The hysterics have begun. The Democrats in Congress have folded. They're cowards. They're craven. They're stupid. They're afraid to stand up to the Worst "President" Ever. They've betrayed us, plunged a knife right through our collective heart and into the collective back of the troops. Then they twisted it.
Now, this diary is a bit more rant-ish than I am typically comfortable with (and I'm usually just a comment-leaver, anyway). That being said: May I humbly suggest that everyone get a grip?
As the Associated Press has reported:
One of the most vocal war critics in Congress [said], "This is not a game. They run out of money next week," said Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, whose speech opposing Bush's Iraq policy more than a year ago was a turning point in the debate.
Yes, in a perfect world, the Democratic leadership could push the bill through as they and we would wish it to be. In a perfect world, we would get the money in place to continue the commitment, a timeline for withdraw and everything else we need.
But in a perfect world, Al Gore would have assumed the office he won in 2000 and we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place. We never should have been in this position. But we are in this position, and our elected leaders have a very difficult balancing act. I don't envy them.
Now, I don't like this bill either. I would like to see timelines. I would like to see my friends who are over there come home tonight.
But we also have a responsibility to the Iraqi people. We have a responsibility to get out as cleanly as possible, leaving them as salvageable a country as possible under the circumstances. Yes, our presence exacerbates the problem; but to pack up and leave in a disorganized, messy way would be even worse. And there may just be something to the talking point about not issuing a public timeline (though my preference would be to see the Worst "President" Ever bound to a time frame known to Congress, the White House and the Pentagon).
So the occupation is now funded without timelines. Is that really a loss? Would we have gained anything by being every bit as stubborn as the Worst "President" Ever? In the context of what's REALLY happening, the people who are REALLY there, it's more important to get the funds in place than it is to win the stare-off.
So, how do we turn it into a win?
Simple. The frame is offered here, in an article whose frame I dislike but which contains this quote:
"The Democratic leadership is allowing this bill to pass because, unlike the president, they will not leave our troops unprotected in battle," said Rep. James Moran, D-Virginia.
And it also contains this quote:
"We have some other things for you. We got an increase in the minimum wage, we got help for Katrina victims, some health care for children." [John Dickerson, chief political correspondent of Slate.com]
Yeah, they could have continued the "My d**k is bigger," contest and let Bush leave the troops in the desert without the funds to remain as relatively safe as they are. Or, they could lead and get language to hold him accountable (via benchmarks, which are far more important than a timeline anyway, in my view) AND the minimum wage increase.
This, my friends, is what pragmatic politics looks like in the real world. It's messy, it's not everything we'd like it to be. But it's what we've got. Now we can collectively spin our heads and spit green pea soup all over the party, or we can stand up and say to CNN and everyone else - this is not capitulation. This is leadership. This is getting the money in there and finding another path to accountability and redeployment - while also getting some key initiatives accomplished.
Ideal? No. But for goodness' sake - get a grip. It's NOT the end of the world.
I'd much rather see this kind of vitriol turned back onto the "President," and to see the end of the funding debate lead to two more significant debates: a real, responsible end to the war; and impeachment.
End of rant.