We don't have anywhere near the numbers we need in Congress to get what we want on Iraq

[bigtree]

but, we have an opportunity to forge some coalitions and compromises which have the potential to force Bush's hand. The more republican defectors we can get, the better on these compromises when the time comes to hold Bush accountable when he inevitably ignores even the most stringent resolution from this Congress.

Here's as good an explanation as any of the importance of this first non-binding resolution as a means to an end, not the end effort in and of itself . . .


Monday, January 22, 2007

Iraq war resolution not soft, leaders say

WASHINGTON (AP) - Two leading Senate Democrats are seeking to dispel concerns that a resolution on Iraq doesn’t go far enough, saying it would make a strong statement to President George W. Bush that a troop increase is wrong.

"It will be a very powerful message if a bipartisan majority of the Congress say that they disagree with the increased military involvement in Iraq," said Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

Division over whether Democrats should push a stronger measure could spell defeat for the resolution, he cautioned.

"The worst thing we can do is to vote on something which is critical of the current policy and lose it," said Levin, D-Mich. "If we lose that vote, the president will use the defeat of a resolution as support for his public policy."


http://www.columbiatribune.com/2007/Jan/20070122News016.asp


http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bigtree

[StudentDUer]

1. I think that may be true

But if the Out of Iraq and Progressive Caucuses vote strongly in favor of what needs to be done, and we have our new friends in the Senate do the same -- it may shift the debate to the left and force the leadership to move in the same direction as the enraged public.

[bigtree]

3. It's always a delicate balance between advocacy and governance

It will be an even more precarious one with the narrow majority we hold. To that end, though, I think the active 'Out of Iraq' members of Congress provide an invaluable lever and base to keep the effort from being whittled down into a 'victory' plan instead of and exit.

[StudentDUer]

5. The public is with those calling for withdrawal

But it won't be with us for long if we don't come up with a real solution. You never know, if we don't it may be the Republicans who in 2008 who turn into the party of withdrawal and use it to sweep elections. It's happened before.

[bigtree]

7. I agree that events could turn quickly. I'm more worried though

that these 'resolutions' will come with some goal of 'winning' something in Iraq before they let our soldiers come home. And, with Bush still hawking Iraq as the 'center' of his 'war on terror', I doubt that his base will ever be a 'withdrawal' party. They're still hoping one of the Iraqis they've terrorized with their occupation will pop off over here so they can say they told us so.

[StudentDUer]

8. I see what you're saying

That's why I want to see what the truly antiwar part of Congress can do to excite the public and carry it towards something that isn't going to lead to more disaster in Iraq or at home politically.

[bigtree]

9. thanks for your commitment to peace

and, welcome to DU! :hi:

[Cooley Hurd]

2. I think it's safe to say the first coalition will be between...

Sens. Warner, (Ben) Nelson, Collins, Hagel, Biden and Levin, possibly forged by this weekend. First order of business: halt the surge immediately.:thumbsup:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. Apologia from the timid wing. Aka: CYA

Now that it's politically acceptable to be against the carnage, the usual suspects take the easiest route between doing nothing and appearing to do something.

The killing goes on.

[bigtree]

6. whatever.

some of the folks there give a shit. They deserve our support.