I can't see the Dems holding their nerve, to be frank. Also, I wouldn't put it beyond Bush to sign the bill and just ignore it. He's said repeatedly that Congress doesn't have the right to tie his hands.

All that said, when the Dems announced their plan, I thought it was a huge mistake. Now that it's passed both houses, which I didn't think it would, I have to give them credit for a canny move. It's win/win unless Bush wants to provoke the biggest crisis of his presidency.

He vetoes it and a bunch of House Dems cave, or Reid isn't able to keep lassoing in Landrieu, Pryor, and the Nelsons. On the other hand, I think the current "cave" position is to pass an unencumbered spending bill that only provides a few month's worth of money, prompting another fight over this a Friedman Unit or so from now when the war is even less popular.

If the Democrats in Congress hold their ground, we've got an end date for the war,

No chance. It would be insane, politically and otherwise, and I'll be fine when they cave (as I think Obama has predicted).

He's said repeatedly that Congress doesn't have the right to tie his hands.

That's a fight I really want to have. Either we win, which I'd say there's a 95% chance of, or we find out that we're living in a military dictatorship so at least we know what the issues are.

isn't able to keep lassoing in Landrieu

Does she think she has some chance of being reelected? I think the relocating of much of her base to Houston and other places will be quite significant.

I'll be fine when they cave (as I think Obama has predicted).

I keep on seeing Kos posting about how Obama's said he's going to cave, but the quotes from Obama used to support it are completely ambiguous. Can anyone point me at something solid from Obama?

I'll be fine when they cave (as I think Obama has predicted)

It's good to know that Obama has the pulse of SCMT.

7: Oh, he's got more than pulse. IYKWIM. AITTYD.

5 - I saw polling numbers that have her beating Sec. of State Jay Dardenne, so she's not the electoral poison that Blanco was. (She seems to have gotten credit for doing some heavy lifting re: getting rebuilding funds.)

A veto does not cut off the funds. The bill is a supplemental appropriations bill. The FY2007 DoD budget has already been passed by Congress. Without a supplemental, the DoD will have not cut other programs (like staff at Walter Reed) in order to keep combat operations going.

The real fight will begin with the FY08 budget. The Democrats can either try to shut the government down or pass a budget. I think the U.S. has been down this road before.

It will be a true sign of the Democrats claim to be great managers to see if Speaker Pelosi actually brings in all appropriations bills in time for the Senate to act and to be signed off before September 30, 2007. Why? Because passing a budget is listed in the Constitution as a duty of the House and because the Republicans were complete failures at accomplishng one of their few assigned duties.

Without a supplemental, the DoD will have not cut other programs (like staff at Walter Reed) in order to keep combat operations going.

One could argue about the legality of this (and when I say that, I mean that I'm not sure how it would come out) but would it really work for any length of time just in terms of scale? War is expensive, and whatever corners the administration wants to cut at home, they can't just shut down the entire rest of the military -- firing a couple of case managers at Walter Reed isn't going to pay for much in Iraq. But I don't have a good offhand sense of how much money could practically be drained out of the rest of the DOD budget at a moment's notice for war funding -- do you?

Reid must have something up his sleeve. He's basically promised to escalate if there's a veto (by supporting Feingold). I'm wondering whether more Republicans than just Hagel and Smith have turned. Some Republicans just used Andrea Mitchell to float a trial balloon (though not about the veto specifically).

Tim, I don't understand how your works. The Democrats have the policy advantage on this issue, they have the polls on their side, and with this appropriations bill they have more leverage than they'll ever have again. Bush's case against the bill is based on a cartoonish misrepresentation ("If we don't support the troops they'll be helpless before the jihadists!!!!1!!!)

At some point the Democrats have to learn to capitalize on their advantages, instead of beginning every negotiation by offering to split the difference. They really need to take some chances, make some intitatives, and fight some battles.

"Without a supplemental, the DoD will have not cut other programs (like staff at Walter Reed) in order to keep combat operations going. "

Which would be illegal. You can't use funds appropriated for one purpose for another.

13: I think you're right, but I also think it might fall into the 'so it's illegal, how are you going to stop me?' category -- close enough to the line that the courts might back away as a political question. I'm just surprised at the idea that there'd be enough loose money in the budget to keep Iraq going for any length of time.

