Retreat and Defeat

Democrats abandon withdrawal timetable. Like Nancy Pelosi, I don't really see what choice the leadership had, but I'm not happy about it:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was so disappointed with the outcome that she said she might vote against the Iraq portion of the package, which will be split into two parts when it comes before the House. "I'm not likely to vote for something that doesn't have a timetable," she said.

I think the GOP has made it clear that they don't intend to compromise or relent on this issue. They'll either pay a price in 2008 and pave the way for an end to the war, or else they won't; what they're not going to do, however, is end the war themselves.

Comments

They'll either pay a price in 2008 and pave the way for an end to the war, or else they won't; what they're not going to do, however, is end the war themselves.

Of course they aren't going to end the war prior to 2008; that's the point. By punting the withdrawal to the next President, the GOP can claim, however dishonesty, that the disaster of Iraq somehow isn't Bush's fault.

Americans still won't trust Republicans with national security for a generation, but the myths surrounding Iraq are already cemented in the minds of the dead-enders.

Posted by Gregory | May 23, 2007 8:57 AM

The purpose of this war is war. Why would they abandon it? They like war.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | May 23, 2007 8:57 AM

I understand that Pelosi has to count votes and that numbers don't lie, and I get the simultaneous truths that she wants us out of Iraq but that not all of the caucus behind her can resist the "surrender timetables" meme. But it just drives me crazy that the American people can say, again and again, with votes and polls, that they want us out of Iraq and that NOTHING will be done about it! And that a small number of Democrats in the majority, who got that status on the tidal wave of revulsion and weariness about the war, assisted in that end. I agree that the Dems will try to hang all this on the GOP (which richly deserves it), but I can't escape the nagging sense that my own party's cowardice is also responsible for the continued parade of death and suffering. Sigh.

Posted by scott | May 23, 2007 8:59 AM

Yes yes, but when are you going to scream?

Posted by Christopher M | May 23, 2007 9:20 AM

Assuming for a moment that I am totally wrong and an option you do not discuss, Dems announcing that after a date certain they will not fund the war, see Reid-Feingold (this does not requires passing a bill, it requires NOT passing a bill, so please spare me the veto proof majority talk), is simply not possible, then why in heaven's name build the political expectation that Congress COULD, in fact, do something? Why not just stick to non-binding resolutions and Sunday show ponitificating? Why go through this charade that would, in your formulation, inevitably lead to yesterday's capitulation?

I do not agree with youin your discounting of the no funding option, but even if I did, how can you possibly explain why this tactic was followed? It simply made no sense on any level.

Posted by Armando | May 23, 2007 9:31 AM

Jerome Armstrong at MyDD is saying that Reid couldn't pass a bill with timelines because Chuck Hagel and Gordon Smith had told him they were going to defect. I can't independently verify that, but it's what Jerome is saying, and I've got no reason to disbelieve him.

But if that's what happened, then IMHO Reid should have gone ahead with a vote on a bill WITH timelines, forcing Hagel and Smith to vote against it to demonstrate just who caved, THEN he could have brokered the present bill with a clean conscience.

As it is, Hagel and Smith get a free ride on this, and that's a bad deal for us. The GOP insiders will know that Hagel and Smith killed the timelines, so they will be OK with the party. And Gordon Smith's constituents, in particular, will have no record of his voting against timelines, so they'll be under the illusion that he fought the good fight.

Posted by low-tech cyclist (formerly RT) | May 23, 2007 9:33 AM

Are you fucking kidding Matt?? This provides cover to Republicans who continue to support the war, not put pressure on them! The Democratic Congress is about to vote to continue the war on a no-strings-attached basis, just as the prior Republican Congresses did. Does that sound like a loud and clear message for the next election?

What choice did they have? They had the choice not to fund the fucking war, or choose the short leash, or whatever. Bush and the war are unpopular, we won the election, and he refused to negotiate. I can't imagine a stronger position from which to refuse to do what he demands. Instead, we're rewarding him.

