New York Times: Democrats Newly Willing to Compromise on Iraq

[EV_Ares]

(9/5/07) by Carl Hulse

Another dubious analysis from the Times' Hulse reports that senior Democrats now say they are willing to rethink their push to establish a withdrawal deadline of next spring if doing so will attract the 60 Senate votes needed to prevail.... Democrats would need to lure the 60 senators in order to cut off a likely Republican filibuster.

One more time: the Democrats do not need 60 votes to make the U.S. withdraw from Iraq. They just need to refrain from passing a bill that gives more money for the war without a legally binding date for withdrawal. This does not require 60 senators, it requires 41 senators--enough to maintain, not cut off, a filibuster. Sixty, 41—can the Times see the difference?

FAIR does not endorse every opinion expressed or vouch for facts presented here, except by ourselves. Send link suggestions to [e-mail].

Link: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=22&media_view_id=9279

[MannyGoldstein]

1. Why Is This Analysis Dubious?

Aren't we hearing from a number of Congressional "Democrats" that the escalation is working?

Does anyone think that assenting to the (totally unsubstantiated) success of the escalation will help Congressional "Democrats" do what they've not done before - their Constitutional duty (i.e., to cut off funding)?

[Demeter]

2. The "Democrats" That Say the Surge Is Working Are Nuts

They have proven track records of stupidity if not worse with regards to the war. And I send a special shout out to my own Senator, Carl Levin, who is way past his sell date, and should have retired 6 years ago.

[Supersedeas]

3. where is the leadership??