"Without a supplemental, the DoD will have not cut other programs (like staff at Walter Reed) in order to keep combat operations going. "

I think that sentence could go either way. I understood it to be saying that no cutting would be required because money was already appropriated for Iraq.

I keep on seeing Kos posting about how Obama's said he's going to cave, but the quotes from Obama used to support it are completely ambiguous. Can anyone point me at something solid from Obama?

Here you go:

If President Bush vetoes an Iraq war spending bill as promised, Congress quickly will provide the money without the withdrawal timeline the White House objects to because no lawmaker "wants to play chicken with our troops," Sen. Barack Obama said Sunday.

"My expectation is that we will continue to try to ratchet up the pressure on the president to change course," the Democratic presidential candidate said in an interview with The Associated Press. "I don't think that we will see a majority of the Senate vote to cut off funding at this stage."

Now, this isn't exactly Obama saying he's going to cave. But it is Obama saying that Congressional Democrats, a group to which Obama belongs, are going to cave, and that they'll be right to do so, because to do otherwise would be "playing chicken with our troops." I have the sneaking suspicion someone's pollsters have been whispering "moderate" words into his ear lately.

16: Yeah, that looks bad, although the unambiguous stuff is paraphrases rather than quotes. Hopefully it's an unfair paraphrase.

This thing lives or dies in public opinion. Bush might be able to scam his way through, but unless public opinion goes his way, he's damaged.

On his way to power Newt Gingrich picked a lot of losing fights, but he used these fights (as planned) as ammunition against the Democrats.

One of the fatal sins of the Democrats is a strong tendency toward act utilitarianism. Act utilitarians are wretched politicians and wretched negotiators.

Forget Obama. He's always had a waekness for that creepy Kumbayah shit.

15: I'm pretty sure that's not accurate -- what's been passed is a 'peacetime' DOD budget, and the current bills are the Iraq funding. If they don't go through, there's nothing set aside for Iraq when the current funding runs out.

13: I'll bet funds budgeted for "maintenance" don't have any "where" attached to them, and the same with "training". GWB can veto the bill and shift stuff, shorten leaves, cut basics, etc. and blame the Dems. It might work or might not, depending on what the media chooses to report and what the troops say about conditions.

20: That's exactly right. What's in the DOD budget is funds for painting schools, riding ponies, and passing out candy—it's deliberately underfunded to misrepresent the price of the war, since it's easier to pass by the public a bunch of appropriations bills that don't seem to accumulate. If the appropriations bill does not pass, the Pentagon runs out of money to fight the war this month.

Are W's only remaining tools "blustering nonsense," as LB says, or "cartoonish misrepresentation" per Emerson? Well maybe, but Bush has come a long with little else.

That said, I'm really pretty encouraged about the Democrats' tactical approach, and I think they are doing the groundwork to create a political climate in which they can push this issue in the way that Emerson (and I) would like to see.

When dealing with an outlaw president, though, I'm not sure what Congress can actually accomplish short of frog-marching him (and his VP puppeteer) out of the White House in cuffs - and I really don't think the country has the stomach for that.

Remember, besides blustering nonsense, the president's other effective tool is his open defiance of the rule of law.

There is actually an enormous constitutional principle involved here, and one which almost every serious constitutionalist (including conservatives) would have to support the Democrats on. But I'm not sure that Democrats have a capacity to make a strong constitutional stand, partly because of long history and partly because of temperament.

We should assume that the media will be weak at best (though they've been a smidgen better recently).

Smasher, others say the money runs out in July. Bush has made a factual misrepresentation about that.

2: That was Yglesias's take, right? I don't understand what's supposed to happen over the course of three months (pick your unit) that makes the war less palatable to the American people. It seems to me that (just as with the appropriations process) the repetition weakens rather than reinforces the public understanding of what the Democrats are up to, exactly. Unless the point is to wait for Republicans on the fence to come around? Well, why not press hard now and press hard three months from now, too?

Isn't this how Bush wins this? He manages to portray the cash crisis as Congress's fault (sort of like Clinton in 95/96), then makes a case that the surge is working and that the democrats are throwing in the towel just as we're making serious progress. The usual talking heads buy into this, and it's cave-o-rama.

We can't just assume that Bush will win the PR battle. That's where the fight really is.

I don't think that this issue can be finessed. If we don't beat Bush head-on, Bush wins.

