing the same thing, except they're doing it by calling the President a wuss and the President only knows one way to react: throw a temper tantrum and insist on getting his way.
Believe me, in their most secret of hearts, the Dems are only too glad to give it to him.
Kerry said it was the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time. Then he said he would have voted for it knowing what he knew now. So, his stance was clear.
What annoys me is this:
the crucial political leverage belongs to the President
The reason Bush has "political leverage" is that he's proven himself constantly unwilling to do those things he "should," yet the wise columnists of the world still insist that the problem is that the people whose side logic is on are the ones who need to compromise.
Broder isn't describing Bush's political leverage; he's arguing it into existence.
If, say, Bush had an explicitly-stated policy of eating kittens alive, Broder would be arguing that since he has the kittens, the Democrats are overstepping their bounds by asking him to stop eating kittens. Instead, they should politely request that Bush euthanize the kittens before eating them, and wait until 2009 to see if he'll actually listen.
God it is so easy to play games with our soldiers lives. Everyone and anyone who support this terrible war should be shipped out to Iraq immediately, if not sooner. The young, the old, and all the chickens.
Ah ha, I thought so.
There was a candidate in 2004 who forcefully and unequivocally stood against the war. His name was Howard Dean, not John Kerry. The "serious people" decried Dean as "shrill" and did their best to derail his campaign before it got started. So instead we go John "I voted for it before I voted against it" Kerry.
>In 2004 Kerry completely supported Bush's Iraq policy, while claiming he would do a better job of implementing it.
Absolute rubbish, and the sort of incapacity to make basic distinctions that is the curse of some elements of the Left.
C'mon now - you know that Bush was elected in 2004 by a clear margin. Not a wide margin, nor a landslide, but a clear margin of 2.4%. That Cheney/Bush received just 50.7% of all votes cast demonstrates just clear the margin was.
Oh, the voters may take revenge on the Democrats for stopping the war, provided they first stop the war.
Absolute rubbish, and the sort of incapacity to make basic distinctions that is the curse of some elements of the Left.
I'm not an element of the Left. I'm a libertarian.
Appalled Moderate wrote, Problem is, all they have as a tool per the Constitution is a blunt instrument...
Not true. They can fine-tune the appropriation for the war as much as they want. The Executive isn't permitted to move funds around at his discretion.
Furthermore, Congress has powers well beyond that of control of the purse: declaring war, raising and supporting armies, and "mak[ing] rules concerning captures on land and water."
Not that I disagree with your general sentiments. Though I think The American people, other than the 30% of the people "you can fool all of the time", accept that Bush is both foolish and stubborn. If the Democrats actually take a stand and refuse to fund the Iraq War, they will win the argument. is far too optimistic. Not to mention what would happen (in terms of domestic propaganda here in the US) when blood starts flowing more quickly if we were to pull out completely.(*) Christ, we're still hearing stab-in-the-back stories about Vietnam. And what about all those POW/MIA flags flying around the nation at various state and local facilities?
(* Doesn't mean I think pulling out is worse, even in terms of Iraqi blood: I think the violence will increase, but the total loss of life over the long run will be less.)
I'm not an element of the Left. I'm a libertarian.
Oh. I'm not sure this is an effective rebuttal to tdraicer's overall point that some people are just incapable of making basic distinctions. If anything, your politicial party pretty much defines the obtuseness that causes this phenomenon.
And what does this mean:
how soon they forget this last election..
if withdrawl of troops doesn't begin before the 08 election democrats will lose across the board, including the whitehouse.
The electorate will turn on the Democrats who are actively and legislatively opposing the war (if too carefully) and turn to the Republicans who unapologetically support it? That's strange.
Anyway, you have to be kidding yourself if you think the Democrats will be rewarded for their opposition to this war in the long run. Sure, everyone's against this horror show now -- just as they were, sensibly, against Vietnam. But then the GOP has spent almost 40 years deluding the public into blaming the Democrats for 'losing' Vietnam.
From Civil Rights to War, when the Democrats do the right thing they pay a political price. It's worth it morally, of course, but to ignore this fact and screaming about their timidity is the height of shortsightedness.
How can a war policy be the product of compromise? Broder disingenuously misses the point.
The idea that Bush will compromise about anything demonstrates just how senile and full of shit the Dean is. Even if Bush "compromised" he'd just issue a signing statement and keep doing what he wanted to. We should all take up a collection and send Broder some of those NASA diapers.
Actually cosmosis,
As difficult as this may seem -- I'd argue what's most amazing is that this isn't a result of senility. This has been Broder's calling card for more than 35 years. Read Crouse's Boys on the Bus again. Broder comes across exactly the same way back then -- milquetoast, middle ground, the high priest of bipartisanism. It's the same MO. He was as clueless and smug then as he is now.
Everyone should read that book. Almost nothing has changed much. It's just mutated into something even worse.
I suspect the Democratic strategy is to let Iraq continue to spiral into a quagmire until it gets to the point where no Republican presidential candidate will support its continuation. Force Guiliani or Romney or whoever wins the GOP nomination to either (a) defend the war and promise to keep fighting it or (b) repudiate the war and say that they too will pull out if they become president. Given the current trajectory, I doubt any of them will choose (a). Rather, they will head to the center after the primary and call for a pullout in some fashion. In other words, I expect there to be a consensus between the two American political parties by 2008: when the Bush Administration leaves, the war will end.
Congressional Dems won't cut off funding or force a pullout until Bush's power is at its lowest ebb, probably somewhere around September '08. At that point, GW will be an extreme lame duck - again - with the strong possibility that both the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates will be calling for an end to the war. Congressional Republican will be running from the war at that point too, realizing that the end of the Bush presidency will spell the end of the war. The ability of Karl Rove to demonize and brand Democrats for "losing the war" will likewise be at its lowest ebb.
