Do you want to know what all of the internal fighting, struggle, sweat, and debate amongst Democrats is going produce?
'Advisory' guidelines.
Yep. We get to pass a bill that gives Bush advice. Take that!
The exhilarating details below the fold.
The Washington Post tells us that Democrats Would Make Iraq Timetable in Bill 'Advisory'
The story begins:
Congressional Democratic leaders are moving to make their proposed timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq "advisory" as they seek to reconcile two versions of war spending legislation into a single bill that they plan to pass next week, according to several House members.
The compromise language would keep the deadlines included in the original House bill but make them nonbinding, as the Senate version did, and would allow President Bush to waive troop-readiness standards, lawmakers said. Bush has vowed to veto legislation with timetables in it, calling it a schedule of surrender, but Democrats hope to show that they are being flexible and the president rigid by softening the terms. The compromises may cost Democrats votes among antiwar liberals, but they hope to pick up some Republicans.
What a sickening two paragraphs. I would highlight the worst parts, but seriously the whole thing is one big bottle of Ipecac Syrup. Essentially the Democrats are going to pass the Ben Nelson (D-) Iraq bill. No timeline for withdrawal. No mandatory troop readiness standards.
But, in exchance for alienating principled anti-war Democrats and endangering US troops, they hope to show how reasonable they are and pick up Republican support!
What I really want to know is who is talking to the WaPo on this. Is it people close to Pelosi, or is it Blue Doggies?
Harry Reid is really laying down the law:
"We believe he must search his soul, his conscience, and decide what is best for the American people," Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters on the White House driveway. "I believe signing the bill is that."
Many were impressed by the Reid-Feingold bill. I was not. Reid chose to introduce it as a standalone measure instead of as part of a funding bill, and he is not twisting a single arm to get votes for it. Kabuki theater to pretend that he's going to fight hard on this.
Sadly, even John Murtha has seemingly given up the fight:
Most of the talk appeared aimed at positioning for the next phase of the fight after a veto. One House Democrat said Congress might pass a 60-day spending bill without conditions for Bush to sign to keep troops funded while the debate continues. Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) said Democrats are treating June 1 as the final deadline for passage of a war-funding bill that would not be vetoed.
In other words, Democrats are essentially negotiating against themselves. The ultimate goal is to produce a bill satisfactory to Bush within 40 days.
Because, after all, Bush is really on their side on this:
Bush assured congressional leaders that he believes in benchmarks and has been pressing Iraqi leaders to meet them. Democrats want to make the benchmarks binding.
I feel so assured. I guess this is what Nancy Pelosi would characterize as a 'productive meeting.'
Democrats cited the words of Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who told reporters traveling with him in the Middle East that congressional demands for withdrawal have been constructive. "The strong feelings expressed in the Congress about the timetable probably has had a positive impact . . . in terms of communicating to the Iraqis that this is not an open-ended commitment," Gates said.
See, Democrats? By caving to Bush, you're hurting things in Iraq. According to Bush's own Secretary of Defense.
Incredibly, it could get uglier for us:
Democrats will face a new test of party unity today when the House names the negotiators who will quickly work out the final version of the war spending bill. House Republicans will call for a vote to instruct negotiators to strip out language imposing or suggesting timelines for withdrawing troops. The vote would be advisory only, but even Democratic leadership aides said passage would weaken their hand in the showdown.
How the HELL is passage of such a provision even a remote possibility when WE control the House?
I have not been an advocate of defunding at this stage. However, I have been an advocate of fighting smart against the Republicans. Waging political war against them, through repeated short-term funding measures, or by using PAYGO standards to force Republicans to raise taxes on the wealthy, would have been politically smart and tough tactics.
Let me make it clear: short-term funding measures without ANY language about benchmarks, guidelines, etc are a million times better than giving Bush all of his money along with some 'friendly advice.'
This is not fighting smart. This is not even fighting. This is rolling over and letting Bush rub their bellies.
Best part of all, this cave-in lets Congressional Republicans completely off the hook. They can choose to vote for or against the next bill. Either way, it's not like they're voting on something that could actually end the war. They can triangulate at will and escape the trap they were in.
I dislike weakness. I hate stupidity even more.
This 'compromise' has both in spades.