The newly-elected Democratic majority -- from blue dog to new progressives -- seemed to agree that there was a distinct political advantage in making sure George W. Bush and the Republican party were hung with the costly Iraq failure. No way were Democrats going to share the awful political and moral burden of the invasion.
Carl Hulse, writing in today's New York Times, notes a new Democratic plan for compromise on withdrawal that makes Democrats as partners in that compromise. Even Carl Levin -- who lately returned from Iraq with a sour, honest report on the lack of progress -- is signing on.
Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, said, “If we have to make the spring part a goal, rather than something that is binding, and if that is able to produce some additional votes to get us over the filibuster, my own inclination would be to consider that.”
Democrats would need to lure the 60 senators in order to cut off a likely Republican filibuster.
The emerging proposal by Mr. Levin and Senator Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island, would still order the administration to begin pulling at least some combat troops out of Iraq, probably by the end of the year. It is not clear what other provisions the measure may include.
But Mr. Levin, who is chairman of the Armed Services Committee and who met Wednesday with Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, said a compromise may be worth making. It would allow Congress to assert its own voice on Iraq policy, after falling short of that goal in most such votes throughout the year, he said.
"... Allow Congress to assert its own voice." Doesn't that signal a willingness to accept political responsibility for the war? Is that a good thing?
Who sets the goal posts now?
“Warner is where the play is,” said one Democratic official familiar with the party’s thinking who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he did not want to discuss internal deliberations publicly.
