Will Dems Channel Rove to Sell Iraq Withdrawal?

Democrats in Congress have finally settled on a binding timeline to withdraw troops from Iraq by late 2008, which President Bush threatened to veto. This weekend Speaker Pelosi responded by blasting the threat as proof that Bush is only interested in "an open-ended commitment to a war without end." She also took the opportunity to review the costs of the Iraq war: "President Bush's Iraq policies weaken our military's readiness, dishonor our nation's promises to our veterans, and fail to hold the Iraqi government accountable for overdue reforms."

Progressive members of the Out of Iraq Caucus have been urging Pelosi to make the deadline binding and add a provision banning any attack on Iran without congressional approval. Blogger Chris Bowers, who volunteered for the progressive caucus for two weeks of the Iraq debate, writes that while the funding bill does not have everything he wanted, it "does contain enough provisions that will force Bush into operating the war illegally if he refuses to begin drawing it down over the next year or so."

Front page bloggers at Daily Kos are less satisfied. BarbinMD argues that the bill is "toothless" because enforcement of the benchmarks that would bring troops home is actually "left in the hands of George Bush." Mcjoan, a former aide to Sen. Ron Wyden, concludes that Democrats are missing the whole point. "McConnell has vowed to filibuster anything that has restrictions, and Bush has vowed to veto it should it somehow emerge from a filibuster," she emphasizes, so Democrats should focus on simply trying to "win this round" on political terms.

A similar strategy is favored by the OurKarlRove blog, which offers Rovian spin for Democratic ends, courtesy of a 38-year-old independent in Philadelphia. The imaginary Rove advises Democrats to avoid micro-managing war funding, which only risks entangling the party in "Bush's disastrous strategy." Instead, Democrats should strive to be the country's "Chief Financial Officer," providing broad strategic direction and reminding the public that since Bush "is still solely responsible for the war effort, every loss America takes is a result of a failed Republican foreign policy strategy." OurKarlRove also chides some Democrats' framing of withdrawal: "Stop talking about getting our troops 'out of harm's way.' Our armed forces volunteered to be trained to be in harm's way. That's their job. It's the Generals' job to ensure their troops are safe, not the Congress."

Even if the Democrats don't listen to the bloggers' advice, it looks like the public already supports the plan. A new poll of "conservative-leaning House districts" found a whopping 67 percent of respondents favored legislation to get U.S. troops "out of Iraq by early 2008." The Politico summed up the news last week under the headline, "Democrats' Iraq Plan Draws Broad Support, Poll Shows."

Now Democrats must force Bush to make good on his brash threat.

Does he really want to reject funding for the troops, against the will of the American public and a Congress elected on a huge mandate to end the war?

A veto would be the the kind of brazen move that could even put Republicans over the edge. As Republican Senator Chuck Hagel says in the forthcoming issue of Esquire, Bush may think "[h]e's not accountable anymore, which isn't totally true. You can impeach him, and before this is over, you might see calls for his impeachment. I don't know. It depends how this goes."

Comments (16)

1. OurKarlRove also chides some Democrats' framing of withdrawal: "Stop talking about getting our troops 'out of harm's way.' Our armed forces volunteered to be trained to be in harm's way. That's their job.

   Not for unnecessary, reckless adventures.

   Posted by mtspence05 at 03/12/2007 @ 10:44am

2. I think you missed a step Mr Melber.

   Lieberman filibustering it before it even gets to Bush's desk.

   Posted by Mask at 03/12/2007 @ 10:57am

3. How about Halliburton stepping up to the plate with their patriotic flight to Dubai?

   Zero shame. Profit above all else.

   there should be no way we have major war support contracts let to off-shore companies.

   Posted by crabwalk at 03/12/2007 @ 11:04am

4. MTSPENCE,

   Don't you realize that Iraq is an important front on the GWOT?

