Will Dems in Congress end the Iraq Debacle? Let me say this, I do believe the majority of Dems in the House WANT to. But it is beginning to look like they have no clue how to do it politically:
The story of Murtha's star-crossed plan illustrates the Democratic Party's deep divisions over the Iraq war and how the new House majority has yet to establish firm control over Congress. From the beginning, Murtha acted on his own to craft a complicated legislative strategy on the war, without consulting fellow Democrats. When he chose to roll out the details on a liberal, antiwar Web site on Feb. 15, he caught even Pelosi by surprise while infuriating Democrats from conservative districts.
I was not a fan of Murtha's plan. I found it too clever by half. But the BIGGEST problem with the Dems right now are the idiot Representatives quoted on the record in this story, including our friend Joe Sestak. Let's call them out on the flip.
"If this is going to be legislation that's crafted in such a way that holds back resources from our troops, that is a non-starter, an absolute non-starter," declared Rep. Jim Matheson (Utah), a leader of the conservative Blue Dog Democrats.
Fine Matheson, then let me tell you how a GOOD Democrat says that. BEHIND CLOSED DOORS. Not in a front page story in the Washington Post!! But if you have to speak publically because you are too much of an egomaniac to avoid it, then say this:
"A Democratic plan will always provide our troops with every resource they need. That's what I will support."
See how fucking easy it is?
And how about Joe Sestak?
Freshman Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.), a retired Navy admiral who was propelled into politics by the Iraq war, said Murtha could still salvage elements of his strategy, but Sestak, an outspoken war opponent, is "a bit wary" of a proposal that would influence military operations.
Well Congressman Sestak, why don't you tell your Dem colleagues that in private? But if you have to see your name in the paper, how about saying it like this:
"I believe that it is the Congress' job to decide when wars begin and end. And that is what Democrats will concentrate on."
How about Cooper of Tennessee?
"He stepped all over Speaker Pelosi's message of support for the troops," said Rep. Jim Cooper (Tenn.). "That was not team play, to put it mildly."
Team play? You call being part of a page one WaPo story ripping the guy TEAM PLAY? The irony is too fucking thick.
But listen to the Blue Dog plan:
Indeed, Matheson and other Blue Dogs said the Democrats should concentrate on oversight hearings on Iraq policy, while refraining from binding legislation on the war.
Can you believe this crap? Oversight for what if you don't want to pass binding legislation? Have the Blue Dog Dems NOT gotten the memo? The American People want the war in Iraq to end. They do NOT want a DO NOTHING Dem Congress making speeches about it.
God help me, I have to cite Rep. Barbara Lee for the actual sensible politically savvy plan:
Rep. Barbara Lee (Calif.), another co-chairman who sits on the Appropriations Committee, is likely to try to tie the war spending bill to legislation demanding a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by a date certain, with the bill's money available only for the safe withdrawal of the troops.
Now the article I imagine mangles Lee's plan, which likely calls for money available AFTER the date certain to be ONLY for withdrawal. And it can not be Lee's plan, her image on this is weak. But it should be the Dem plan.
Sestak's proposal is interesting in that it also emphasizes a date certain for withdrawal:
The party's newly elected Iraq veterans favor a more straightforward approach than Murtha, establishing a legal timetable for pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq, Sestak said.
But Sestak is trying to be cute about it, violating his so called principle of not "interfering" with operations. Because what the hell else would you call a set timetable for withdrawal but interfering with operations?
Let's be clear, the Congress can NOT ORDER the President to withdraw the troops. The Congress can defund the war.
This is what has them shaking. For the life of me I do not know why. Set a date certain - say March 31, 2008 if you like. Announce NOW, a year from that date, that there will be no more funding after that date. Tell it to the President and the American People.
I defy anyone to tell me the American People will not support that. I defy anyone to tell me that anyone who votes AGAINST that won't be punished at the polls in 2008.