New Stakes

The President has now said that he will block a symbolic timeline that he could waive. He would block that bill even if everything was stripped except the spending he wants.

The Democrats, in a meeting with Bush's top aides on Capitol Hill, said they would strip from an emergency appropriations measure billions of dollars in domestic spending. They also pledged to give Bush authority to waive compliance with a timetable on the war.

But no agreement emerged.

I don't see how you can do anything at this point but send the same bill that was vetoed before. The President is a rogue agent who will not compromise about anything. While the punditocracy is bending over backwards to demand that the Democrats compromise on the bill, everything they've offered has been turned down. The only thing Bush will allow in the bill are benchmarks without consequences.

I think this occupation can be realistically ended by stalemate. It's time for the Democrats to come out and say "the President refuses to accept any check on his power, so there's nothing we can do. The bill is done and has been passed by both houses of Congress. If he wants the money, he'll sign them. If not, I would suggest that the President takes the appropriate steps to remove our troops from Iraq."

Considering that every Republican wants to wait until September, and considering that Gen. Petraeus himself has said that September will not be definitive, it's clear that the strategy is to keep kicking this down the road until the President leaves office. The Democrats are offering legislation that would LET HIM DO THAT and he still stubbornly refuses. I know that it's risky but given all these developments, I don't think there's a choice.

I've never been a big fan of having votes in Congress just for the sake of having them (i.e., having a vote on an issue you know you're going to lose). Case in point: the Alito filibuster. Falling on your sword for principle is nice, and perhaps looks good in the history books (or on film), but if you're trying to truly accomplish something, guaranteed failure should be your last option, no matter how "just" it feels. But there's an exception to that rule, if by failing you start inching towards victory. That's been the Democratic strategy on Iraq since the election (and even before). Every Iraq vote, even though we keep losing, chips away at Republican congressional support for the war. And what's more, it also has been chipping away at Democratic support for the war. Every time we vote, the numbers for our side increase.

It's still a risky game. The public doesn't like gridlock, and that's what the Iraq war votes signify. But in this case, there's only one party in town that's talking about ending this war, and that's the Democrats. The public knows this. And after another year and a half of votes, their increasing frustration could boil over, again, at the ballot box. At least that's the plan, and I like it.

The surge isn't working. The Iraq government wants us to leave, and the Republican leader of the Senate has stated that he would comply with such a request. This is the end of the line, folks, and if the President can't compromise at all, he can end the occupation all by himself. That's the choice here. Stand strong, Democrats, we've got your back.