   Oh sure, there are the facts that Iraq wasn't a terrorist haven, didn't have WMD's. Oh sure there are also the facts that the diversion into Iraq lost us focus in Afghanistan. Oh sure there are even those that say that our presence in Iraq is fueling terrorist recruitment.

   But don't you know that if we don't fight them over there we'll be fighting them over here? The logic of that would presumably be, because at the moment all transport systems from the middle east and countries that end in "stan" are out of order....but will be resumed when we leave Iraq!

   Posted by freedomplease at 03/12/2007 @ 11:08am

5. CRAB,

   Haliburton?

   They are relocating to where the oil is I guess and are going to where they will not be socialized and shut down completely by a progressive burst of policy...they are only the begining...if Hillary and the lefty hoards continue with the " I'm gonna take those profit and give them to..."

   ..then you ain't seen nothing yet...and if this continues far down enough, as in Minnesota, who wants to raise taxes on the rich, and names all those who make $ 100,000 as rich...you will see individuals flee to tax haven countrys as individual small companys...to tax everyone to death for resditribution types will drive all profits out of here...think about it ... Exxon Mobile made most of their profits, 70% off shore...if Hillary pushes her stealing agenda..they may make 100% of their profit off shore and sell their products somewhere else where it is friendly...

   Something to think about as you vilify those whose money you want to spend...

   Posted by john maasch at 03/12/2007 @ 11:51am

6. Dubai is a trading country....they don't have any oil.

   Posted by freedomplease at 03/12/2007 @ 12:29pm

7. maasch claims that the democratic party wants to "socialize" halliburton with a "progressive burst of policy", but provides no evidence. in the maasch-ian universe, anyone who critiques the inexorable momentum towards a globalized, multi-national network of power and wealth distribution, which marginalizes more and more people every day, and yet enriches less and less, cannot be taken seriously.

   i wonder, is this a fair question in the mind of john maasch:

   is it fair for a saudi arabian country to receive huge, no-bid contracts from our government AND pay no state or federal taxes?

   maasch believes that democrats have an "agenda", but not himself. of course not.

   Posted by darladoon at 03/12/2007 @ 12:31pm

8. DD,

   "maasch claims that the democratic party wants to "socialize" halliburton with a "progressive burst of policy", but provides no evidence. "

   Hillarys speech 2 weeks ago...buy a TV set and watch something that shows the speeches,,,

   refering to EXXON MOBLIE Hillary used the words I quoted.." I want to take those profits.."

   Check it out..my proof is from the horse's ,er, mouth...

   Posted by john maasch at 03/12/2007 @ 12:41pm

9. i have a good question: why do conservatives become so hostile with even the most tepid suggestion that a minimal amount of regulation and oversight of the 'free market' is necessary to ensure that the most minimal needs of society are met?

   if political economists can prove that tax shelters ultimately impinge on the ability of the federal government to fulfill its constitutional obligations toward its own people, then shouldn't we adapt?

   finally, why are people like maasch so immune to rational debate?

   Posted by darladoon at 03/12/2007 @ 12:48pm

10. What's interesting about the Halliburton story isn't the "motive"...

    neither they "escaping future justice" or "escaping future tax'ed to hell by HRC"....

    it's the fact that....nothing can be done about. By the time the Congress gets done with their investigations, they'll be located out of the country and beyond reprisal (or "justice"). Cutting them off from all future US contracts will be meaningless, if even possible. And unless we go "oil free" in the next 10 years, not likely the UAE will suffer much from any reprisals for "giving them safe haven".

    Best just to move on.

    Posted by Mask at 03/12/2007 @ 12:49pm

11. maasch, if halliburton is securing federal funds, and no-bid contracts, for projects which involve the public interest, then clearly......they have an obligation.