Remember: the American people rewarded Democrats in the immediate aftermath of the Vietnam pullout with congressional seats and the White House (in '76). Watergate has something to do with this, obviously, but it's not like Dems were penalized for the act of cutting off funds. To the extent that Dems were punished for Vietnam, it was in their failure to articulate a coherant foreign policy in the years following the war - and the right's ability to brand Democrats as "soft" on military issues in the Reagan years. But this narrative took several years to develop and its effect took about a decade to unfold.
So...Dems probably won't be punished by voters for ending the war. The real risk will be 5 years out, when Republicans begin to shape the narrative ("why we lost the war") and spin the blame onto Democrats. If Dems are unable to overcome this narrative with their own version of history ("reality"), it will come back to haunt them. But probably not for a good ten years or so.
The post Viet Nam argument against Democrats was augmented by the Cold War. It is hard to understate how serious that threat was considered and how it seems to have just vanished.
I do not think the context (post sixties backlash) that tarred the Dems with Viet Nam (a Democratic war) is still present.
The post Viet Nam argument against Democrats was augmented by the Cold War. It is hard to understate how serious that threat was considered and how it seems to have just vanished.
Are you saying it hasn't be replaced with "Terrorism"? Any attack that happens from now until the end of time will be because the Democrats wanted to get out of Iraq.
Look, I'm in favor of getting out of Iraq and fighting the real fight against international terrorism in a much more comprehensive and smarter fashion. But let's not kid ourselves about the screaming hysteria that flows just beneath the surface here.
Look, getting Bush to withdraw the troops from Iraq is easy, if you look at the pressure points available. Cutting off funding is too easily demonized, so hold that in reserve, but DO demand an articulated strategy for withdrawl.
AND, link the money for Iraq with taxes to pay for it
"Want money for Iraq? Sure, no problem. But for every $1 for combat operations in Iraq, $3 in extra taxes on billionares, $2 of which will pay for veteran's services and dealing with the domestic consequences of long Guard deployments. Now, Mr. Bush, how much do you want to spend?"
Are you saying it hasn't be replaced with "Terrorism"? Any attack that happens from now until the end of time will be because the Democrats wanted to get out of Iraq.
Terrorism matters, obviously. But keep in mind that Reagan-era Republicans succeeded in tying anti-Vietnam Democrats to the ovthe erall counter culture of the late-60's...hippies, free love, black panthers, etc. The "soft on the military smear" was part of the greater culture war that emerged in those years. The same easy labels are not available today, since there is no counter-culture or antiwar "movement" to attach Democratic politicians to. Most Americans who are against Iraq are average and non-descript in almost every way. They support the troops. Protests are either small or receive no media coverage. And the culture war is firmly entrenched at this point. It's not going anywhere and it's unlikely to change dramatically in the aftermath of Iraq, since the battle lines were drawn so long ago.
Terrorism is an ever-present issue, obviously, but here's the question: after Iraq, will Americans support the preemptive invasion and occupation of Muslim countries? I think the answer will be 'no' for many years. If we are attacked, that's a different story. But Republicans and Democrats are basically on the same page in such a scenario, no?
Between Iraq and a hard place. Sorry, but it truly is about the framing of the issue, and W has had the bully pulpit so far (or his handlers). I think that the D's in congress are doing a pretty good job considering their natural trepidation as former deer-in-the-headlights critters. I applaud Rep. Waxman and Sen. Leahy for their work on the DOJ issues, and hope their gumption will encourage some of the other committees to aggressive oversight. The new breeze out of DC is refreshing.
I'm not an element of the Left. I'm a libertarian.
I'm not sure this is an effective rebuttal to tdraicer's overall point . . .
It wasn't meant to be. I was just correcting the record.
I stand by my assertion about Kerry's 2004 position on Iraq policy. I don't find the matter interesting enough to discuss further. Anyone who does can research it for themselves.
. . . your politicial party . . .
That's 'libertarian' with a small 'l' - my ideology, not my party. I'm not a member of the LP. Once again, no particular point except to correct the record.
In fifteen years the Dems will be blamed for 'losing' Iraq no matter what they do now. That's just the nature of the power of the GOP propaganda network. The Dems have absolutely nothing to lose by bringing the bloodshed to as prompt an end as possible.
Actually, it kind of reminds me of an ex-girlfriend of mine. After she ditched me, she told me all these things that she didn't like about me (which, of course, she never even mentioned while we were still together and I could have done something about said things). Somehow, I got it into my head that if I changed all those things she didn't like, somehow she would magically have a change of heart and come back all lovey-dovey. Needless to say, this was foolish and naïve of me to think, but it seems to encapsulate the same kind of magical thinking that Broder is exhibiting now. "If only I do this for her sake, she'll turn around and be the loving person she once was" is pretty much the same as "If only the Democrats compromise with Bush, Bush will turn around and become the responsible adult he's supposed to be." The intended result does not logically follow the supposed requirement, but it sounds good when you're caught up in wishful thinking...
Democrat: "I think it's only fair to split this cake evenly."
Republican: "I think I should get all the cake."
Democrat: "Okay, let's compromise. You get 75% of the cake."
Comments closed April 24, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Once again, David Broder lets us know what he thinks divorced from reality. He writes "From the start, Democrats ought to concede one big point: Absent any readiness on their part to cut off funds to the troops in Iraq, those forces will be there as long as George Bush wants them to remain. Once that point is conceded, Bush should be called upon to pay some attention to the Democrats' demands"
Now that is a strategy. Bush should be "called upon" to pay "some" attention to the Democrats' demands. Where can I get a job like Broders'?
Posted by della Rovere | April 10, 2007 7:57 AM