Broder

David Broder, Washington Post Writers Group

Waiting for signs of the long awaited collapse of the Bush/Cheney regime reminds me of that scene in Charade when Herman Scobie (George Kennedy) sticks a pin in the cadaver of Audrey Hepburn’s husband just to make sure he’s really dead. But despite our cynicism over the lack of remorse and the failure to name names, I don’t see how we can completely discount Matthew Dowd’s desertion, nor can we ignore the fact that Specter slapped down Lieberman on Pelosi’s Syria visit, while Newt Gingrinch suggested that perhaps it was time for Alberto Gonzales to resign. And Tuesday, Glenn Greenwald wrote a surprised column about Fred Hiatt’s sudden conversion to the view that maybe, just maybe, there was merit in the notion that there was something seriously inappropriate about the White House’s political interference in the handling of US Attorneys. Fred Hiatt? That Fred Hiatt? What’s going on here?

So what should we make of David Broder’s column Tuesday, in which he suggested that the adults in the White House and Democratic Congress would serve the nation well if they could work out a compromise on the Iraq funding bill? Knowing that the Bush/Regime has declared itself adamantly opposed to compromise on Iraq, our side has been quick to warn the Democrats against accepting the President’s empty invitation to talk and dissing Broder’s suggestion as naive at best and advocating unilateral capitulation by the Democrats at worst. But is it?

I know I’m in the minority here, because I lost the straw vote at Atrios’ site over whether David Broder or Richard Cohen should get the coveted daily “award.” I thought Cohen deserved it hands down for doing Karl Rove’s dirty work in smearing Partick Fitzgerald and shielding Monica Goodling. I lost, but at least I’m in good company.

Still, I think Broder’s description of what a compromise might look like deserves a second look, not because I think it will happen nor agree with the details, but because I don’t think he’s advocating one-sided, unilateral concessions by the Democrats. And that itself is a sign that the debate is changing. This is how he describes a possible “compromise” on funding:

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.

At a minimum, he should say he is willing to enforce on our Iraqi allies the requirements everyone knows are necessary steps for a political settlement of the internal conflict: the agreement on distribution of oil revenue, the promised amendments to the constitution, the creation of local and regional governments. Bush should indicate publicly — for the sake of American public opinion and as a clear signal to the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki — that without those pledges being met, he cannot justify the sacrifices American troops are making.

I don’t read this as calling for a unilateral Democratic surrender, although the phrasing is ambiguous, perhaps deliberately so. The Democrats are asked to acknowledge what I believe is true: at this time, there seems no likely prospect for enough Republican votes to override a veto of a bill with all the conditions now attached to the House and Senate funding bills. Several Democratic leaders have said as much, and they are thinking through what happens after an override effort fails. So their “concession” is to accept political realities they already recognize. How they play that hand is up to them.

At the same time, Broder thinks Bush should accept something fairly important: there must be substantial progress by the Iraqis towards reconciliation, and if the Iraqi’s fail to meet the conditions, then Americans “cannot accept the sacrifies American troops are making.” The clear implication is that US troops would be withdrawn unless certain conditions are met. That is not Bush’s position; it’s the Democrats’ position.

My point is not that this is the best compromise, nor do I expect the Bush/Cheney regime to accept anything close to this, although who knows what may happend as the weeks go by and casualties mount, conditions worsen without unambiguous political “progress” (however defined) and increasingly anxious Republicans continue to defect. The point is that Dean Broder is saying that a compromise by the President that calls for withdrawal becomes a moral imperative if there is no measurable progress on resolving the civil war.

We can criticize lots of things here, such as how long it took, or not mentioning Murtha’s troop readiness conditions, or being ambiguous about eventual withdrawal. But I think Broder is signalling that whatever part of the political spectrum he represents — and he thinks he speaks for the great reasonable middle — is done with an indefinite occupation, done with the no-compromise White House position and its buck passing, and telling the President he has a moral obligation to make a deal that will get our troops out. From the perspective of a White House trying desperately to run out the clock and shift blame to the Democrats, this is not where they want the David Broders to be, and I think the Democrats know that. (Thanks to Amato at C&L for the video)

There’s one more clue that support for Bush/Cheney is collapsing. It seems the WH has been looking around for someone to be “war czar,” to replace Hadley’s deputy, Meghan Sullivan — and no one is interested:

“The very fundamental issue is, they don’t know where the hell they’re going,” said retired Marine Gen. John J. “Jack” Sheehan, a former top NATO commander who was among those rejecting the job. Sheehan said he believes that Vice President Cheney and his hawkish allies remain more powerful within the administration than pragmatists looking for a way out of Iraq. “So rather than go over there, develop an ulcer and eventually leave, I said, ‘No, thanks,’ ” he said.

Related posts:

  1. David Broder Gives Cheney a Big Blow-Job
  2. Reid v. Broder
  3. It’s always a clean slate for them
  4. MATLOCK!!!
  5. MATLOCK!!!