As always, I speak for me only

Conchita points us to this e-mail from Move On:

Dear MoveOn member,

We've got a big decision coming up this week, and we need to make it together, as a community.

As early as Wednesday, the House may vote on a Democratic proposal on Iraq. The proposal was put together by Speaker Pelosi and Congressmen Obey and Murtha. It is going to be a close vote--the Republicans are against it and some conservative Democrats are uncomfortable with the bill.

Most, but not all, of the progressives in Congress are planning on voting for the bill. These progressives, like many of us, don't think the bill goes far enough, but see it as the first concrete step to ending the war. And President Bush is threatening to veto it for the same reason.

I've told Rep. Murtha that this was a decision for MoveOn's members to make. Now I'm asking you to help make it. Should we support or oppose the Democrats' plan? Just click here to register your view.

I urge Move On members to register their view that the supplemental funding bill should be opposed.

As always, I speak for me only

Matt Stoller claims:

A shorter way thinking about the of blogs on politics is to recognize that the elite stream of opinion - that of policymakers, elites, politicians, journalists - is largely out of step with the public. Blogs play in the space between the elite stream of discourse and the discussions going on in bars and over kitchen tables. . . . Blogs are still going to push on public discourse to make it more credible and in step with the public mood.

On Iraq, the Left blogs have largely failed to do this. And Matt Stoller is one of the main culprits. Consider this:

As far as I'm concerned, passing this legislation is an important part of disengaging the Democratic party from the pro-war brand, so a vote against it is a problem. That said, I'm more charitable to progressives who vote against it as a mechanism for creating left-wing pressure, though I have serious reservations about the progressive caucus as an (dis) organized group.

Sounds like the "idiot liberals" CW meme to me. What discourse is Stoller changing on Iraq? He is spouting the DC Dem Establishment line as far as I can see see.

AP:

The U.S. military on Sunday announced the deaths of seven more troops in Iraq, including four killed by a roadside bomb while patrolling western Baghdad — the latest American casualties in a monthlong security crackdown in the capital. . . . Saturday's deaths brought to at least 3,217 members of the U.S. military who have died since the Iraq war started in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count.

Death is always impossible to accept. But senseless death caused by craven political considerations, and idiotic politics at that, is just . . . unacceptable.

In my previous post, I painted with too broad a brush. Two bloggers pointed out to me that they too reject the idea that the Left Blogs should refrain from critiquing the Dems on Iraq.

Corrente:

I read plenty of blogs that have no problems whatsoever criticizing the Democrats. This one, for example. I also find that there are plenty of people at larger communities who speak out about Democratic waffling or inaction, and they are not always shouted down. But it is an interesting point to raise, given the levels of Shrill that could be found Blogosphere-wide before the election.

Gun Toting Liberal:

If I have to say so myself, it takes courage to do what we’re doing here, and that says a LOT about our co-bloggers and co-authors here at The GTL and those few other sites out there (including TalkLeft, of course) who are willing to sacrifice a LOT of “linkie-luv” and inbound traffic from our fellow “lefty” bloggers out there by standing up for what’s right, or more accurately, what REALLY is “left”.

Ok, this seems the beginning of the makings of an Out of Iraq blog caucus. Anyone else game to join us?

From CNN:

Thousands of anti-war demonstrators and supporters of the U.S. policy in Iraq shouted at each other Saturday from opposite sides of a street bordering the National Mall as protesters formed a march to the Pentagon to denounce a war entering its fifth year. . . . Speakers criticized the Bush administration at every turn but blamed congressional Democrats, too, for refusing to cut off money for the war. "This is a bipartisan war," New York City labor activist Michael Letwin told the crowd. "The Democratic party cannot be trusted to end it."

Harold Meyerson and his friends can criticize "idiot liberals" all they want, but we "idiot liberals" have our own eyes and our own minds. I think the idiots are those who think these sentiments are illegitimate and won't be growing.

Enough is enough with the patronizing members of the Left who demand we "clap louder" for the Dems. And yes Booman, that's what you just did. Freaking hilarious from a guy who is pushing impeachment.

Via mcjoan, Newsweek polls says:

6. Do you favor or oppose Congressional legislation that would require the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by the fall of 2008?

Favor 59%
Oppose 34
Don't Know 7

So a date certain for no more funding is bad politically why again? The Dems in Congress simply are making a huge mistake by not making this policy the announced and firm approach. Tell Bush no more money after a date certain. 60% of America wants that.

