I think folks who want the Dem leadership Iraq compromise to fail want the Iran provision included

[bigtree]

They know the bill will get bogged down in an argument over Iran and they don't care. They'd rather see the Iraq withdrawal proposal fail than remove the contentious provision on Iran.

Those who want to see the Democratic leadership proposal succeed in the House will be more inclined to support the removal of the Iran provision from the bill and a direct focus on the underlying premise; to begin to withdraw our troops from Iraq.

I can't but help think that the same folks who've resisted this Democratic leadership compromise on Iraq are using the controversy over the removal of the Iran provision to indirectly affect the Iraq initiative and possibly doom it to failure. It would be a small matter to the constant critics of our Democratic leadership if it failed. They'd likely cheer it's failure. No matter to them that this compromise will be the most significant, binding rebuke from Congress to advance from the House since the beginning of the invasion and occupation four years ago.

Folks who are insisting on the inclusion of the Iran provision need to account for what that inclusion would do to the support for the underlying Iraq withdrawal initiative in the supplemental legislation, instead of just posturing like the Iran provision was our most pressing concern. I don't think those folks care at all about passing the Democratic compromise, and I think the tactic of insisting on including the divisive Iran provision in the bill to the point of launching protests against the Democratic leadership is despicable and self-defeating.


http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bigtree

[noamnety]

1. If it makes you feel any better

protests against the dem leadership were going to happen anyway, because the dem leadership's idea of being strongly anti-war is to say "150,000 troops is absolutely unacceptable. (but 120,000 is fine by us)"

Bush's splurge was a gift on a silver platter to the dems because it allowed them to use strong anti-war rhetoric (look at me! I'm defying Bush!) without having to actually demand any real change.

[bigtree]

2. I doesn't make me feel any better

Using the Iran provision controversy to object to the underlying Iraq provisions is slimy politics.

I think if you accept that some duplicitous Dems were using Bush's escalation for their political advantage then you should understand it when subversive motives are attributed to the leadership's critics. Where's the logic in allowing Bush to retain control over and perpetuate the occupation. You almost have to bend over backwards to portray our representatives as callously satisfied with the bloody occupation. Of course, only those of us on the outside can really care about ending the occupation.

The leadership compromise on Iraq will be seen by everyone except the Democratic leadership's constant critics (within the party?) as a demand for withdrawal from Iraq.

[Monkeyman]

6. Agree

[Mojorabbit]

3. It is going to fail anyway

as in be totally ignored by * so why not do the right thing. If we are already stirring up unrest in Iran as a prelude to war I'd rather they bring it up and keep it on the airways that war with Iran is possible and go on record that it is not acceptable. I absolutely do not agree witwh the compromise.

[bigtree]

4. it may be rejected when it reaches Bush's desk

but that's no reason for not proceeding. Bush needs to be directly confronted by Congress at least once on Iraq. Let him veto and bring the debate back to the Congress. That's how the process works. If we don't try to confront him we deserve to be ignored.

The 'right' thing (immediate, unconditional withdrawal) would have an even harder time passing out of either the House or the Senate.

[Mojorabbit]

7. We weaken everything we put up

The polls show the public is behind us. I want to see something forceful, not these milque toast things that are being put out there, ie non binding resolutions. I want them to say Iran is off the page.
I am so over weak compromises which say one thing while giving him the loopholes to do what he wants. That is just where I am today. I am sick of weak resolutions. As I said, he will veto it anyway, why not make a strong statement?

It is just like this
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x406256

Now I will admit I am having a really really bad day but I don't want to wake up to, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss"
I want change. I want accountability, I want them to do the morally right thing. I am sick of political positioning.

[mmonk]

5. .