(
From the diaries -- kos)
I didn't see a diary on this, and I found this Roll Call article to be filled with fascinating insinuations and facts.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid is urging Democrats to limit their comments on the future of the Iraq war to areas where there is broad agreement within the party in an effort to quell increasing concerns both within the Democratic Caucus and the minds of the public that the ongoing conflict has caused deep intra-party divisions. The Nevada Democrat's move came in the wake of recent message miscues by Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean and Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.).
This is smart strategy and painfully obvious.
Continued on the flip...
One of the things that catches my wrath is the expectation that Democrats
must be 100% on the same page with a quick, easy to understand 10 word sentence describing our Iraq policy. This is not only impossible but irresponsible policy-wise, and I largely think its a result of people listening to Republican talking points demanding to know "Democrat" strategy, which is parroted by the media, because Democrats in disarray is always a popular story. I say this, because if I were the RNC's communications director, this is exactly what I would say in response to "why are you fucking everything up?" And the fact is, Democrats who disagree with each other are good to have around, because it means any final proposal has withstood the scrutiny of dissenting opinions and had input from opposing sides, which is, let's face it, what's WRONG with the Bush plan.
But that's just an aside.
Here's the guts of why I like this article so much:
Up until now fellow Senate Democrats have declined, at least publicly, to criticize Lieberman, although privately many acknowledge there is growing frustration with the conservative Democrat. But in what could be a sign that Reid's patience is growing thin, the Minority Leader Tuesday all but rejected a Lieberman proposal for a new "war council" made up of military and Congressional leaders similar to the one used by former President John F. Kennedy during the Vietnam War.
While saying "I think the world of Joe Lieberman," Reid nevertheless panned the council proposal as useless until the White House fully engages Congress on Iraq policy decisions.
"Frankly, until we get some direction from the White House, we can have all the meetings in the world, but until we get the commander in chief involved we're not going to get anywhere," Reid said, adding that his statement was a "very, very, very qualified no" as to whether he would support the formation of a war council.
This signifies to me a couple of things:
- First, the Murtha side is probably going to be on the eventual policy that will be rolled out mid-Summerish 2006. (And to all of you impatient folk out there, yes, we should wait that long. Any earlier and it'll be dissected and discredited long before it can have an impact, and besides, the situation over there changes so rapidly, why lock yourself into a proposal you can't implement if the situation could call for a different solution by the time it matters?
- Second, I'm not so sure how much money the DSCC is willing to invest to defend a primary challenge to Lieberman, were one to occur.
- Third, I like Harry Reid and his entire team.
If you can read Roll Call, read the entire article.