If he can do this: "then makes a case that the surge is working", he wins. But I don't think he can do that anymore. McCain's been getting mocked hard for the tour through the Baghdad market with the company of soldiers and the bullet-proof vest and the helicopters -- the Times had a funny front page article interviewing a vendor in the market wondering what planet McCain was on.

What's a win for Bush on the PR front? A seasonal high of 30 percent of the people don't think this war's horseshit? There's no way he turns this around.

Haven't the Democrats already said pretty openly that they're going to cave and give Bush the "clean" bill he wants? That was the obvious context surrounding the announcement yesterday about the bill that cuts off funding.

About the best we can hope for is that the 'clean' bill only has enough money for 3 months rather than a full year. Make them keep voting for the war, over and over, to make it clear that the Democrats are trying to get out and the Republicans are doing everything they can to stay in.

He manages to portray the cash crisis as Congress's fault

I think this can be countered by turning the GOP rhetoric back on them. "We've thrown more than half a trillion—TRILLION—dollars at this and things have only deteriorated. The President think he can just continue throwing money at this and it will magically fix itself, but you know and I know that that's nonsense. We've now spent sixty-five thousand dollars on every family in Iraq. how much has been spent on your family during that period?"

That was the obvious context surrounding the announcement yesterday about the bill that cuts off funding.

Link? Reid seems to be saying exactly the opposite in the article linked in the post.

Tim, I don't understand how your works. The Democrats have the policy advantage on this issue, they have the polls on their side, and with this appropriations bill they have more leverage than they'll ever have again. Bush's case against the bill is based on a cartoonish misrepresentation ("If we don't support the troops they'll be helpless before the jihadists!!!!1!!!)

People want to be correct, and not much more. Right now, they know that Bush is wrong, and so they've backed the Democrats. I'm not sure that pulling out is the right thing to do, so I'm not sure that Democrats should be forcing a pullout.

Bush might be able to scam his way through, but unless public opinion goes his way, he's damaged.

Yeah, he definitely won't be reelected after that!

No link, it was just my impression upon reading about it. Well, here's something:

"If the President vetoes the supplemental appropriations bill and continues to resist changing course in Iraq, I will work to ensure this legislation receives a vote in the Senate in the next work period."

He says this bill is compatible with the Senate-passed supplemental, but if he's really supporting this timeline bill as a reaction to a veto, it strongly suggests that they intend to pass a supplemental without a timeline.

But they've already passed a supplemental with a timeline in the House and the Senate -- they haven't been reconciled in conference yet, but there doesn't seem to be any reason that the final bill would be weaker than either house's version.

Mmm. I don't know. But I suspect there's a significant percentage of the electorate that thinks that a) the Iraq War was/has turned out to be an awful idea yet b) pulling out of Iraq amounts to causing an incredible amount of suffering and then abandoning the region to chaos.

This group wouldn't blame the Democrats for being in Iraq, or losing in Iraq, but they might feel as though the Democrats couldn't even face the facts and finish the fight, even if they didn't agree with it, to protect the Iraqis who are currently made a little better off by American protection.

Now, I think we're prolonging the violence by staying, but I'm not as nearly confident of this opinion as I'd like. But how does Bush get the support back? Easy do. We cut the funding, we move the troops, and some atrocities in Baghdad get publicized. Did you just leave those Iraqi babies to die? Did your commitment to principles blind you to our responsibilities?

I'm not sure that pulling out is the right thing to do, so I'm not sure that Democrats should be forcing a pullout.

OK, so this isn't a strategy thing for you. You're torn between the Democrats and Bush. I understand better now how your mind works.

We cut the funding, we move the troops, and some atrocities in Baghdad get publicized. Did you just leave those Iraqi babies to die? Did your commitment to principles blind you to our responsibilities?

That's support for a new stab-in-the-back legend, which I'm sure we're in for, but timing-wise I can't see that dynamic keeping us in Iraq. Don't you think that by the time we were pulled out enough that people could plausibly attribute increased violence to the pull-out, that the momentum in favor of going home would be irreversible?

Tom Ricks was on one of the NPR shows last night claiming that even funded, the surge runs out of steam in August or September. The Republicans in Congress have made similar noises. Bush has a bad hand to bluster with.

OK, so this isn't a strategy thing for you. You're torn between the Democrats and Bush. I understand better now how your mind works.

I think I'm torn between some Democrats and other Democrats, inc. (if allowed to infer by absence) Gore.

that the momentum in favor of going home would be irreversible?

