Wanting to Give Up So Bad They Can Taste It

I think there are elements of the Democratic leadership that so want to give up and give the President everything he wants on the supplemental Iraq funding now that they got their symbolic victory with the veto. They think that would somehow innoculate them from owning this war. Heck, Steny Hoyer is saying it right out in the open. But the conscience of the party is saying not so fast, and if you sell out on Iraq everybody's going to know why.

To Mr. Feingold, giving too much ground to the administration would repeat the mistake Democrats made in lending support to the war in the first place. He said he would regard it as a retreat from progress made in assembling Congressional majorities urging an end to the war.

“There is virtually no one in our caucus who does not want to be associated with trying to get us out of this war,” said Mr. Feingold, whose outspokenness made him a hero to the varied antiwar groups that were an integral element of Democratic success last November. “The only thing that is slowing some of them down is the fear that somehow they will be accused of doing something that will put the troops at risk. The desire for political comfort is still overwhelming the best judgment even of some Democrats.”

I would have guessed that Ben Nelson would have joined Hoyer in the Capitulation Caucus until he went to Baghdad and saw what was happening:

Mr. Nelson, like his colleague Mark Pryor of Arkansas, was uneasy about any withdrawal timeline. And the fact that the White House sees him as crucial to the debate was reflected in how quickly the administration reached out to him on Wednesday to try to arrange a meeting.

But Mr. Nelson has also expressed intensifying misgivings about the war, and his trip to the region did not allay his concerns. He said the sounds of rockets whistling around the fortified Green Zone in Baghdad were audible reminders of the dangers to American troops who “are literally at the crossroads of the civil war in Iraq.”

“There is still fighting in the streets of Baghdad,” said Mr. Nelson, who said meetings with leaders of political factions indicated that any reconciliation remained far off. “Things have not changed to the good.”

They really, really want to sell out the base on this one. But then they see the lack of progress, the shambles of a government, the men and women dying every day... and whaddya know, they start to use their brains for a second. I'm skeptical, but the leadership needs to be pushed, and they need to understand that the American people are behind them. Time to fire up the phones and the faxes and the emails. Tell your representative that a blank check is unacceptable.

UPDATE: There's a lot of talk about "benchmarks" in forging a compromise. It's ridiculous. There are no penalties to the Iraqis for not meeting the benchmarks. And by the way, it's a virtual certainty that they won't meet them:

Kurdish and Sunni Arab officials expressed deep reservations on Wednesday about the draft version of a national oil law and related legislation, misgivings that could derail one of the benchmark measures of progress in Iraq laid down by President Bush.

The draft law, which establishes a framework for the distribution of oil revenues, was approved by the Iraqi cabinet in late February after months of negotiations. The White House was hoping for quick passage to lay the groundwork for a political settlement among the country’s ethnic and sectarian factions. But the new Kurdish concerns have created doubts about the bill even before Parliament is to pick it up for debate [...]

Iraqi Blocs Opposed to Draft Oil Bill
Doug Mills/The New York Times
President Bush with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Harry Reid at the White House on Wednesday.

Sign In to E-Mail or Save This Print Single Page Reprints Share
DiggFacebookNewsvinePermalink

By EDWARD WONG and SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
Published: May 3, 2007
ERBIL, Iraq, May 2 — Kurdish and Sunni Arab officials expressed deep reservations on Wednesday about the draft version of a national oil law and related legislation, misgivings that could derail one of the benchmark measures of progress in Iraq laid down by President Bush.

Skip to next paragraph
The Reach of War
Go to Complete Coverage » The draft law, which establishes a framework for the distribution of oil revenues, was approved by the Iraqi cabinet in late February after months of negotiations. The White House was hoping for quick passage to lay the groundwork for a political settlement among the country’s ethnic and sectarian factions. But the new Kurdish concerns have created doubts about the bill even before Parliament is to pick it up for debate.

The issue comes at a delicate moment for Mr. Bush, who on Wednesday began negotiations with Congressional Democrats over a new war-spending measure.

The president vetoed a $124 billion bill on Tuesday because it included timetables for troop withdrawals, and a House vote on Wednesday fell short of the two-thirds majority needed to override the veto, with 222 voting in favor and 203 opposing the override.

In a speech to a construction industry trade group in Washington, Mr. Bush said he was “confident that with good will on both sides, that we can move beyond political statements” and agree on a new measure.

But he continued to criticize Congress for trying to use the bill to dictate timelines for withdrawal.

“The question is, ‘Who ought to make that decision, the Congress or the commanders?’ ” Mr. Bush said. “As you know, my position is clear — I’m the commander guy.”

In Iraq, the Kurds have taken issue with a new provision that was quietly packaged with the draft oil law by the Shiite-led Oil Ministry last month. The measure would essentially cede control of the management of nearly all known oil fields and related contracts to a state-run oil company to be established after passage of the law, said a spokesman for the Kurdish regional government.

The spokesman, Khalid Salih, said the provision violated a clause in the Constitution that says the central government must work with regional governments to determine management of known fields that have not been developed. The Kurds, who have enjoyed de facto independence in the north since 1991, have been arguing for maximum regional control over oil contracts.

There is no legitimate functioning government in Iraq, why would anyone think that they could work out a deal on the most important piece of legislation they'll ever negotiate? Also, the oil unions actually wield a little power in Iraq, and they won't let their fields essentially be seized by Big Business.