Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiAnti-War Dems Fight for Timeline
Compromise is beginning to sound like a dirty word to anti-war Democrats, who suddenly find themselves in a defensive posture after months of dominating the political debate over the war in Iraq.
The emerging movement among Democratic leaders in Congress to find some middle ground on troop withdrawal deadlines is being met with severe pushback from rank-and-file Democrats in both chambers who are startled that their leaders are suddenly seeking bipartisan consensus on the war.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) are working from a position of realism, knowing that their eight-month effort to win over enough Republicans to end the war has stalled. And Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Jack Reed (D-R.I.), two of the most respected military voices in the Democratic caucus, are considering a mandated withdrawal that lacks a completion date for pullout, leaving the process somewhat open-ended.
The Democratic movement reflects the expectation that there may be just enough positive news from Army Gen. David Petraeus' report next week to make some Democrats, as well as moderate Republicans, reconsider joining the anti-war crowd.
But based on comments from anti-war Democrats, the more moderate exit plan could backfire on Democratic leaders who will lose Democratic votes as they seek consensus.
Anti-war Democrats, along with the special interest groups that back them, are engineering a swift pushback against this spirit of compromise.
"Anything that takes us back from where we were this spring [a firm withdrawal date] is unacceptable," said Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), one of the founding members of the 70-plus member Out of Iraq Caucus in the House. "Bipartisanship is great ... only if it puts together an orderly withdrawal of the troops."
The anti-war movement is clearly scrambling in the wake of a series of reports that showed Democratic leaders more interested in compromise now than at any other point this year.
On group, Americans Against Escalation in Iraq, started running anti-war ads Thursday in New Mexico, Minnesota, Kentucky and Maine -- all aimed at targeting the incumbent GOP senators in those states. And another, the National Security Network, backed by liberal groups such as the Center for American Progress, questioned whether the Petraeus report will be a truly accurate assessment of Iraq.
Even the report is released, anti-war Democrats have begun accusing Petraeus of "cooking the books" to justify the surge in troops that began last year. The liberal blogosphere, led by sites like Daily Kos, has been ablaze today with criticism of Democratic leaders.
Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), a founder of the Out of Iraq Caucus, was critical of fellow Democrats who embrace the positive snippets of news from some corners of Iraq, saying the progress in some areas does not show the complete picture in the war zone.
"We're always going to have a number of Democrats who will lean over backwards to believe what they hear from generals on the ground," Waters said. "We're prepared to do what we have to do to avoid accepting a report that does not truthfully represent the situation on the ground."
While there are no pending House votes on the war, the Senate may bring the debate back in mid-September with the defense authorization bill, which may be the venue for the Levin-Reed compromise proposal. At this point, it's not even clear if Democrats will have enough support from their side to pass that measure.
"I feel very strongly about this. I could not support any bill without some real teeth," said Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.). "And that means a timeline for withdrawal. I can't continue supporting any bill without a specific withdrawal deadline."
Senate votes on troop withdrawal measures that have no completion date will also challenge the Democratic presidential candidates to figure out whether their votes should appeal to the Democratic base or reflect a desire to be consensus builders.
"Rather than picking up votes, by removing the deadline to get our troops out of Iraq, you have lost this Democrat's vote," said Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, one of the Democratic presidential hopefuls. "It is clear that half-measures are not going to stop this president or end this war."
Daniel W. Reilly contributed to this story.
© 2007 The Politico
7 Comments so far
Show AllIt seems to me that if Bush tried to implement nspd 51 and Congress challenged him, it would be a Constitutional confrontation. The scary part is that this Congress has dropped "challenge" from their vocabulary.
"I hope come election day..."
i believe you meant to say "i hope election day comes".
it's called the nspd51 (national security presidential directive), and it's going to postpone, if not eliminate our precious election in 2008.
(what, you thought bush and cheney were simply going to walk away from all the power they've managed to amass? don't kid yourselves, honeybunches)
google it.
The generals on the ground have been culled to remove anyone willing to risk their careers and be honest about the occupation and replaced with generals willing to lie to protect their careers. This is as obvious as the lies that got us into Iraq in the first place. Anyone who pretends not to know this is another damn liar.
COMarc, you're exactly right. The Democratic leadership has no intention or interest in ending this occupation. They're trying to play a shell game with voters. I hope come election day they get kicked in the ass. And considering their approval ratings, it could happen. I read they're currently at 18%. How bad can things get? Shouldn't they be just a little worried? Isn't it time they started listening to their constituency? That's what they're paid to do. Oh, wait - I forgot, the salaries are just chump change for them.
'Compromise is beginning to sound like a dirty word to anti-war Democrats' because the 'compromise' is always completely in the direction of the anti-war Democrats having to give up their positions in favor of the pro-war positions favored by the top of the Democratic Party.
When was the last time you heard the blue-dog Democrats being told they have to compromise on their positions for the sake of party unity?
Face it, you've once again been completely lied to by the Dem leadership. All their talk of the last few months of how in September they'd revisit the issue of Iraq was a complete and utter lie. It was a lie designed to try to get the 70% of the American people who oppose this war off their backs for awhile. This lie was told because they were getting heat for their last votes to fully support and continue this war, and they needed some breathing space before they voted to fully support and continue the war completely until the end of Bush's term. They knew all along they'd do this, they just lied about taking some action in September in order to take some of the heat off while they were back in their districts. They knew they couldn't vote full support for another year of war BEFORE they went home to their districts. So instead the Democrats lied once again, and now that they are safely back in DC they are going to vote to continue to fully support this war just like they have from the beginning.
Bush and the Pentagon currently have no funding for the next year of war. It wasn't in the bloated Pentagon budget already approved by the House Dems. So, it takes no action at all to stop this war. Just do nothing. As speaker of the house, Pelosi has a great deal of control of what bills even come up for a vote. So if Pelosi and the house Dem leadership wanted to stop this war, they could do it easily just by not even bringing the bill to the floor. Or, 41 Senators could stop it with a filibuster in the Senate.
Face facts, the Dems do not want to end this war.
"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) are working from a position of realism, knowing that their eight-month effort to win over enough Republicans to end the war has stalled."
They control the purse strings; cut off all funding, except funds to return troops to the US. Stand up and stop being Bush's bitches!
"The scary part is that this Congress has dropped "challenge" from their vocabulary."
indeed.
Personally I don't believe Bush is angling to stay on as Prez, he is well known to be a lazy-slob playboy, and having to do some more 'work' (as little as possible in his case!) has all been too onerous for him.
He's said publicly that he wants to just slouch off into the sunset and just do 'a few lectures here and there' to rake in some more cash.
Upon ejection from the Gray House, he will likely state that he "wants to spend more time with his family". -But unfortunately, that sentiment is, (-from what I hear) not one shared amongst the rest of the Bush clan!
:p