Negligent homicide?

A coroner conducting an inquest into a U.S. friendly fire attack that killed a British soldier during the Iraq war said Friday that it was unlawful and criminal.

Oxfordshire Assistant Deputy Coroner Andrew Walker also criticized the U.S. military for failing to cooperate with his investigation into the incident.

"I believe that the full facts have not yet come to light," said Walker, who has complained that he did not get all the evidence he needed about the U.S. A-10 "Tank-buster" plane that killed Lance Cpl. Matty Hull, 25, in an attack on his armored vehicle convoy.

Mahablog patronizes me:

At Talk Left, Big Tent Democrat complains that Scott Lilly endorsed “doing nothing.” No, dear; he’s asking people who presume to be activists to stop being stupid about it.

That's very nice dear, but how about explaining why it is stupid. Because Harold Meyerson, Walter Dellinger, Scott Lilly, Matt Stoller and you say so is not an argument. Remember the arguments from experts on Iraq and the politics of Iraq? I do my own thinking thank you very much. Present YOUR argument. And then we can discuss it. I have presented mine. Would be nice if you addressed it.

The Senate has rejected a Democrat proposal to complete troop pullout from Iraq by March, 2008. The vote was 50 to 48.

The vote in the Senate was 50 against and 48 in favor, 12 short of what was needed to pass, with just a few defections in each party. It came just hours after the House Appropriations Committee, in another vote largely on party lines, approved an emergency spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan that includes a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq. The House will vote on that legislation next Thursday, setting the stage for another confrontation.

The 48 votes were 12 short of the 60 needed for passage. A “yes” vote was a vote to support the measure. Voting “yes” were 46 Democrats, 1 Republican and 1 independent. Voting “no” were 2 Democrats, 1 independent and 47 Republicans. Two senators did not vote.

Because of the House Vote, the legislation will continue moving forward.

More....

David Sirota, (David responds to me here) of all people, is recommending a column that seems to endorse doing nothing to end the war in Iraq:

There is one decisive action that the Congress could theoretically take with respect to Iraq given Bush’s Constitutional authorities. Tina Richards referred to it in her exchange with Obey. Congress could simply refuse to pass any legislation providing further funding for the war. That sounds both simple and effective. But there are serious downsides to such a strategy that devoted opponents of this war should reflect upon. . . . Well-meaning people can argue about whether or not such a strategy would be good policy or whether or not it would be good politics. But there is little room for argument as to whether such a stance is a viable legislative strategy.

So there you have it, we "idiots" can do and should do nothing. Boy, aren't you glad you voted for Dems in 2006 in order to end the war in Iraq?

Update [2007-3-15 12:13:28 by Big Tent Democrat]: Matt Stoller says:

Pelosi's compromise is messy, but there's no clean solution here. The public is against this war, but it is not for complete withdrawal. Change is still a very scary prospect.

My question to Stoller and Meyerson is this - what part of the Pelosi "compromise" do they like? What is it that they feel is worth ANYTHING? Specifically, what?

Harold Meyerson jumps on the beat up on on antiwar folks bandwagon:

We're trying to use the supplemental," [Obey] explained, "to end the war." . . . In effect, what the protesters are doing is making the unattainable perfect the enemy of the barely-attainable good. Because Obey is quite right: The votes aren't there to shut down funding for the war. What he and Pelosi and the rest of the Democratic leadership in both houses are about is finding some way to curtail the president's determination to pass the war on to his successor regardless of the continuing cost to U.S. interests and lives.

What Meyerson does is simply repeat nonsense about what some of us are seeking - not the unattainable perfect as he so breezily dismisses it, but the attainable, indeed the ONLY, method for reaching the goal Myerson purports to support-ending the war before the next President is in office.

Consider on the flip Meyerson's views on what the House is doing to gauge just how unserious Meyerson is in this article.

I know it seems I am picking on them, and maybe I am a little, but the cognitive dissonance displayed here astounds me:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton foresees a "remaining military as well as political mission" in Iraq, and says that if elected president, she would keep a reduced military force there . . .

This stance deserves deep consideration by Democratic primary voters. . . . Hillary Clinton's promise to continue the Iraqi occupation will become the Democratic Party platform if she is the nominee. This is a very dangerous roadmap for the Democrats.

And yet, MYDD whips for the current House proposal on Iraq funding which is identical in principle to the Hillary formulation. Amazing. On the flip what Hillary said.