Rocks and Hard Places

Hagel was the only Republican member of Foreign Relations to vote for his resolution.

The other members are Richard Lugar (IN), Bob Corker(TN), Norm Coleman(MN), Lisa Murkowsi (AK), John Sununu(NH) George Voinivich (OH), Jim Demin(SC), Johnny Isakson (GA), and David Vitter (LA).

The ones we care about here, besides Hagel, are Sununu and Coleman. Both have expressed reservations about the war, but both are tiptoeing around the issue, trying to triangulate it the way Lieberman did in his general election campaign. Note that the strategy worked for Lieberman. Lamont failed to define Lieberman as for the war.

This is seen by conventional wisdom observers as an indication that there may not be enough votes on the floor for passage.

The question for Democrats right now is whether to weaken the language just to get it passed, by adopting Condi's "augmentation" word instead of the dreaded E word.

But the bigger question which will grow and grow as what Hagel called an escalation without a plan fails, is do you let these guys get away with not taking a clear position on the war? And do we still have to worry about spineless Democrats?

Because the answer to the last question is rather amazingly, "yes, we do."--amazingly, that is, given how strong public opinion--the answer to the first question is easy. Act boldly, and speak strongly.

Another piece of conventional wisdom, as I heard from Schumer on Imus this morning, and as I read from him somewhere today, is that by late summer or early fall, this will have clearly failed, Bush will be losing Republicans left and right (especially the class II Republicans we follow here). Schumer's typical approach is not act boldly now, but to let them twist in the wind, and, just by the way, avoid taking a tough position. Clinton echoes this strategy.

Leave asideYou can't leave aside the fact that they are doing the moral equivalence of what the President and other war supporters are doing. They're putting their political skins ahead of American troops and innocent Iraqis. At this point, especially if you saw Cheney's apparently* delusional performance with Blitzer yesterday, it is very clear that this is a catastrophic failure, and the administration's plan is to just run out the clock, and leave it for Hillary to deal with. If there were some chance that having Americans shoot more Iraqis that civil war and resulting failed state could be avoided, then perhaps it would be worth. But when they can't even get members of parliament to stay in the country, let alone attend sessions, the "political solution" that is all the rage is clearly not in the cards.

The right thing to do is follow Kucinich's lead and pass the next 100 billion dollar appropriations bill under the conditions that it be used to schedule withdrawal and redeployment. This is the right thing to do because it's going to be done later, anyway, with the same post-withdrawal conflagration.

But this is also the right thing to do, politically. Right now, Bush has screwed both John McCain, by hanging the escalation around his neck, and the rest of his party, by not accepting the cover offered by the ISG. Right now, this is a Republican war. This is not the time, politically, for compromise and acquiescence. This is the time to take a bold stand, and force the Republicans either to whole-heartedly own this war, or to throw the President under the bus in the hopes of saving their seats. Taking a strong stand will stiffen the spines of the wavering, weak-willed Democrats who must have taken notice that MoveOn is spearheading a group that will identify Democratic elected officials who do not represent their districts on issues like Iraq.

It's time to make Norm Coleman, and, yes, Hillary Clinton, to make an up or down vote on this war. It's a win-win proposition. If the Republicans support the president, Democrats will have 60 seats in the Senate in 08. If they oppose the president, we get out of this war sooner rather than later.

--------
*Cheney is pretty clearly not delusional. He's just lying.