Look. I know it’s hard to follow all the machinations about the Iraq War Supplemental Funding Bill. Just understanding congressional procedure is a challenge. The whole blogosphere has been struggling to understand what is going on and struggling to know what to advocate. It’s hard work. But Joe Klein hasn’t been doing any work.
He started out by pointing out something valid. George W. Bush is likely to get a bill that funds his war and that only sets withdrawal timelines as goals not deadlines. And he correctly noted that Bush should just sign the damn bill. [As an aside, I think that is a real possibility now that the minimum wage increase in attached]. But then Klein had to get snide.
The screeches you just heard—No! No! Klein, you Bush appeaser!—are coming from the left wing of the Democratic Party, which, despite its incredible erudition, is unable to count to 67, the number of votes needed for a veto-proof majority in the Senate. Right now the Senate Democrats are stuck at 51 in favor of their version of the $100 billion supplemental appropriation to pay for the war through Sept. 30.
If the segue seems like somewhat of a non sequitur, that’s because it was a non sequitur in the original column. What was Klein talking about? Apparently, he was talking about the idiocy of anti-war activists, like Markos Moulitsas, complaining about funding the war without hard deadlines.
But this is a President who won re-election by fomenting political confrontations, and he knows the Democrats are in a bind. They won’t block funding for the troops. Only 9% of Americans say they are in favor of cutting off funds for the war, according to an April 13 cbs News poll. Unfortunately for the Democrats, that 9% includes the noisier elements of the party’s base. Senator Barack Obama found this out the hard way recently, when he said in an Associated Press interview that perhaps the best course of action was to “keep the President on a shorter leash”—that is, approve funding but limit the funds, forcing Bush to keep coming back for money. This unleashed the ire of Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, proprietor of the Daily Kos blog, who wrote with typical restraint, “What a ridiculous thing to say. Not only is it bad policy, not only is it bad politics, it’s also a terrible negotiating approach. Instead of threatening Bush with even more restrictions and daring him to veto funding for the troops out of pique, Barack just surrendered to him.”
Kos assumes Bush will negotiate. He may also assume there won’t be severe consequences if Congress refuses to authorize funding and the U.S. thoughtlessly skedaddles from Iraq. But even Senators like Obama and Jim Webb, who opposed the war from the start, say the extrication must be careful and must involve far better planning than the Bush-Cheney invasion. Sadly, the left-wing Democrats and Bush are playing the same game—all or nothing—and, even more sadly, the President is destined to win. Congressional Democratic leaders admit privately they’ll give Bush his appropriation when the current Kabuki is over. The question is, What, if any, restraints can they put on funding for the troops?
Daily Kos front-pager, Kagro X has laid out the chronological error in Klein’s post. In short, Barack Obama made a comment that said, essentially, that the Democrats will fund the war without restrictions after the President vetoes their efforts to put in restrictions. Markos criticized Obama for capitulating to the President. Then Obama was asked to clarify his position. He did so by saying:
“What I said was it was unlikely we could generate the votes to override a veto. And I said that I don’t believe any Democrat wants to play chicken with the troops, put them in a situation where they don’t have the equipment they need to come home safely. That does not mean that our only alternative is to send a carte blanche to the president.”
Obama said there are “options that we are looking at now” if there were a veto — shortening the time frame for funding, for example — that would keep “this administration on a shorter leash.”
Obama did not merely reiterate his previous comment. He clarified that the Democrats would look to pass a bill that shortened the time frame of the war appropriation. If you are paying attention, you might have noticed that Rep. Jack Murtha has fleshed out this plan. The idea would be to fund the war for only a few months at a time and force the President to keep coming back for more funds.
Markos did not slam Obama’s clarification (his diary was posted before Obama’s clarification). But that is exactly how Klein made it seem by saying the following (follow the cause and effect):
Senator Barack Obama found this out the hard way recently, when he said in an Associated Press interview that perhaps the best course of action was to “keep the President on a shorter leash”—that is, approve funding but limit the funds, forcing Bush to keep coming back for money. This unleashed the ire of Markos Moulitsas Zuniga…
Klein is explicitly asserting that Markos was furious about Obama’s clarification and not his original, more ambiguous, comment. And, by inference, Klein is suggesting that Markos, and by extension the whole left blogosphere, is opposed to Murtha’s post-veto plan. But, if you doubt this, Klein confirms it in his non-apology apology.
In my column this week I reported that Kos had bashed Barack Obama for his position on Iraq war funding. Obama said he was opposed to adding a withdrawal timetable, or deadline, to the next funding bill the Democrats send Bush after he vetoes the current legislation. Kos accused Obama of surrendering. In a subsequent interview with Associated Press, Obama maintained his position, but added that he might be in favor “of putting Bush on a short leash”–i.e. sending up a funding bill that Bush might sign–that is, one without a timetable–but with a shorter timespan.
It was chronologically incorrent for me to make it seem that Kos was responding to the “shorter leash” comment, but substantively correct. My description of the difference between Obama and Kos was accurate. Let me repeat the main point: Obama favors a “clean” bill, perhaps of shorter duration. Kos is opposed, vehemently, to that position–he wants the Democrats to dig in their heels and send the President another bill with a timetable and end date.
In retrospect, I wish I’d written the words “Obama later said” near the “short leash” quote, but that doesn’t change the basic accuracy of the column–and the various attempts to divert from the main point
Obama: for clean bill
Kos: againstare diversions away from the important discussion about Iraq funding that should be taking place now.
Let’s go real slow. Barack Obama voted for the non-clean bill. He, then, clearly supports a non-clean bill, just as Markos advocates. Klein says that Obama is for a clean bill. Obama did not vote against a non-clean bill. Should I say this five more different ways? Klein is wrong. But Klein is trying to make a different point. He is saying that if a non-clean bill gets vetoed then Obama would advocate passing a clean bill (no timelines, no deadlines) rather than letting the troops go without funding. That’s true. But that is not because Obama supports a clean bill. It’s because Obama strayed off political advocacy (pushing what he wants) into political punditry (predicting what will happen). And that is exactly what Markos criticized him for doing. But, it’s worse that that.
Obama didn’t call for giving the President what he wanted all along after a veto. But that is what Markos thought Obama had said would happen. Obama didn’t say that was what would happen. His clarification specifically said that, “our only alternative is [not] to send a carte blanche to the president.”
What Klein is really trying to suggest is that Markos (and by extension, the whole blogosphere) advocates ‘thoughtlessly skedaddling ‘ from Iraq. And he might have been able to cobble together an argument for that position. But he missed the mark. He mischaracterized both Obama and Moulitsa’s positions. He failed to take responsibility for that mischaracterization. And, as a result, his whole point pretty much collapses. So, does his credibility.
