Strange Days

Most Democratic lawmakers will admit the Iraq and Afghanistan funding Bill will eventually be re-written and passed:

"The troops will get the money they need when all is said and done," predicted Sen. Carl Levin (D) of Michigan, who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, in a conference call with reporters on Friday. "There's a lot of Republicans who are very concerned about where we are [regarding progress in Iraq], and I think we can pick up some support on a veto override. which, even if we don't override, would show continuing momentum."

But for antiwar activists, it's not enough. Many Democratic lawmakers say they are flooded with calls from constituents urging them to live up to their campaign promises on the war.

Rep. James Moran (D) of Virginia met over breakfast recently with 30 constituents at the Table Talk Restaurant in Alexandria, Va. They wanted to know why he had voted to support funds for another year of war, after campaigning to end it.

"It's a shame I had to disappoint the people who voted for me, because they are the ones who count in the end. But it was the most definitive statement against this war that the Congress has yet had.... It went as far as we could possibly go and still get 218 votes [for passage]," he says.

The post-veto vote on war funds will be even harder, he predicts. "It will come back and pass as a clean supplemental, but not with my vote."

But Moran isn't the only one feeling the heat. Back to our first story:

In Peterborough, N.H., antiwar activists staking out the front steps of town hall say they are disappointed, but that they understand the votes by their two freshmen lawmakers. "There's a game going on now; I can't say I understand the compromises," says Jim Giddings, a peace activist from Greenville, N.H. "I don't hold it against him," he said of Mr. Hodes, who represents this district. "He is trying his best, and his intentions are good."

At least, when he's getting heat from another direction, too

Q: Do you not believe we have an obligation to these people [Iraqis]?
A:Um, well, there's clearly nothing I'm going to be able to say to address how angry you feel...
Q: I'm very angry, I have a nephew that has served two tours of duty, is scheduled to go back a third time. He will be in Iraq when you cut your funds, and yes, that makes me very angry.
A: You may misunderstand my motivation, and what the impact of this will be if this is passed. There's nothing I'm going to be able to say given how angry you are...
Q: I feel very strongly that you're endangering our soldiers... If this Congress was sitting during World War II, we would be having this discussion in German right now.
<...>
"My son will never come home," an angry Natalie Healy said of her son, Dan, who was killed in Afghanistan in June 2005. "He would be horrified and ashamed of this country for what it has done to the troops. You can take that back to Congress and tell every single one of those men and women."

Hodes last month joined a majority in the House backing an Iraq spending bill that set a timeline for a troop withdrawal and also included non-war related spending items that some said were needed to get the bill passed.

When Gerry Duncan of Nashua asked Hodes whether the bill would have passed if the non-war items weren't included, Hodes hesitated and said, "I don't know."

"I'm done," declared an angered Duncan, whose husband, Col. Richard Duncan, chief of staff of the New Hampshire Army National Guard, was injured in Afghanistan. She then walked out.

Sue Peterson of Weare, whose son Alex is a member of the 3643rd Security Force in the Army National Guard now in Iraq, said mixing money for the war with farm and other products was a disservice to the troops.

"I am so outraged and I'm trying to be calm listening to everybody," she said. But lumping everything into one bill was to "compare Alex and all the other soldiers to milk, peanuts, fish and spinach."

"Sorry" he might have told them, "but you ain't my base." In fairness, I'm sure it's tough to keep the appearance of being a member of the "support the troops" crowd when the troops and their family members are speaking for themselves (it could even potentially threaten message control) but guys like Moran and Hodes have to lie in the beds they've made.

Al Qaeda (ironically, in English, "the Base") shares the anger of the Democrats "base", too:

Al-Qaeda's deputy leader has described the US plan to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq as a gamble that is bound to fail.

In an audio tape posted on the internet on Tuesday, Ayman al-Zawahiri also criticised the Democratic Party for not changing US policies.

He said: "The people chose you [Democrats] due to your opposition to Bush's policy in Iraq, but it appears that you are marching with him to the same abyss, and it appears that you will take part with him in the defeat."

Or not. The al Qaeda boys have certainly done their part - timing their bloodiest and most spectacular attacks in Iraq to coincide with key dates in the progress of the Democrats Bill. (Yes - the Bill they acknowledge won't pass, that they admit is a delaying tactic to wear down opposition to the war is causing people to die in Iraq.)

Many Americans are probably disappointed that the Democrats commitment to troop withdrawal is less than that of Moqtada al Sadr:

BAGHDAD — Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr ordered his ministers to quit Iraq’s government on Monday in protest at Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s refusal to set a timetable for a U.S. troop withdrawal.

...last week, he withdrew his six cabinet ministers from the government, complaining that it was not doing enough to rid the country of the Americans.

But press his aides for concrete details of a timetable to present to the Americans, and the picture becomes murkier. They say they want the Americans out. But not just yet.

“In order to drive out the occupation, we need to build up the security forces; then we can have a timetable,” said Abdul Mehdi Mutairi, one of Mr. Sadr’s top political officials, as he smoked at his desk inside the main Sadr office in Baghdad, his television tuned to an Iranian-financed satellite network. He was referring to the Iraqi government’s largely Shiite army and police, which by all accounts could not yet control Iraqi violence on their own.
<...>
While Mr. Sadr’s aides criticized Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki last week for refusing to set a timetable for American withdrawal, Mr. Sadr himself has not come forward with deadlines. (The Democrats in Congress have taken a stronger stand.)

One leading Sadr legislator, Bahaa al-Aaraji, said the Americans should stay no longer than two more years. But like Mr. Mutairi, he insisted that the Iraqi security forces had to be well-trained before the Americans left.

Strange days, indeed.

Related post here.

Addendum: Before I make the following broad descriptions, let me acknowledge upfront that there are exceptions within the groups - but I maintain that in general these are accurate.

Democratic "anti-war" activists are angry about the "funding bill". They want the troops home now. Al Qaeda shares that goal.

Troops and their families are outraged by the "funding bill" for other reasons - they don't want to quit. Needless to say, Republicans share that goal.

So who - besides the Democrats pushing it - likes the thing? Apparently Moqtada al Sadr - but he's not all that keen on it either.

I suppose part of my conclusion is in comments here:

The Dems real strategy is "slow bleed" - keep the war going with greatest possible losses until enough people "jump ship" to their side and they "pick up Senate seats as a result of this war." (An oval office, too.) Then they'll guide the country as it should be. (Translation: figure something out.)

And another peice is in comments here:

I'd add that winning a war isn't a guarentee of political victory for the current President's Party (see 1992 for most recent example) - while losing will virtually assure their defeat.

I'd add further that the Dems taking the White House doesn't concern me as much as it does others. But willingness to lose a war to do so - especially when it's historically evident (if not politically expedient) that they don't need to is a moral failure I won't forgive.

I've provided the defense of the bill from its authors above - but if anyone can provide any additional support of this monstrosity of a funding bill please feel free to use comments here to do so.