You can want something to happen and still blame the people who make it happen. In fact, that's a pretty common experience in everyday life, no?

38 gives Americans way too much credit in re compassion for foreigners. The dissonance here isn't with Americans who realize the war is a bad idea but are reluctant to pull out, but with Americans who want to pull out but don't want to cut off funding for Our Troops. I promise you that the number of Americans who honestly care about atoning for the evil we've visited upon Iraq is fairly negligible.

Democrats, inc.

I think they renamed the corporation the DLC.

Oh, sure -- the stab-in-the-back legend is going to get pulled out, and we'll see if people buy it in any reasonable numbers over the next decade or two ("We were on the brink of victory in Iraq when those meddling kids screwed everything up!"). I just don't see it having enough force to keep us from pulling out.

I think they renamed the corporation the DLC.

I think their motivations are different. But, on domestic policy, I am often closer to the DLC than not; it's just that I suspect their motivations and therefor distrust their implementation of policy.

I guess I never considered the possibility that what we were arguing about here was "How many more Friedmans?"

48: The preferred term is "Tim-time," Emerson.

37: my understanding is that there are actually very few constraints on what the conference committee can do in the name of reconciling the bills. If the caving starts early, there's no reason it couldn't happen there.

48: I think that there are two questions: What can be done by Democrats to end the war before the next president takes office? And: What is the appropriate political tactic to ensure a decent election result in '08?

First answer: Nothing. Second answer: Act as though the first answer is wrong, partly in the hope that it is wrong, and partly to lay out the issues as starkly as possible in advance of the election.

50: Oh, it procedurally could happen -- I just don't see evidence that it will.

I think their motivations are different.

I was just funnin' on the Inc., Tim.

The more attention I pay to politics, the less I realize I know about the mechanics of passing legislation.

The question of Democratic "credibility on foreign policy" is more complicated than people think. It's usually interpreted just to mean "Democrats aren't hawkish enough", which just assumes that American foreign policy should be hawkish. Behind that is the idea that the Democrats aren't credible on foreign policy because, effectively, the Democratic party doesn't exist on foreign policy, since it consists of two battling wings, one of which tends to support the Republicans. Still further behind the scenes is the voters perception that the Democrats are cowards and wimps, because if they weren't, they wouldn't let the Republicans humiliate them time after time.

In case I've been too abstract, trying to finesse issues with act utilitarianism is part three: helpless wimpishness. Undercutting Reid and Pelosi right at the moment when, against heavy odds, they've finally achieved a very difficult Congressional consensus on Iraq is part two: the nonexistent Democratic Party. Anytime Bush has some kind of problem in Congress, all he has to do is reach into the Democrats loose sack of potatoes and take out as many votes as he needs. It doesn't always work, but it looks like it will work on the most important issue of the decade.

55: Is that in response to something someone's said, or just something you felt you had to get off of your chest?

44: "We should have marched to Baghdad, instead we left those poor Kurds to die, and we're going to do the same thing again." It's an easy enough narrative to develop.

46: And to LB, I think fear of that stab-in-the-back legend, when the base isn't sure whether we should leave (as opposed to the base being sure that the war has gone badly), is what would sink it. In other words, I think American opposition to the war is greater than American desire to leave "with the job undone."

I'm not sure how likely the caving is, but that's how I would see it happen.

"If the Democrats in Congress hold their ground, we've got an end date for the war"

I wish folks wouldn't use this expression, even as shorthand. The war in Iraq is likely to continue whether US troops are there or not. What we get if Democrats hold their ground is a date certain for US withdrawal.

I love how all of the policy wonk wannabes do not know about the "color of money" in the DoD PPBS (that's the plans, programming, and budgeting system).

The DoD can move Operations and maintenance funds around between accounts. The DoD could also put on a hiring freeze to continue to fund payroll in FY07. At the Secretariat Level they could probably also reprogram procurement dollars to keep Iraq going.

The Democrats would be better off trying the funding cut off in the FY08 budget that is due in six months instead of a supplemental funding bill in the middle of the years. Then Congress has the leverage of refusing to pass a continuing resolution to fund the military if President Bush vetos the spending bill.

Not everything is not about you, Tim. This was.

Against all odds, Reid and Pelosi finally did something credible about foreign policy, and Reid expressed his intention of sticking to his guns by mentioning Feingold, and you're a supposed Democrat, but now you're Really Not Sure You Can Support Them At This Time.

