A lot of people are criticizing David Broder’s column today. No big surprise there. But his column in actually much less Broderistic than normal. It seems to fall into the sane wing of typical Higher Broderism. He’s basically saying that the Democrats should realize that the President is going to be president until January 2009 and, therefore, they should face reality and give him his money for the war. Are there any other alternatives? Well…Broder mentions one, only to dismiss it out of hand.
From the start, Democrats ought to concede one big point: Absent any readiness on their part to cut off funds to the troops in Iraq, those forces will be there as long as George Bush wants them to remain. Once that point is conceded, Bush should be called upon to pay some attention to the Democrats’ demands — and the public opinion that supports them.
Broder can be criticized here, but that is nitpicking. He’s accurately appraising the current state of Democratic will. The Dems do not have the stomach to cut off funding. Actually, many Dems do have the stomach, but not enough. And we need Republicans too, if we are to override a veto. In the face of a veto, the only other choice is to deny funding by refusing to pass a supplemental. The Dems don’t have the stomach to do that. In light of this, Broder had three choices. He could have urged the Democrats to greater unity and courage, and chided Republicans for standing behind a failed policy in Iraq. Broder could have raised the issue of impeaching the President and Vice-President and creating a unity government to see us through this crisis. (This is the only solution that makes any damn sense). Or he could have done what he did: tell the Dems that the President is stubborn and to just give him the money.
The logic of double impeachment stands out whenever any honest analysis is done of the state of our government and the situation in Iraq. But, since that is a vituperative course, we wind up with these silly opinion pieces by the Brahmins of political discourse.
That [caving in to the President] is not an ideal solution, from anyone’s point of view. But something like it is probably the best compromise available that takes into account the muddled political situation our elections have created. It allows the commanders in the field to do their work and the troops to have the equipment and support they need. And it tells the Iraqis what they must do if they want us to stay and fight by their side. Beyond that, only next year’s election can set our future course.
At least he didn’t call for another six months. He went for the ‘remainder of Bush’s term’. This is the kind of mush you get when you take impeachment off the table.
