Redstate

By Leon H Wolf Posted in War — Comments (10) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

So yesterday Barack Obama made a lot of people upset when he stated very simply the political reality in the new Congress:

SIOUX CITY, Iowa – If President Bush vetoes an Iraq war spending bill as promised, Congress quickly will provide the money without the withdrawal timeline the White House objects to because no lawmaker “wants to play chicken with our troops,” Sen. Barack Obama said Sunday.

“My expectation is that we will continue to try to ratchet up the pressure on the president to change course,” the Democratic presidential candidate said in an interview with The Associated Press. “I don't think that we will see a majority of the Senate vote to cut off funding at this stage.”

Charlie Rangel echoed the same sentiments on MTP when talking about the House side of things, saying "Ultimately, politically, we have to give him the money." Now, some folks seem to be surprised that a group of Congresspeople elected on a platform of surrender would, you know, surrender so quickly, but it's not exactly a surprise to me. Some things have a habit of becoming a way of life.

More below...

Here, then, is the critical part of this debate. Some polling has been done which purports to show that the public favors the Democrats' plan, whereas other polling purports to show this to be a much closer call. The next month, I think, is going to be a critical one in the fate of the war. The American public still is a little uneasy about a date certain withdrawal, but they are growing increasingly committed to a conditions-based withdrawal plan. The reality is that the Administration is just not going to have the patience of the American people for the next 12 months. I predict that if the samesort of resolution comes up next year, the Democrats will be able to stand firm on surrender without fear of significant political reprisal.

Bush is going to veto this bill, and he should - but this is not nearly enough. If they are unable to provide clearer indicia of progress on the ground, and in short order, things are going to get bad - by which I mean worse - in terms of Congressional support. Of course, what the netroots wants is for the Congress to just go ahead and yank funding for the war altogether - this, of course, might be the one scenario that would self-destruct in the Democrats' faces, but it's what their base elected them for. Nevertheless, even this particular window is shrinking, I fear.

The thing that really chafes about this is that the Democrats knew that this was the reality going in - that's why they loaded the supplemental with a bunch of ridiculous pork in an attempt to buy votes from Congressmen who would otherwise not have voted with them, and why they capitulated so easily in the face of a threatened veto - yet they've gone ahead and dragged their feet for 56 days on the funding for this regardless. The truth is that they are playing petty and cynical politics in an attempt to appease their impatient voters, and banking on a continued deterioration of the situation on the ground to turn public opinion in their favor. They are trying, in other words, to give themselves political cover in case the surge does work, so that they won't have been on the wrong side of things in 2008, no matter how it turns out. If they are truly so convinced that Iraq can't work, and that it is ultimately doomed to failure, they should have the strength to vote their convictions on that now, rather than waiting for the right moment to offer a post hoc "I told you so." If, on the other hand, they really *do* think that victory might be possible, then why play politics in this way? Why not work with the Administration and say, "Let's do what it takes to get this done, because failure in this mission would have disastrous consequences"?

I suppose that the answer is that such an approach would simply not be feasible for a group whose central belief is in surrender.