And half the people here are negotiating Reid's terms of surrender. So I now expect that the Democrats, after this promising start, will quickly return to failing to take any intelligible position on the most important foriegn policy issue of the last decade or two, leaving the field open to Bush for the next two years and even making it possible for a Republican, instead of a Democrat, to be the anti-Bush in 2008.

Reid and Pelosi finally did something credible about foreign policy, and Reid expressed his intention of sticking to his guns by mentioning Feingold, and you're a supposed Democrat, but now you're Really Not Sure You Can Support Them At This Time.

I'm probably fine with whatever Reid and Pelosi do, because I trust their instincts. I said something like "Dems are likely to cave, and that's fine." My own belief is that we are not well positioned to figure out what's at play in Iraq b/c we've had four years for the Red rot to seep in. I'd like the Dems to figure out precisely what they think is going on before forcing action. To the extent they cannot do that because of the Red rot, they should try to force the WH to pursue a troop-protecting "treading water" strategy for as long as this WH is in charge.

I mean they intend to pass a supplemental without a timeline after this one is vetoed.

Look, we're not policymakers behind the scenes cutting deals. We're just citizens. It's not up to us to make the compromises. It's up to us to make political demands. I understand that it's natural for wonk types to imagine themselves as important inside players, but none of us are, and we shouldn't do little wonk Walter Mitty acts and pretend that we're Reid or Pelosi. Add that to the list of crippling Democratic deficiencies --an inability to get away from the finesse / inside baseball / meta / process level in order to actually act in a politically effective way.

I understand that everyone here thinks they're smart enough to give clever advice to Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Pelosi, and Reid, but you're probably not, and in any case you're not in a position to do that. We're all really just foot soldiers, no matter how smart we are or think we are.

I'd like the Dems to figure out precisely what they think is going on before forcing action.

When will that be? Around 2015 when the definitive book comes out? The decision willbe made in the next few months.

I have no idea what you're talking about, Tim.

I understand that everyone here thinks they're smart enough to give clever advice to Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Pelosi, and Reid, but you're probably not, and in any case you're not in a position to do that. We're all really just foot soldiers, no matter how smart we are or think we are.

Don't disagree at all. How, exactly, does that point us towards Emerson's One True Political Stand?

I have no idea what you're talking about, Tim.

I don't know how likely "regional conflagration" is, for example, if we leave. I don't trust this WH, or anyone they've promoted (see, e.g., Justice and every other bureaucracy they've touched) to give me either an honest or minimally credible-by-my-lights answer. I think the "regional conflagration" issue is an important one to sort out before deciding on the next step. So I want to do what is necessary to preserve the status quo until someone I trust can get that answer from someone else I trust. Maybe that's not possible, for any number of reasons, but that is, at the moment, my preferred course of action.

I think some of you are underestimating Reid and Pelosi. They've already not only passed unlikely legislation that'll hold Bush's feet to the fire, but they've gotten this issue onto the frong pages (hallelujah) and are, finally, getting the Dems to unite (enough) to get legislation passed. It's what we've all been bitching about their not doing for years.

And yes, I'm completely in love with them.

Because everyone here is talking about this cagy meta process finesse shit already, when we should be talking about what we hope to get out of this process. And second, when Reid started talking about sending the Feingold bill to the floor, he was signaling that he does not plan to cave in. We should be saying Hooray! and supporting him, instead of talking about what specifically he should do after he caves in.

Obviously it's not just people here. It's Obama especially, and about a third of the Democrats. And I do realize that a lot of Democrats want at least four more Friedmans, though Hillary apparently wants twenty. So really, there's no hope of anything good coming out of this.

67: Hmm. Nobody can give a definitive answer to the "regional conflagration" question and no amount of time with US troops sitting in Iraq will provide an answer. My guess is that the Iran-Saudi proxy war that is already underway will intensify, but suspect that might be a necessary precondition to some equilibrium getting reached.

Look, it's obviously going to be a bloody mess. It's a bloody mess right now. The status quo is *fucking horrible*.

So I want to do what is necessary to preserve the status quo until someone I trust can get that answer from someone else I trust.

There's really no status quo. We have a situation spinning out of control. I doubt that American troops can help much.

