By simply allowing rumors to spread of an attack on Iran, President Bush is about to win his biggest Iraq victory, splitting liberals and the Netroots from the rest of his opponents.
Right now there is a resolution on the floor that says "no" on escalation. It’s a weak resolution, its language pitiful, and it’s non-binding. But it’s a marker. It places the Senate (and thus all of the Congress) on-record opposing the President.
Yet we have some very anti-war Senators saying they’re going to vote no, and their allies applauding it.
This is ridiculous. The game here is about 2 numbers, 60 and 67. A vote of 60 Senators is needed to cut off debate and get to a vote. A vote of 67 is necessary to override a veto. Anything less and Bush wins this thing. That’s why the language is weak.
But remember…
If you can get any anti-Bush statement through with 67 votes, you can
then proceed toward real action. You can create a bi-partisan committee
to investigate this mess, with subpoena power. You can debate things
like bringing the National Guard home. Eventually, once the record is laid out, you can talk seriously about impeachment and war crimes, with some hope of success.
So Bush, who believe it or not is not an idiot, is changing the game. He’s talking seriously about Iran, and trying to get a debate going about that. This takes folks’ eye off the ball, which is starting a process of opposition. Start that process and there’s no telling where it lead. Stop that process and it leads nowhere.
I appreciate all those who are impatient. But this is the way the
system was designed to work, by the Founders. And if you try to
short-stop the process, you wind up doing nothing.
Which in this case would make every Senator, even the most anti-war,
complicit in helping make the cradle of civilization into its grave.
.
