Cave in, capitulation, blank check…

…blah, blah, blah.

In response to my latest Upper Left Honor Roll post, commending the Democratic Senators and the members of the Washington State House delegation that voted against the war funding appropriation, bluesky asks us to note that neither of my own Senators appears on the list. Not taking note of that, though, was a considered choice on my part.

As a Democrat, I'm not willing to accept responsibility for Bush's war, and I'm not going to assign responsibility to any Democrat for it. It's a Republican war, in it's conception, it's design, it's execution and it's continuation. In creating this war, though, Republicans have put American lives in harm's way and the Commander in Chief has no intention whatsoever save to leave them there. Digby's right (and yes, that's redundant)...

The only thing I know for sure is that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are not going to withdraw from Iraq. They are playing a rough game and would rather see the troops die without bullets and body armor than admit in any way that their occupation is a failure.

I don't agree that the Democrats are "paralyzed" by their circumstances, as Digby suggests, but they are undoubtedly compromised. Democrats are already on the record in favor of a change in policy which would tie continued funding to timelines and enforceable benchmarks. They passed just such a bill, and it was returned. It's by their votes on that bill that I choose to judge Democrats.

Critics charge that some Democrats voted for the Republican version of the because they feared being attacked for not "supporting the troops," but I doubt that that was a major calculation. All the ammunition the Republican smear machine needs for such efforts was provided by the original passage of the Democratic bill. I think Republican lies and smears are part of every campaign equation these days. It's just what they do.

It's very likely, though, that a good number of Democrats measured the potential impact - the very real threat that troops on the ground in Iraq, as well as those preparing for or recovering from tours, would suffer material and logistic losses - of a continuing standoff on funding against the simple truth that voting no would not stop the war, would not bring a single soldier home, but might, probably would, increase the risks every soldier faces. They then cast their votes understanding what Gary Hart writes today...

The U.S. military does not commit us to war. Most soldiers and sailors, especially those who have experienced combat, do not desire war. They are sent to war, often tragically as in Iraq, and they do their duty and too often they die. We all need to understand and respect that and we must let them know we are on their side.

In the end, the best analysis I' E.J. Dionne...

The decision to drop withdrawal timelines from the Iraq supplemental appropriations bill is not a decisive defeat. It is a temporary setback in a much longer struggle for minds and votes that the administration’s critics are actually winning.

***

Democrats, in short, have enough power to complicate the president’s life, but not enough to impose their will. Moreover, there is genuine disagreement even among Bush’s Democratic critics over what the pace of withdrawal should be and how to minimize the damage of this war to the country’s long-term interests. That is neither shocking nor appalling, but, yes, it complicates things. So does the fact that the minority wields enormous power in the Senate.

***

What was true in January thus remains true today: The president will be forced to change his policy only when enough Republicans tell him he has to. Facing this is no fun; it’s just necessary.

You might even call it 'reality-based.'