We're at half a trillion dollars spent on this war, with tons more long-term expenses that will come due from it in short order. The *entire national debt* accumulated over two centuries is about 8.8 trillion dollars. We are destroying our future with this stupid-ass pointless war. We really don't have time to sit around and wait.

And second, when Reid started talking about sending the Feingold bill to the floor, he was signaling that he does not plan to cave in.

What do you mean by cave in, though? Do you think that he'll pass a 'clean' supplemental as Bush demands, after the current one is vetoed? Obviously it means he's not going to say "Oh well, we tried but Bush won" and go on to domestic affairs.

Basically I'll let reid figure that out. The message he'll get from me will be to fight it to the bitter end. He's able to figure out the process stuff on his own. If he compromises in some way, I might be OK with that, but that's not what I'm asking for.

34

"People want to be correct, and not much more. Right now, they know that Bush is wrong, and so they've backed the Democrats. I'm not sure that pulling out is the right thing to do, so I'm not sure that Democrats should be forcing a pullout."

Sometimes you have to make decisions without knowing for sure what is the correct thing to do. Sometimes you will be wrong but as the saying goes if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen. If the Democrats aren't willing to do what they think is right because they are afraid of looking bad if they are wrong they aren't fit to be running the country.

. We have a situation spinning out of control. I doubt that American troops can help much.

I'm not sure how much I disagree. "Spinning out of control," definitely. "Doubt that American troops can help much," probably. But, as you noted, neither you nor I are well situated to make such a determination. Rather, I believe, we depend on other institutions--notably, Congress and the media--to determine whether claims made by the Administration (or others) are supportable. It has been all of, maybe, three months that either Congress or the media has had any incentive or shown any particular desire to check the Admin's claims. I don't know what's so unfathomable about my desire. If you see a failing enterprise run by liars and incompetents, I would think the very first thing you would do before shuttering the thing would be to audit the books. Maybe you only need majorities in Congress to do so, maybe you need to hold the Executive. Maybe, because of events on the ground, you cannot afford to wait for the audit. But if the last is true, I want a better argument for that position than I've previously seen.

whether claims made by the Administration (or others) are supportable

Have ANY of their claims about anything to do with Iraq been proven true ever? We should be starting from the position that everything this administration has ever said has panned out to be grade-B horseshit, and that pattern is fixed enough now to have decent predictive power.

You might think I'm being glib here, but I'm not.

I just don't see any mysteries about Iraq. The future is uncertain, but the final judgment of American policy can be made now, and policy decisions of this type are by nature often made in a hurry.

everything this administration has ever said has panned out to be grade-B horseshit, and that pattern is fixed enough now to have decent predictive power.

Agreed. But all that means is that I have no information about what's going on.

I just don't see any mysteries about Iraq.

It appears I'm more in your #63 camp than you are.

Tim, in #63 I was talking strategy in Congress. That's behind-the-scenes stuff and pretty arcane. (For example, I suspect that Reid's boldness means that he might have some more Repugs on board, but I don't know that). I'm definitely willing to defer on that kind of thing.

I'm not willing to reserve judgment on the Iraq War. There are lots of overlapping reasons why it should be ended.

76

"... If you see a failing enterprise run by liars and incompetents, I would think the very first thing you would do before shuttering the thing would be to audit the books. ..."

Well I wouldn't invest any of my money in such an enterprise audit or not. But people persist in throwing good money after bad.

Well I wouldn't invest any of my money in such an enterprise audit or not. But people persist in throwing good money after bad.

Tell that to the various vulture funds.

82

Vulture funds make a practice of investing in failing enterprises run by liars and incompetents? Doesn't sound like a winning stategy to me.

If you can unwind what's happening and replace management, it's not such a bad one.

Management can't be replaced in this case and it isn't the problem anyway. The enterprise is failing because the business plan is demented.

Analogy violation. Can I ban Shearer now?

If by "ban" you mean "kiss," then yes.

Just looking at history - remember Gingrich thinking that Clinton wouldn't dare veto an appropriations bill, and leave no money for running the government? Gingrich took the blame for that, not Clinton.

The lesson, I think, is that this isn't necessarily a strong structural postion for the Congressional Democrats as it is perfectly possible for them to win a victory on this that is both Pyrrhic and evanescent.

The lesson is that it will play out exactly the same this time as it did with Gingrich?

Lots of things are perfectly possible.

Jesus.