God, where the fuck is Howard Dean when we need him??

Posted by Marshall | May 23, 2007 9:35 AM

I don't really see what choice the leadership had

Armando is absolutely right. How hard is it not to pass something? Physically speaking it's very easy. You just do nothing. All arguments that they "can't" do it ultimately come down to reasons why they won't do it, or think it's unwise. Those may be good reasons (though in fact they're not), but spare us the bullshit.

Posted by Antid Oto | May 23, 2007 9:36 AM

But if that's what happened, then IMHO Reid should have gone ahead with a vote on a bill WITH timelines, forcing Hagel and Smith to vote against it to demonstrate just who caved...

Exactly. Seeing as the entire cut-funding-for-the-war event of the last month was so theatrical, I'm disappointed that the Dem leadership is willing to let it end without some kind of big finale. Poor showmanship on their part.

(The foregoing reads like it's ironic, but it isn't. I feel that public confrontations of this sort are necessary and useful, even if they do contain elements of spectacle.)

Posted by James Gary | May 23, 2007 9:41 AM

I can't help but think that previous statements by unnamed Democratic Senators running for the Presidency to the effect that whatever the outcome, the "troops" will be funded, helped bring about this utter defeat.

Armando is absolutely right. A victory here involves not passing a bill rather than passing a bill. So spare the crap about vulnerable members in Republican districts and not a veto-proof majority and all that bullshit. THE WAR IS UNPOPULAR. BUSH IS UNPOPULAR. WE WON THE ELECTION. The political danger is that clear differences will be erased, not that they will be accentuated.

Posted by Marshall | May 23, 2007 9:41 AM

I also agree with Armando. The Democrats have been building the expectation that they'd be able to slowly build the pressure, but if they're not willing to defund it, Bush can just keep calling their bluff.

They should either defund the war, or state that as long as Bush is president, the troops are effectively his hostages, so they are going to keep funding it as a sort of ransom to keep the troops safe. But they should not get people to expect that they can do something if they are unwilling to defund it.

Posted by Jim W | May 23, 2007 9:44 AM

I, too, am baffled. If Congress doesn't want something to happen, they could simply stop passing bills that fund the program.

Part of the problem, at the very least, is the continuing presence of passive-aggressivism at the high levels of the Democratic party. The idea that a guy who went AWOL during his service in the National Guard should have ever been given leeway to start a war for no good reason is bad enough. Continuing to cater to him is irresponsible.

And if the bill is failing because Lieberman was never on board, and Hagel and Smith are bailing, then get that on the public record.

Posted by RickD | May 23, 2007 9:45 AM

It seems to me that the Bushist argument is "the Democrats are all wimps!"

Can't see how it really helps the Democrats to prove him right...

Posted by RKU | May 23, 2007 9:50 AM

I'm puzzled as to how this will make REPUBLICANS look bad in 2008. The Democrats control both Houses of Congress -- they are responsible.

They could have passed a resolution withdrawing Bush's authority to conduct war. They could have refused to fund further military operations in Iraq.

At least the Bush and the Republicans come across as fairly honest re where they stand -- even if they're wrong.

The Democratic leadership ,by contrast, come across as two-faced hypocrites who say one thing before an election and then cave after the election. As is their custom.

We so need a third party.

Posted by Don Williams | May 23, 2007 9:54 AM

AMERICAN PEOPLE WAKE UP!!!
All the politicians DEMS/REPS are lying to us. If you think these crooks are passing Bills of $124 billion dollars and aren't getting a cut, you're naive stupid. They're all making money off the deaths of our soldiers. They have no intention of ending this war. There's profit in death. Any DEM/REP that doesn't stand up to stop this war must be removed in '08, especially Pelosi and Reid. Have you ever seen a sorrier excuse for leadership? Remove these people!!!

