The Senate yesterday passed the annual defense authorization bill with little fanfare. Although it was intended to be the vehicle for any Iraq restrictions Democrats could come up with, it passed by an eye-popping 92-3. If you needed any proof that the measure contained little to provoke controversy, this outcome ought to confirm it.
Speaker Pelosi meanwhile, promises that they will accomplish more on Iraq in the House of Representatives:
Pelosi criticized the Senate's recent failure to cut off debate on a measure that would require military personnel receive time at home equal to that of their deployment, effectively killing the measure. The House approved a similar bill in early August.
"We can't go as slow as that ship," Pelosi later added.
If this doesn't count as the pot calling out the kettle, I don't know what does. What sort of revolutionary legislation will the House muscle through?
One of the bills to be considered this week would compel the Bush administration to develop a plan for troop withdrawal.
That legislation, sponsored by Reps. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) and John Tanner (D-Tenn.), would require President Bush and senior officials to submit a comprehensive redeployment strategy within 60 days.
The bill, expected to come to the floor on Tuesday under suspension, has the support of moderate lawmakers and also could draw strong Republican support. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said last week GOP leadership would not oppose the measure, which the Armed Services Committee approved by an overwhelming 55-2 vote.
Members of the Democrats' liberal wing have criticized the Abercrombie-Tanner proposal as toothless, however, and those lawmakers likely will vote against the bill.
Have the Democrats given up on Iraq? Well, for the foreseeable future... yes.
Just look at how they are addressing the supplemental appropriations bill that the Pentagon needs to fund the war in 2008. According to Congressional Quarterly Democrats in Congress are unlikely to make another serious attempt to change Iraq policy until after February. By that time the Super Tuesday primaries are likely to have come and gone, and Democrats may well know who their presidential nominee is.
Murtha, a close adviser to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said he has advised the leadership to put off the supplemental spending debate until early 2008 to allow time for Democrats to form more consensus on Iraq.
The supplemental will be the vehicle for the big showdown on whether to continue funding for the war, and "it will be decided in January or early February," he said.
Republicans meanwhile, are pushing for prompt action:
"I'd like to see the Democrats move the supplemental as soon as possible. They should not be playing politics with this,'' said Eric Cantor, R-Va., the chief deputy whip.
"I think it's inane for us to wait," said Jerry Lewis of California, ranking Republican on Appropriations.
Any question as to which party finds Iraq to be a more difficult and divisive issue?
What's going on here? The Democrats have realized that they've run into a brick wall on Iraq. Unless more bad news is forthcoming (and there seems to be little news from Iraq in general), they simply don't have the votes. So they're punting. And when the spending debate is forced on them next year, they'll simply take the cue from their nominee -- whoever he or she is.
Are Democrats admitting to the Netroots that they've thrown in the towel? No. Instead they're trying to throw up as much dust as they can, by taking advantage of another ginned-up controversy. And if the Netroots actually side with a phony soldier like Tom Harkin against a critic of phony soldiers, they'll probably buy anything.
