Majority Leader Harry Reid signs on to Russ Feingold’s bill to cut off all funds for US troops in Iraq as of March 31, 2008. Presidential Candidate Barack Obama promises that once President Bush vetoes the Iraq supplemental, Congress will pass a ‘clean’ funding bill. The professional left is angry and frustrated that all the leading Democratic Presidential contenders (but notably Hillary Clinton) want to keep thousands of troops in Iraq–even as they promise to withdraw troops. What to make of it all? In the first case, Harry Reid is simply throwing a bone to the left because he knows that his Senate will soon pass a funding bill that the President will sign. He’s decided that if he’s going to back down, he might as well do it while talking tough. In the second, Senator Obama is merely repeating what Speaker Pelosi has promised (or threatened). Don’t kid yourself though. The next bill will not be ‘clean.’ It will certainly have pork, and it is very likely to have hoops that the President must jump through in order to continue the Iraq mission. (Democratic leaders can count on plenty of help in determining what hoops to keep). In the third instance, Democrats have simply not resolved how they view Iraq, and what is the most expedient thing to do, politically. They’re heavily invested in defeat, but it’s hard to figure out just how to balance surrender with preventing civil war, protecting Israel, pleasing the left, protecting U.S. national interests and…oh yeah–supporting the troops. Because that’s obviously the first goal here. Oh what a tangled web we weave…
