Ramblings over the Democratic Iraq Bill : Caucus unity vs standing for your ideas

I have been conflicted for the last few days over the two bills drafted by the Democrats:

1/ The House bill asking for a deadline, but making this deadline as far as Fall 2008 (If Bush has to certify progress to keep the troops in Iraq, he will do it, so the two benchmarks are useless).

Also, it is more and more clear that this bill, that will be added to the Supplemental, will be full of pork in order to bring more Democrats on board.

2/ The Senate Bill asking for goal of March 2008. I know Kerry and others have argued that it was really a deadline, but it is clear that the word goal was not used by chance. As soon as the bill was announced, Clinton and Bayh both explained it was not a certain date

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/09/washington/09cong.html?_r=1&ref=world&oref=slogin





It is clear that the language of the Senate bill was carefully crafted to get all the Senate Democrats on board, from Lieberman to Sanders, but I cannot avoid feeling bothered by all these compromises on a bill that is probably not going to pass, or, if it passed, is going to be ignored by Bush.

This morning, I was listening to the Sunday shows. Webb was on This Week. Schumer was on FTN, and Maxime Waters was on Fox.

What struck me was to what point Webb and Schumer were far from what Kerry's reasoning was. Webb once again said he was against a deadline (largely a military position from his part, but still, it was clear that he sees the utility of the military there, something not surprising from a military man). Schumer basically said they would fund whatever surge Bush would send to them (including the new 4400 troops asked by Bush). It was extremely frustrating and shows the limits of a unifying bill such as this one. It is clear that people who want out (like Feingold, Boxer, Kennedy, or Kerry,...) as soon as realistically possible and do not want the US army to be stuck in the middle of a civil war are having to swallow a very bitter pill in order to get something from the caucus.

At the opposite, Maxime Waters (on Fox, unfortunately) was making a very cogent point that was not that far from Feingold (or even Kerry). Most people who criticize her plan have clearly not been reading it. The plan calls for a withdrawal before the end of 07, with a full funding of the withdrawal, and the possibility to keep an over the horizon force.

I know it is rambling, but I do not see how I can support the House or Senate deal. I understand why some people are doing it (and it is probably better than the status quo, but it seems more political than principled to me and, each time I hear people like Webb or Schumer defend it, it is clearer and clearer that I cannot agree with it.

concerned about this amounting to temporarily appeasing the public and raising money through donations.

can go on and on about how it's only a goal, BUT, what happens when that date is upon us? Questions will be asked. Having the date creates accountability -- it holds the centrist Democrats responsible for getting our troops out since they promised with a date.

My opinion is we call it a deadline -- it's a deadline, that if they fail to meet it, is a failure. They can say goal or target all they want. Simply by giving a date, it creates expectations of WHEN we want our troops out.

I understand your reticense, but it is up to us the base Democrats to hold them accountable for that date. And tell them they're not going to wriggle their way out of it.

Even Kerry said during the debate of the K/F amendment that there would be some flexibility with the date -- his language is definitely tougher, but there was SOME wiggle room in there. Clinton, et al, think they're going to play it both ways, but they will not. They have agreed to a timetable for withdrawal, no matter how flexible it may be, and we won't LET them forget what it means.