By Brian Beutler
This is a big deal. Here's how Kevin put it, before the votes were in and the deadline language was allowed to stay: "when that happens, George Bush really will be alone, finally forced to make public his commitment to staying in Iraq forever. That will -- finally -- be the beginning of the end, because the public simply isn't on his side anymore."
Precisely. A lot of people were pretty upset at the beginning ofthis Congress by what seemed like the Democrats' fecklessness. I wasone of them. And I can remember at least 336,298 segments of The DailyShow dedicated to lambasting the "non-binding resolution" "expressingdisapproval".
But now I've come to believe that their strategy is the only onethat will work. Effectively, they've had three choices. The first, Isuppose, would have been to do nothing. But that was obviously anon-starter, given all the reasons Democrats were elected in the firstplace. The second option would have been for the leadership to, fromday one, stand behind strong bills. Bills that, in their substance,would have put an end to this mess. (Bills like Russel Feingold's, forinstance.) It's frustrating, but those bills don't pass. And they don'tget the Gordon Smiths and Chuck Hagels of the world on to your side.
So instead, they picked a third strategy: Keep hacking away. MakeRepublicans vote no. Make them say, "I want this war to continue." Makethem say, with a straight face, "I want the president in charge." Makethem answer to reporters and constituents. These people don't haveepiphanies. They will not go from a pro-war position to Feingold'sposition over night. But they will ultimately be nudged, as they havebeen, into supporting incremental improvements like dates-certain. Thenit's up to the president to veto those bills, alienating himself frommembers of his own party and from the public at large.
And then we can all watch in quiet relief as the wheels come off.
Cross posted at Brian Beutler.
