| By Superduperficial - Mar 30th, 2007 at 1:39 pm EDT |
Let it be known, I have a total schoolgirl crush on Mickey Kaus. But setting my biases aside, I was wondering what you guys think on this post from his blog:
<blockquote>
Kabuki Watch? Here's a question: If it's
a) in the Congressional Democrats' interest to try but ultimately fail to use their funding power force a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq (it shows the antiwar left Pelosi is trying without giving Dems responsibility for a messy Iraq outcome),
and it's
b) in the Bush administration's interest to have Congressional Dems' try but ultimately fail to use their funding power to force a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq (it lets Bush continue the "surge" while giving him the threat of a Dem-forced pullout with which to pressure the Maliki government),
then
c) isn't it true that what probably will happen is that the Congressional Dems try but ultimately fail to use their funding power to force a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq?
Just asking!</blockquote>
Did I mention I love his writing style, too?
!
Comments are closed for this post.
If they try and succeed, then he's not the one who ended the war--it was those dems who 'legislated defeat.' there's room for history to wiggle him out of total culpability and maybe salvage a smidgen of his legacy.
If they try and fail, then he becomes a sole proprietor in history's eyes. By this point, he has to know that this war doesn't end with him in the White House, so whoever is the WH occupant when we leave Iraq takes the credit for ending the war and blames Bush for starting it.
And remember, there's still the slight problem of the '08 elections. We know from the GSA hearings in Congress that there are plenty in the administration who are scared about a complete beatdown of republican candidates AGAIN in '08, and this would put distance between the Dems and the least popular move the administration has made.
So Kaus's big problem--he's assuming altruism on Bush's part and gamesmanship on the Democrats' part. I don't see why the administration wouldn't be concerned with political appearances, or why the Democrats wouldn't be concerned with actually ending a bad, illegal and unwinnable war.
If they try and succeed, then he's not the one who ended the war--it was those dems who 'legislated defeat.' there's room for history to wiggle him out of total culpability and maybe salvage a smidgen of his legacy.
If they try and fail, then he becomes a sole proprietor in history's eyes."
It does not seem that Bush sees it that way, though. It's up to him whether the Dems' try to end the war fails or not, because it's him that has to sign that bill, and he keeps saying he's going to veto it.
Either Bush actually still believes in winning this war (for whatever reason that might be), or he is simply too stubborn and unwilling to admit defeat.
Or maybe he just doesn't like the thought of leaving all the oil with the Iraqis.
But if the Dems can manage to find a way to either a.) force him to sign a bill with a timeline through a clever attachment to an essential bill, or b.) win over enough republicans to override the veto, then he no longer has sole responsibility--congress will have tied his hands, and he'll have at least a shot at rewriting the historical narrative to a more favorable view of his actions.
Notice the problem with the blockquote html prompt? Did the same thing on mine. There's something wrong with the html filter. When I turn the filter off the blockquote command is no longer in brackets, and I have to manually reinsert them. Is there any hope for a fix?