Democrats Drop Timeline, Pork from Iraq Supplemental
 |
James Joyner | Tuesday, May 22, 2007 |
In grudging concessions to reality, the Democratic leaders in Congress have decided to punt and play defense on the Iraq supplemental:
President Bush, Democrats intend to draft an Iraq war-funding bill without a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops and shorn of billions of dollars in spending on domestic programs, officials said Monday. The legislation would include the first federal minimum wage increase in more than a decade, a top priority for the Democrats who took control of Congress in January, the officials added. While details remain subject to change, the measure is designed to close the books by Friday on a bruising veto fight between Bush and the Democratic-controlled Congress over the war. It would provide funds for military operations in Iraq through Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year.
Now, was that so hard?
Democrats in both houses are expected to seek other opportunities later this year to challenge Bush’s handling of the unpopular conflict.
Imagine that!
About the Author: James Joyner is the publisher of Outside the Beltway and the managing editor of the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer, Desert Storm vet, and college professor with a PhD in political science from The University of Alabama. He lives just outside the Beltway in Alexandria, Virginia with his wife and infant daughter.
Follow James on FriendFeed | Twitter | Digg
- None Found
- OTB Radio – Tonight at 5:30 Eastern
- Journalism as Friend Building
- UPS vs. FedEx Whiteboard Video
- Obama Hurt Deeds in Virginia
- Reading the Bill is a Waste of Time
- Abbas: Palestinian Authority May Disband
- Jodi Rell Not Running
- Caption Contest Winners
- OTB Latenight – Styx
- Berlin Wall Fall: 20 Years Later
See my comment under Steve Verdon's peak oil post above.
This situation is perfect for Congressional Democrats. They can make fiery speeches about the evils of the Bush Administration, that we were led into war under false pretenses, and that we should withdraw from Iraq immediately. Next week! Tomorrow!
They will get all of the benefits of support from their constituencies and, as long as they don't plan actually to do anything about it, will have to bear none of the consequences of either blame for the ongoing situation in Iraq or for the consequences of our leaving Iraq before things are more stable there than they are now.
What will their “withdraw now” constituents do? Vote for Republicans? Stay home and let (gasp!) Republicans be elected? Not on your flameless cooker.
It's perfect.
What will their “withdraw now” constituents do?
Mount primary challenges; not vote; or vote for Greens.
Mount primary challenges; not vote; or vote for Greens.
Uh huh. As I said, they'll vote for the Democrats on the ballot (90%+ of whom will be incumbents) or Republicans will be elected.
Those that are truly inflamed about Iraq, actually, won't vote for Dems that don't take a hardline stance. They'll be in the same position that pro-life zealots will be in if Giuliani wins the (R) nomination.
No true Scotsman…
Perhaps we could call it the Lieberman Paradox.
Now, was that so hard?
Well, it is for the folks who are going to be killed in Iraq. But, I foget, Bushies are not losing any sleep over that.
Comments are Closed