Posted by Calvin Edwards | May 23, 2007 10:04 AM

I don't really see what choice the leadership had

they had plenty of other choices. if no bill ever got passed, war funding would end. the president needed congress' cooperation for the war to continue. congress didn't need the president's cooperation to end it. the democrats in congress had the trump card and they gave it up.

Posted by upyernoz | May 23, 2007 10:49 AM

Could the Dems possibly have believed that Bush would sign their bill or pursue a meaningful compromise with them? No sentient being could possibly believe that. As Armando asks, what then, was the point of the whole charade? Was this really their plan?

As far as I can tell, the Dems have accomplished the following: (1) emulated the previous Republican Congress in giving Bush carte blanche to continue the war; (2) positioned the Democratic Party to share in the blame for whatever additional disasters unfold in Iraq between now and November 2008; (3) established actual, as well as symbolic, complicity in the continuing deaths of U.S. troops and those killed by U.S. troops; and (4) generated nationwide headlines associating Democrats with terms like "flinch", "back down", and "blink", in pathetic, cringing contrast to the steely resolve of the Commander in Chief.

Nice going.

Posted by Gator90 | May 23, 2007 11:09 AM

Here's another (despairing) nod to Armando. I guess that, even now, the Dems cannot comprehend the concept that sometimes the morally and politically smart thing to do is dig in your heels and stand for something.

Posted by sglover | May 23, 2007 11:25 AM

The Dems' position in regards to the war strikes me as a classic "No Win" scenario.

If they do what is right -- acting like the adults in the room and pulling the plug on the illegal and ill-conceived fiasco -- then they essentially solve the GOP's problems for them by taking the responsibility out of their hands and putting limits on the fall-out.

The delusioned Republicans can then loudly complain that "they could have won if only the damned gutless Liberals/ Democrats hadn't cut and run." The pliable press reinforces this (just like Viet Nam) and, a decade or so down the road, we have Bush Redux because the Kool-Aid spigot was never turned off.

With 4 out of 10 Americans in favor of impeachment -- well, there's no easy way to say this: 6 out of 10 Americans are *&^%ing stupid and/or gullible enough to be considered stupid.

We tell ourselves that America is some shining beacon on the hill, and holds some special, favored place in regards to Democracy -- but 60% of our country's population is either too stupid to acknowledge when a President/ Politician/ Political Party consistently breaks laws and seeks to *subvert the very Democracy they pay lip service to* or they are too damned gutless to do what needs to be done -- calling out all enemies to the Consitution, foreign *AND DOMESTIC*!.

THAT is the realpolitick that the Dems have to face, IMO. Admittedly, the core Republicans will continue to live in denial -- they are like cult imnitiates and in need of actual deprogramming, IMO.

But for some, the cognitive dissonance will become too much. I know -- I used to be a lifelong 'neoconservative' Republican -- until I saw what that results in. I failed to anticipate 'Evil,' but I recognize it when I see it. Maybe if people are exposed to what Neoconservativism results in, long enough, more will be sickened and -- like a puppy who gets his nose rubbed in it -- eventually stop soiling the national carpet.

Is the price to pay (failing to stop the current damage) too high? Quite possibly. Admittedly, I have no answers. But I want to point out that the situation(s) may not be as black and white as first believed.

Posted by Cathexis | May 23, 2007 11:30 AM

Excuse me? Don't see what choice the leadership had? Whaaat?

Posted by Mark | May 23, 2007 11:56 AM

This isn't a little defeat. This is a big defeat, and deserves more than a toss off post. The leadership had the biggest choice of all - they could have done nothing. It would have not only defunded the war, it would have defunded the war due to Bush's decision. Sometimes, you have to go out and press a point.

