Iraq Occupation Funding bill: Not a loss for Dems. w/poll.

What did the Democrats lose in eliminating timelines from the occupation-funding bill? Face? Maybe in the very short term. Amidst the noise being made now in decrying the Democratic leadership for it’s failure and capitulation, I ask myself, should the Democrats have created a legislative crises over a bill that gave as much leeway over prosecution of the Iraq occupation to the President, as the one they just passed with out a timeline?. Including the president, the Republican legislators desire an end to combat before the next election season. This summer is Bush’s last stand. And, the Republicans have all but  acknowledged redeployments along the same time lines outlined in the vetoed bill.

Wapo 3/29/2007

The 51-47 vote fell mostly along party lines, with two Republicans -- Sens. Chuck Hagel (Neb.) and Gordon Smith (Ore.) -- joining Democrats in support of the package, which would fund U.S. military activity in Iraq and Afghanistan. But Democrats also attached language that would start troop withdrawals within 120 days of passage, with a March 31, 2008, goal for completing combat operations in Iraq. Some troops could remain in Iraq after that deadline in order to conduct counterterrorism training and security operations.

The timelines are well established in the collective mind of American voters, Iraqi citizens and the world. The uproar over the Presidents veto of the first supplemental established the "benchmarks" not for the Iraqis, but for our President. This will have the same effect on redeployment as if they were printed in ink on the bill now. But, wisely, the imprint on the electorate is not muddied and scratched with constitutional crises and both sides wailing about the "poor troops" to no effect. The ‘gaming’ of the troops is proportioned to the extent the rhetoric actually has an effect on their conditions.

Secretary of defense Gates reiterates the stratergerist’s accusation that occupation opposition in American politics and society incites violence perpetrated by our enemies in Iraq. He also threatened to  expropriate resources from other parts of the military complex to continue the occupation if those voices found teeth with funding restrictions immediately.
Some anti war left argue that indefinite occupation offers our enemies no incentive to stop living in anarchy.

I would suggest the consequences of the presidents command of the occupation for the next four months will not be effected much by our publicized ‘intent’, but will be predominantly effected by the real time presence of our military engaging on Iraqi soil. That presence will continue with out abatement for four months, with or with out the supplemental timelines in the vetoed bill which also offered substantial leeway in waging the war indefinitely beyond September.

This stratergical argument is what the Democrats suffered so called defeat on with this bill; an intangible suggestion by the President that the ‘enemies’ grasp of reality is as off base as his own. The President believes what he says is more valid than reality, even in the minds of his enemies. If we don’t put timelines in the funding bill, the enemy won’t know we won’t keep this up forever. In the words of El Torturadero "Sometimes they forget". Not winning battles with neurotic rhetoric is not really loss. The President's argument will be just as vapid tomorrow as today. We can all see how the spector of indefinite occupation of Iraq has hedged the insurgent violence in there so far.

Sending more timelines in the bill, with out veto overriding numbers in congress, would have been a show of the antagonism and stubbornness abhorrent in our political opponents character. The reason this stands up to Democratic exceptionalism, (But the war is sooo wrong), is because the effect the two bills on the lives of those affected by the occupation of Iraq are equitable through the authority retained by the President over a time. And, in that time a secure legislative base can be established to override him and dictate more comprehensive and immediate withdrawal measures, as the Republicans have repeatedly goaded us to do.  This base will be established with a series of authorization revocation bills that can be resubmitted with out a vacuous war of perceptions raging across our media regarding the well being of our military personnel and the effects of the funding on the ground over the next four months. Despite our passion, despite the righteousness of Bush war opposition, a hard respect for Constitutional realities and procedure will only strengthen the Democrats position, and grate the path for Republicans holding out for the 'surge' to join them.

The Democratic leadership chose to suffer the abuse of it’s own base in shaming them, and the shallow, fleeting ridicule of it’s Republican opponents, and said simply, "We hold our ground, and we will continue forward".  They chose this by demanding accountability, rallying their base, pushing, pressing, speaking and standing strong with inadequate authority to immediately impose their will. Their real strength can be found in accepting the specter of humiliation when they submitted the time-lined bill to Bush and doing it anyway having already told us, if vetoed, the funding would go through on a clean bill due to the math of congressional votes.

The course of freedom and democracy does not make hypocrisy of passion. That is the fundamental and defining notion of this war and our time. It is just as evident in the emerging Democratic processes in the Middle East as it is right here in America. I think the Democrats are obliged to reality-based consequences and legitimately secured law in their efforts to oppose the Presidents agenda.  I think they are proving respect for that premise.

So while Obama’s prediction that congress would continue funding current military operations in Iraq until veto proof authority was garnered in the Senate was derided as "surrender" and "undermining the Democratic leadership", even though his words were practically verbatim to those of Harry Reid’s spokesman Jim Manley, his comments were nothing more than a candid, reality based assessment of consequences in the actionable time frame. Hmm? Seems to be a pattern here with the Democratic leadership. I point to this not for a shill moment, or to incite inter partisan flames but only because this comment most aptly exemplifies the sober realities expressed and owned by the Democrats in contrast to the political wonderland fed us on a daily basis by the Republicans. And, I appreciate it.

This bill with out timelines was no surprise or ‘smack down’, (read contempt for that word's pettiness) to Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi. It is a large majority approved appropriation along a steady undeterred course of constitutional and reality based opposition to Bush and his war. And if Jim Webb can grasp that, reality (borrowed from thereisnospoon)

On the one hand, I find myself unable to vote against a measure that is necessary to fund our troops who are now in harm's way. On the other, I will not relent from my continuing efforts to bring this occupation to an end.
"I will continue to press for a strategy of strong diplomatic engagement, which will enable us to end the occupation of Iraq, to increase regional stability, to fight international terrorism more effectively, and to address our broad strategic interests around the world.  emphasis added

why can’t we?

I totally understand and agree with the frustration and anger at the unabated Bush war. But I really think the ire is misdirected at our Democratic leaders and their failure to employ subversive tactics that would directly contradict the problems we sent them there to correct and the integrity we sent them there to restore. They did not fail to deliver on a promise. They did just what they said they would and could do.

We were thrust into this war divided, with out prudence, with out preparation, with out wisdom, patience, study, truth or a plan. Will we exit the occupation the same, or will we exit with more respect for the Constitution guiding our policy, firm legality, and more unified than as we entered?