SomeCallMeTim: Why do you assume there is a status quo in Iraq? I mean, do you think there's anything particularly stable in there now, and if so, what is it, and why? A central element in my own thinking about what to do is precisely that the opportunities to establish order were wasted, and now any order that does exist is ad hoc and capricious at best. That's part of why I want out: the US doesn't ever respond well to chaos. The fact that useful, verifiable information is so hard to come by is itself a crucial datum, and one we can use in comparing this situation to others.

On the other side...how far are you, based on the admittedly fragmentary information you have, from deciding that Bush deserves ongoing support for the occupation as he chooses to conduct it? How far are you from deciding that the US is no longer in a position to do any significant good (insofar as it ever was) and that withdrawal would be wise? What kind of evidence would it take to make you decide that there is no wisdom in the Democratic response, and do you find that in past situations of limited information, you've done well to trust Republican rather than Democratic assertions? Does the situation actually seem that fraught with possible positive sides to you, or is this a caution that doesn't really hold up in the light of past crises and the histories of the people involved?

In case it isn't implicitly obvious, I wrestled with this kind of question myself in recent years and realized that I was carrying around a bunch of basically irrelevant baggage based in notions of how I might like politics to work. We aren't dealing with abstract situations: we're dealing with an occupation conducted by this particular administration, with all that that means, and likewise with the opposition.

Lots of things are. I had not meant to say that this is what will inevitably happen, but to explain why I, personally, am not looking forward to this veto fight just yet. Lizardbreath asked if someone could explain 'how we lose this one,' and that's my best guess as to how at the moment.

SomeCallMeTim: Why do you assume there is a status quo in Iraq?

By status quo, I mean "chaos" and "we have troops there." Not a lot more. I think things are going to go badly. I think they go badly more slowly when we're there, but (a) they still go badly, and (b) we're going to leave sooner or later. I have no belief that we can impose or achieve order for a long enough time period for it to take root. I want to withdraw, but just as people want an orderly withdrawal, I want an orderly strategic withdrawal. The specific issue that worries me is a potential Kurdistan, but I suspect there are lots more such issues. I have no faith that the government is presently presenting to us the issues that matter most or the true status of the issues it does present. I'd like someone I trust--or don't distrust--to take a look at the situation, and disengage, essentially, in the best fashion we can manage. I pray that there is some way to tread water in a way that limits our troops' exposure to harm. Very sadly, the Iraqis don't directly factor into my thinking.

I suppose I can understand the argument the the Bush administration is likely to fuck up the withdrawal as badly as they've fucked up the occupation and accordingly not trust them to execute it.

You mean like acidentally leaving all the RPGs in a locked bunker with the keys left in it? Or like accidentally retreating through Tehran?

94: In specific, I'm thinking like create a Kurdistan, irrespective of the wishes of other Iraqis/Turkey/Iran/etc., in order to please the neocons and have some tangible "freedom" at which to point.

There seems already to be a de facto Kurdistan. If it goes de jure, it'll be to claim US protection (or sanction in its own actions) against the Turks and the Iranians, but I think it's in the Kurds' best interests to keep their intentions murky for a while yet. They seem to be comparatively able to think medium-range, but we'll see.

There seems already to be a de facto Kurdistan.

I think "seems" is key. I don't know what happens there, but I wouldn't be surprised if one side or another tries to clarify the situation; that seems less likely with our troops there. I'd like some rough (if not public) agreement about what's going to happen before we take off.

SCMTim: But to come back to a point I think I blurred up, don't you find the absence of the sort of assessment you're looking for indicative in itself? Doesn't it remind you of other situations in which assessment at the time and on the spot was difficult or impossible, and suggest responses in itself?

For me, the situation is simple: Bush cannot be trusted with the war power, and whatever might conceivably lead to a withdrawal is now worth trying.

And there are times when the decision to commit to a course brings out people willing to help with it. I think this is one of those: we'll get useful specifics if and when it becomes clear that it's worth people's while to work them up. Doing that kind of thing now would be (I think) exactly what John Emerson calls it, a make-believe game of Let's Pretend We're Politicians. But we're not. Our job is to point a direction out for the cowards, and to suggest moral priorities to those afraid to take any stands of their own. Implementation is their job, subject to our scrutiny. But they won't do anything significant unless pushed hard toward an overall vision, within which policy can be developed. Holding off any strategic move until every tactical bit is in order is the approach of General George MacClellan, and as inappropriate now as then.