What have the Dems done so far? They have, of course, found time to pass a trade bill antithetical to its constituency. They don't seem to feel any urgency on ethics requirements - that can go in the 'do in 2020' file. And they pass a timetable bill with, apparently, no plan as to what to do when it was vetoed except to accept Bush's surge lock stock and barrel. I think we are going to see whether Chait is right here - is the pundit part of the liberal blogosphere just a hack machine for the Dems? Are they just going to spin this? Or is there going to be any outrage?

Already, the Dem spinners are sounding exactly like the GOP spinners explaining how "the surge is working" - same absurd handwaving, same absurd who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes attitude. It is deeply sick.

Posted by roger | May 23, 2007 12:08 PM

The leadership had the biggest choice of all - they could have done nothing. It would have not only defunded the war, it would have defunded the war due to Bush's decision.

And what happens then?

Posted by Duvall | May 23, 2007 12:15 PM

Funding the troops just means getting more of them killed. Democrats want more dead in this war for Ego, Oil, and Israel?

Posted by Tim | May 23, 2007 12:22 PM

The delusioned Republicans can then loudly complain that "they could have won if only the damned gutless Liberals/ Democrats hadn't cut and run."

they are already saying that. they've been saying it since day one. they were saying it before the war started - that the Dems were trying to stop this vital war.

if the war ends tomorrow, they'll blame the Dems for not letting it end yesterday.

Posted by cleek | May 23, 2007 12:25 PM

Duvall, perfect question. Since, uh, the Dems knew that Bush was going to veto the timetable bill, maybe it should have been asked in March or April - or would that put too much pressure on the IQ of the Dem leadership?

What happens then, to answer your question, is: not a damn thing. No funding. What happens then is: actually doing something political. Like using the fact that the Dems had - I emphasize had, since they have apparently given it up - a more popular position, going out and making that position known (we want to fund the completion of the mission, and we want the mission to be over by the end of next year, and so do you, American people - so don't let Bush defund the troops), and that is that. The hostage scenario is a joke - Bush, in this scenario, is an evil moustache twirling villain who is going to not send paychecks to the army personnel, so poor, o so charitable Dems have to sigh and do it for them - at such great sacrifice! My, but it just appears that we have to sacrifice what we supposedly believe in, but don't you worry your little heads - in two years, our great strategy is to elect a president so we can proudly postpone what we believe in so that we can elect more of a congress to proudly postpone what we believe in to re-elect the president! Sounds like a plan! So ... well, so Tom Daschle-ish!

In fact, when you betray your principles in pursuit of a strategy that has lost for you time and time again, one can question, a, whether you have any principles, and b, whether you have any brains. At the moment, I'd say the dem leadership is minus a and b - a rare combination, that. Although I was happy to see that, unlike putting the ball in Bush's court by doing nothing on the funding bill, they bravely rallied to put through free trading legislation that is so vitally loved by the Dem base. After all, there are priorities and priorities.

I fully expect to see the Tomasky line - oh, this was such smart politics - employed by the more obvious dem shills on the Web, but I was hoping that Matt would be a little too repulsed by the stupidity of that role to play it.

Posted by roger | May 23, 2007 1:07 PM

Is it possible that Pelosi wants the "clean bill" to be defeated by a unified Dem caucus? Surely this wouldn't be hard to do, since timetables have significantly above majority support, would it?

Posted by neil | May 23, 2007 1:21 PM

Sickening. Forget the politics - just do what's right. Stop funding this war

Posted by Basura | May 23, 2007 1:43 PM

Dumping a rigid mandatory timetable is one thing. Dumping any requirement for mandatory benchmarks (which CNN indicates they may also do) is another. If the Dems don't stick their flag on THAT hill, they are totally useless.

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | May 23, 2007 2:13 PM

I think most of you are too hard on your mainstream Dems. You assume they actually believe that a quick timetable for withdrawal is the best policy right now in Iraq, and that they don't have the courage to demand it. I think this is backwards.

IMO, most mainstream Dems realize that it will take years to extricate ourselves from Iraq in a responsible way, and that any time table for withdrawal needs to be coordinated with the Iraqi government. Where the Dems lacked courage is in being straight with their netroots about this. By funding the troops they are, belatedly, acting like the adults in the room.

