As Yoda highlighted at PrairieStateBlue, there was big news in the Chicago Tribune last week that faux moderate Republican Mark Kirk and Bush Dog Democrat Dan Lipinski were joining hands to address the Iraq war problem. Unfortunately, it seems that their definition of the "Iraq war problem" is a little different than most of ours. You see, to me, or you, or the troops in the field, the Iraq war problem is that soldiers are getting killed, no real progress is being made, and there is no plan in place to change any of that reality. To certain Congressmen like Kirk and Lipinski, however, the "Iraq war problem" seems to be how to placate the general public who overwhelmingly want the United States out of Iraq, while still giving free rein to the Bush administration and the interests it represents to do what they will.
It seems that they have found a solution.
Now, contrary to the implication by the Tribune, this isn't something new; the bill that they refer to has been around since early June. It isn't anything too special and it has sat around without action for a while now. Nevertheless, a closer look shows an excellent example of political motivations and how harmful the appeasement strategy pursued by the Bush Dogs can be.
The bill is described by the Tribune as a "bipartisan bill that would give the Study Group's recommendations the force of law, including political benchmarks for the Iraqi government and a goal, but no requirement, of U.S. troop withdrawals beginning next year." I'd say that's a decent description of the bill. Of course, the way I'd describe it is a little different. I'd say that it basically says all the common sense things that anyone believes about the situation in Iraq but without holding anyone accountable when all those things are ignored and troops keep getting killed without any progress or hope for progress. It should go without saying that the "goal" of withdrawal without a requirement is worthless. It is the equivalent of a parent setting the goal of eating right and exercising for their overweight child, who has no desire to lose weight, and then failing to even remotely chastise them when they ignore the "goal".
The Tribune goes on to laud the bill as the bipartisan way forward. Kirk and Lipinski joined hands at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs to say this same thing. No comment from Kirk, but Lipinski came out strong.
Lipinski voted for a withdrawal timeline earlier this year but didn't like it because he knew Bush would veto the bill. He said he and Kirk -- along with 25 other Democratic and 35 Republican co-sponsors -- have agreed that "the Iraq Study Group bill is the way to go" to begin to change the course of the war.
"Over the last six months the president has been able to maintain the status quo [in Iraq] largely because Democrats haven't been able to get Republicans on board" to change the U.S. role in Iraq, Lipinski said. "This is all part of coming together."
It's bills like this that offer cover for faux-moderate Republicans like Kirk to go home to their constituents and claim moderate credentials and claim to be standing up to Bush on the unpopular war while in fact doing nothing of the sort. But it's "bipartisan" and "serious" so it must be the way forward right? Let's take a closer look at the co-sponsor list. (Full list below the fold) There are 35 Republicans and 26 Democrats. Of the 26 Democrats, 11 are Bush Dogs, 12 are Blue Dogs, and 15 are one or the other. There are also 4 members of the progressive caucus who have signed on and 4 members of the Out of Iraq caucus (for a total of 5 who are at least one of the two). Bush Dogs represent only 17% of all Democrats, but on this bill they represent 42% of the Democrats. (I've also put the sponsor list for the associated Senate bill below the fold. The names on it should come as no surprise to anyone here.)
This bill is a sham that does nothing but provide cover for Congressmen unwilling to stand up to Bush on Iraq. The Republicans are being actively aided in this effort by a group of Dems, the Bush Dogs in particular. Bipartisan doesn't have to be a bad word. It is something that should be a goal when possible. Never, though, should the goal of "bipartisanship" come above actually accomplishing the ostensible purpose of the legislation. This legislation accomplishes nothing, it only serves to shield Congressmen from criticism on the Iraq war stands (or lack thereof). Every Democrat on this bill should be ashamed.
STATE BLOGS
