The politics of Iraq Posted by: McQ
on Thursday, May 10, 2007
Today the New York Times is reporting that moderate Republicans are warning President Bush that there must be visible progress in Iraq if he wants their continued support:
Moderate Republicans gave President Bush a blunt warning on his Iraq policy at a private White House meeting this week, telling the president that conditions needed to improve markedly by fall or more Republicans would desert him on the war.
The White House session demonstrated the grave unease many Republicans are feeling about the war, even as they continue to stand with the president against Democratic efforts to force a withdrawal of forces through a spending measure that has been a flash point for weeks.
Participants in the Tuesday meeting between Mr. Bush, senior administration officials and 11 members of a moderate bloc of House Republicans said the lawmakers were unusually candid with the president, telling him that public support for the war was crumbling in their swing districts.
Now, of course, this sounds worse than it is, as these are members of the House. If the same number of Republican Senators were warning the President, then he'd have a real worry on his hands. That's not to say he shouldn't understand that even Republicans are becoming disaffected, but to put in context the seriousness of 11 House Republicans becoming disaffected. Still, the White House has now received fair warning. The united front of Republicans, at least in the House, will not last forever.
Meanwhile, John Aravosis, on AmericaBlog is reporting that conservative Democrats in the House are preparing to vote in favor of a bill which, per Aravosis, effectively gives the President a blank check for the war with few if any restrictions:
It's time to replace some conservative Democrats in Washington, DC. I just heard from an impeccable source that there is serious concern on the Hill that conservative Democrats in the House will vote with the Republicans to strip any and all restrictions from the Iraq supplemental tomorrow, effectively giving Bush all the money he wants with no restrictions and no effort to hold either him or the Iraq government accountable for anything. I.e., they will vote to continue this war along the same disastrous course because they're too afraid to challenge George Bush and his failed leadership.
Let me reiterate: This isn't some idle rumor. The concerns are coming from Hill sources themselves.
So we're seeing some movement from the RINOs and DINOs as each side likes to label their "moderates". 11 disaffected on the Republican side and citing "political reality" in their marginal districts, an unknown number (mostly the blue dogs, I would assume which number in the 30s I believe) considering the political reality in their marginal districts and possibly supporting the president.
If ever there was a quagmire, its to be found in Washington DC as the politics of this war become ever more complex and convoluted.
I guess that’s to much to ask for with todays continuous election cycle
Yes, it would always be easier if everyone agreed on one course of action. But, of course, some people think the war is damaging to the US national interest, involves unnecessary killing, is overstretching the military, risks greater regional unrest, and is not moral. If one believes those things, then one has the moral obligation to oppose the war and try to work politically against the decisions of the President.
So given the reality of different opinions, often diametrically opposed but sincerely held, it is too much to ask.