Redstate

...but then, The Law of Unintended Consequences was always fond of irony.

By Moe Lane Posted in Congress — Comments (1) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

It doesn't help - him - that this isn't the most coherent article to ever come out of Slate (Via RCP). A couple of funny ones right before the fold:

In the final paragraph of the New York Times' Jan. 2 story about the impending new Iraq strategy, President George W. Bush is quoted as telling members of the Baker-Hamilton commission that "victory" was still his goal. "It's a word the American people understand," Bush reportedly said. "And if I start to change it, it will look like I'm beginning to change my policy."

The wording is ambiguous. Did Bush not want to look like he's changing his policy, or did he not want to change his policy?

Ummm, the latter. It's really easy to work out, provided that you lose the core assumption that when somebody says X he always means anything but X. Then again, Kaplan's not exactly a Bush booster, so perhaps that's a bridge too far.

Either way, it's a grim state of affairs. It suggests that a reduction of American troops—forget a pullout, simply a reduction, or even a lowering of their profile—is not on this president's agenda. It also suggests that he believes the American people don't want it to be on his agenda, don't want him to change his rhetoric or his policy.

What's going on here? Does President Bush simply want to avoid admitting that he's been wrong? Or does he really think he's been—and still is—right?

Probably both.

Ummm, no, unless you're arguing schizophrenia on the President's part. Then again, God knows he's been accused of everything else, so why not?

Read on.

Anyway, Kaplan's point, such as it is, boils down to this: President Bush is not going to change his mind on the war, and the Democratic Party is not going to take away the tools that he needs to fight it.

Will Congress shut down the war? Not likely. Contrary to myth, Congress didn't cut off funding for the Vietnam War until after Richard Nixon pulled out nearly all the troops. Even so, even now, the Democrats are still plagued by the charge that they lost that war. If Congress cuts off, or sharply cuts back, funding for the Iraq war, and if things subsequently get worse, who will be blamed in 2008 and beyond? The question answers itself. Purse strings are unwieldy instruments for such purposes, in any case. Few legislators of either party favor a total, immediate pullout from Iraq. Yet even if Congress somehow collectively decided how many troops should be withdrawn or redeployed, and what those left behind should do, it would be another task entirely to translate that decision into budgetary terms—and politically all but impossible to do so while the White House and its supporters sternly warn from the sidelines that the cuts will "hurt the troops."

Yes, I know, the man's completely obscured the reasons for the Fall of Saigon; you'd never know from that that Congress shut down funds to the South Vietnamese government during the Ford Administration, or that the final assault was a heavily-supported, massive North Vietnamese assault against a friendless South Vietnam. He probably put that in there so that Republicans would splutter - and maybe miss the next point. Which is, of course, that it's becoming increasingly obvious that the Democrats don't have the courage of the netroots' convictions.

I will not call their Party leadership 'cowards' - I conceed that the privilege to do that should be reserved for the progressives, as they are after all the ones being betrayed right now - but I'm coming to the conclusion that majority status will not resolve the Democrats' dilemma. Which is, seventh and last, that they are expected to implement an agenda that's not just out there; it's over the event horizon*. So what do you do when you have a dilemma like this? That's right: you talk very fast, very loudly and make sure that nobody listens to anybody else - thus making sure that nothing gets done.**

And thus, the reassurance. I was certain that they were going to actually listen to the people that funded and organized for them so tirelessly in 2006. I know, I know: silly of me, but it was a fairly bad Election Night.

Moe

*Thank you, Terry Pratchett.

**Thank you, whoever wrote that line in 1776.