Posted by Fred | May 23, 2007 2:29 PM

"[E]xtricate ourselves from Iraq in a responsible way?" What the hell does that mean? What concrete identifiable contribution are we making to Iraq other than supplying gasoline for the conflagration? Why are we staying, and fighting, and dying, and killing, in a country the vast majority of whose people want us out, and a majority of whose representatives want us out? We forced this war on a people who didn't ask for it, and it's now "responsible" and "mainstream" to say that we should spend years thinking about getting out of it before we actually do? My God.

Posted by scott | May 23, 2007 2:35 PM

So Fred's theory is that the Dems in Congress actually oppose a near-term timetable for withdrawal, but passed a bill calling for just such a timetable (knowing it would be vetoed) in order to hoodwink their antiwar supporters into believing they are on the same side. I only WISH the Dems were half that clever.

Posted by Gator90 | May 23, 2007 3:29 PM

Fred's theory is actually close to the one propounded on MYDD and other Dem spin sites. The butter can't melt in my mouth version is: the dems tried so very very hard, with that first bill (in this version, of course, you are supposed to forget that the Dems assumed Bush would veto the bill and assume that they were suprised as wide eyed countryfolk in the big city when he did so. The Reality based community, ah, how quickly it turns into the short term memory loss community) and you see that in their hearts, they just hate the icky war, but now, sigh, what with the Republicans being meanies and all, they have to get real and jump on a bill crafted by Senator Warner. Too bad that wasn't the message in the 2006 election: vote Democratic, we are with Senator Warner (R) of Virginia. It would certainly have moved the masses!

The pathetic thing is that there are liberals who actually come with a pre-rip me off attitude - as long as they can assure themselves that next time, we are all gonna do a better job framing, they are willing to be robbed indefinitely. Yeah, get that framing done until nobody knows what you are doing - that's the spirit. Seems to be the spirit of the Democratic congress. And I'd also have to agree with Fred that the robbers here, the DLC types, are opposed merely to the way this war somehow went wrong - but they have pretty much the same view of the Gulf region as Bush. They just think they could have managed it better.

Posted by roger | May 23, 2007 3:44 PM

Roger,

Spot on, a great summary of the cave in. Maybe if we actually stood up for our principles on this war, our courage and passion in doing it would provide the public all the persuasive "framing" it needed. Instead, we keep on testing the waters waiting for the 0.7 degree window where the water is "just right," not too hot, not too cold.

Posted by scott | May 23, 2007 3:54 PM

I think Cathexis called the politics of this one. The Republicans are already bringing out the stab-in-the-back rhetoric. Is there any reason to think this won't be effective?

And I'm going to stick up for Fred a little too. Conditions in Iraq will get a lot worse when we leave. But that's when, not if. Catastrophe can be delayed but not averted.

Posted by AlanC9 | May 23, 2007 4:13 PM

"So Fred's theory is that the Dems in Congress actually oppose a near-term timetable for withdrawal, but passed a bill calling for just such a timetable (knowing it would be vetoed) in order to hoodwink their antiwar supporters into believing they are on the same side."

Essentially, yes.

"I only WISH the Dems were half that clever."

It didn't take a lot of cleverness, just a pragmatic form of quasi-deception to ride the anti-war wave to electoral victory in '06, even though the mainstream Dems didn't share the netroots position (rapid withdrawal, damn the torpedoes).

Posted by Fred | May 23, 2007 5:37 PM

Fred: "It didn't take a lot of cleverness, just a pragmatic form of quasi-deception to ride the anti-war wave to electoral victory in '06, even though the mainstream Dems didn't share the netroots position"
----------

But-But-But-But ... that means our leaders LIED to us. How is such a thing possible?

Posted by Don Williams | May 23, 2007 6:26 PM