Culled from a liberal blog: how the Democratic base views the war.
Yesterday I wrote that there was a good chance that House Democrats–having tired of micromanaging the war–would now try to micro-fund it. Funding the war in installments–which John Boehner likens to a monthly allowance for our troops–is an idea which originated with the House Blue Dogs, but whose eager embrace by the Netroots helped it make the quick leap to official House Democratic policy:
OMB Chief Rob Portman argues that–shock of shocks–wars are not fought in two-month increments:
This is a an act of political cowardice by the House, since this approach can’t pass the Senate. Ben Nelson–whose opposition to a forced surrender date probably kept it out of the original Iraq funding conference report–has already stated his concern. If the Senate passes a full-funding compromise with benchmarks, as seems likely, there’s no way conferees will defer to the House approach. Conferees will be forced to adopt the Senate approach or no bill at all–which is probably the unspoken hope of many liberal House Democrats. But more likely, Congressional Democrats will ultimately decide that they cannot de-fund the war right now, and pass the Senate bill. In that case at least, Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Murtha will be able to say ‘we didn’t compromise; it was those moderate Senate Democrats.’ And let’s for a moment consider an unlikely possibility: imagine that Senate Democrats do refuse to jump under the bus and manage to pass the House’s two-month funding bill. Does anyone imagine that come July–when the next bill must be passed–Democrats will happily provide the full funding needed? No. This is nothing but a gimmick to force the Pentagon to beg once again for the money to fight the war for a few more months. Congressional leaders will gauge the political winds then to see if it’s politically safe to vote their convictions–and pull the plug on the military and the people of Iraq. It’s clear they’re not fighting the same war the United States is.
