Re: A Pathetic Congress (and Opposition)
Nathan Newman wrote:
But you want to highlight tactical differences in approach to ending the war, rather than emphasizing unity. Of course, the New York Times has the same goal, so they choose to play up relatively minor differences in tactics on the resolution.
Which is my original point– folks here on LBO are mouthing the talking points of the pro-war forces.
Oh please. What unity? They’re stymied. The Times is reporting differences that are far from minor:
But Democrats privately acknowledged that they were seeking to escape a political trap set by the Republicans to box them into an unappealing choice: side with Mr. Murtha and face criticism for backing a plan that American commanders say would cripple the mission in Iraq or oppose their respected colleague and blunt momentum for an overhaul of the administration’s Iraq policy.
While some 70 liberal Democrats who support ending American military involvement in Iraq have praised Mr. Murtha’s plan, many of his other party colleagues appeared to harbor doubts.
But many senior House Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic leader, have distanced themselves from Mr. Murtha’s resolution, saying a phased withdrawal is a more prudent course.
They’re paralyzed, like Locke’s donkey (appropriately enough) that was doomed to starve because it was equidistant between to bales of hay. Where do you think the 2008 frontrunner, Hillary Clinton, stands? Chris Caldwell speculates in his FT column today that her poll numbers are suffering because she’s supported the war, and he may be right.
How is pointing to the political paralysis of the Dems making the war party’s talking points?
Doug