The Senate Steps Up

Another bombshell:

In the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid unveiled a proposal to begin withdrawing soldiers from Iraq within four months and it sets a goal of pulling all combat troops out by March 31, 2008.

Reid moved to start a debate on that measure next week but was thwarted, at least for now, by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, who said more time was needed to look at the Democrats' ideas.

"The president's strategy in Iraq is not working and Congress must decide whether to follow his failed policies or whether to change course," Reid told reporters.

This move by the Senate, which is a unified position shared by the whole delegation sans Holy Joe Lieberman, makes the House proposal calling for withdrawal by fall 2008 the go-slow approach.

Things don't move that fast in our democracy. The ship of state is designed to move slowly and deliberately. So while I was concerned that the Democrats had given up on forcing debate on Iraq, I knew that eventually they would come around. Now they've essentially embraced Kerry-Feingold, which was put forth a year ago. It took that long to make it politically comfortable for them. I wish that wasn't true, it led to an unecessary loss of life, but now that the Democrats are where the public is on the war, we need to all pitch in to make this a reality.

3 cheers for this from Kos.

In any case, this is the sort of threat from the White House that has cracked Democratic resolve in the past, promoting them to try and find "common ground" with an administration that has no interest whatsoever in introducing accountability in its war conduct.

Hopefully this marks the end of those games. Let Bush veto it. The Democrats won the Senate and House on a platform of putting the brakes on this war. It's what a vast majority of the American people want. In fact, Congress is the last place in this country that still thinks there's a "debate" on Iraq. Outside of the bubble and pockets of dead-enders in the wingnutosphere, the debate over Iraq is over. Everyone wants out.

If Bush wants to veto legislation that the vast majority of Americans want, and if Republicans want to aid and abet that move, then let them. It'll provide the sort of stark contrast between the two parties voters need to make their ballot box choices.

One party wants to save our troops and reunite them with their families, the other party wants to keep them in harm's way.

Every Republican in the House and Senate has a choice to make. They'll have to pick a side. And choosing the President's side will have disastrous consequences for the next decade.

As for the veto, if it's attached to a supplemental appropriation, Bush will be denying himself the funds to continue the war. He'll be de-funding the troops in the field. If he signs the bill he'll try and find a way to continue the war past the withdrawal, whether through signing statement or simply refusing to withdraw. If he vetoes he'll try and find a way to keep funding the troops, probably through some off-the-books illegal budgeting. Either way, it'll provoke a Constitutional showdown.

Bring it on.