    Posted by darladoon at 03/12/2007 @ 12:51pm

12. mask, if politicians, who are elected to uphold the constition and serve the public interest, point out that an enormous american company, with close ties to the administration, and who receives huge no-bid contracts and federal funds, to increase their own profitability, moves to saudi arabia, thereby avoiding state and federal taxes, then i'm sorry but i want to know about it.

    this is a huge story.

    Posted by darladoon at 03/12/2007 @ 12:55pm

13. Posted by DARLADOON 03/12/2007 @ 12:55pm

    Well, first...it's the United Arab Emirates, not Saudi Arabia.

    But second, you DO know about it, DD. The problem isn't "knowing about it", it's the fact that nothing can be DONE about it. If one considers it a "problem".

    Posted by Mask at 03/12/2007 @ 1:08pm

14. I have maintained for some time that Progressives need to take the Rove approach - hit in as many directions at once to keep everyone off balance to the point where all focus is lost because more outrages happen every day.

    Rove and this administration have littered the landscape with illegal acts and lies. The people and Congress are now going around peeking under the rocks that this administration has thrown everywhere like land mines. So many rocks, so little time...

    Focus people! What we know is that the American people want this war to end now, treat our troops with care and respect before and after their tours, and protect our Bill of Rights and the Constitution. We, the American people, are the Deciders. We dicided in November. Now, raise hell!

    P.S.

    I liked Crabwalks comment about Haliburton. Can it be legislated that all defense contracts have to go to U.S. based companies?

    Is Haliburton moving offshore a move so Cheney has a place to go after impeachment and/or criminal charges are brought against him? Could he be extradited from Dubai to face trial?

    In recent polls, shrub beat out all the other bad guys (at @25%) for being the most hated in the world. Bin Laden was way down the list.

    Posted by RebelFarmer at 03/12/2007 @ 4:40pm

15. Well in answer to this question (the only serious one)

    "I liked Crabwalks comment about Haliburton. Can it be legislated that all defense contracts have to go to U.S. based companies?"---Posted by REBELFARMER 03/12/2007 @ 4:40pm

    Nope, too many elements and materials not produced domestically that are vital to defense contracts. So if we HAVE to buy some electronics from China or parachute nylon from Indonesia or even jet parts from France...can't cut out a company in the UAE.

    Posted by Mask at 03/13/2007 @ 09:06am

16. why do conservatives become so hostile with even the most tepid suggestion that a minimal amount of regulation and oversight of the 'free market' is necessary to ensure that the most minimal needs of society are met?

    I guess it comes down where you believe profit comes from? If you're a hard working guy who climbed up the ladder of success with 80 hour weeks and elbow grease, then I would imagine you think you created it out or your own tenacity and strength by beating the competition to it. And maybe you did, I'm not going to discredit that; however, it can not be ignored that many of these multinational corporations keep the bottom line low through significant abuses of not only international law, but basic human rights. Human rights is such an abstract term, especially when it's refering to the human rights of someone in say Indonesia, or Africa, or dare I say, the Middle East, so just for simplicity, let's just define them as the inalienable rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of hapiness." So, where does profit come from? And who deserves these minimal requirements?

    it's the fact that....nothing can be done about. By the time the Congress gets done with their investigations, they'll be located out of the country and beyond reprisal (or "justice").

    I agree. Globalization is rendering our government, and all governments as isolated law making bodies, powerless. When the UN and the world courts stand firmly for international law, backed by the will of powerful nations such as ours, then international corporations will answer to law. It would appear that we made the unfortunate mistake of electing the former CEO of this company to the second highest PUBLIC office in the land, and an oilman to the first, who then pound away at international law, undermine the UN, and use our young men and women in the military as well as our tax dollars as a means to an end. Unfortunate, but WE ELECTED, which gives me some hope. And, as we are constantly reminded, we "consumers" vote with our dollars, so in a sense, every day, we decide who we will vote for, and who we will sideline when abuses become evident. Less we forget that we play a compicit part in all of this.

    Posted by rzs at 03/13/2007 @ 10:34am