I have no idea of the veracity (or lack thereof) of the Washington Post's sourcing on the "Democrats Back Down on Iraq Timetable" story.  Their source(s) may be perfectly solid.  But to say that the Washington Post has no agenda with regard to the war is like saying the fox has no agenda when guarding the henhouse. For years, reporters like Steno Sue Schmidt have been rewarded with front page placement and choice story assignments for promulgating utter bullshit like the Whitewater and Jessica Lynch stories that flatter the Administration and make Democrats look bad.  It is well within reason to suspect that the Post, like the Washington Times, have an agenda in portraying Democrats as weak, divided and in dissaray, and that there are many incentives offered to reporters willing to do just that.  

In fact, when it comes to the supplemental bill the wedge that is successfully being driven — and under reported — is between George Bush and the members of his own party, who feel they need to run for cover.  

Republicans like Olympia Snowe:

A likely sticking point is whether to include consequences if the Iraqi government fails to meet the benchmarks. Democrats, and some Republicans such as Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine, insist that there be penalties for falling short, such as a loss of U.S. financial support or the withdrawal of some coalition forces.

Like George Voinovich:

Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, is even less delicate as he acknowledges that the President has no choice but to compromise with congressional Democrats and accept conditions under which the war can continue. At a minimum, the Iraqi government — or what passes for one — must reduce the sectarian anarchy and bloodshed that make the U.S. military presence in that country so dangerous.

"That's how it's done," explains Mr. Voinovich. "Everybody holds their nose and maybe a couple of times vomits, but you get it done.

Like Susan Collins:

"Obviously, the president would prefer a straight funding bill with no benchmarks, no conditions, no reports," said Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine). "Many of us, on both sides of the aisle, don't see that as viable."

Now I perfectly well expect them all do do the Arlen Specter two-step and try to use such language as cover with their constituents even as they fold and back Bush, but a wedge is a wedge and it continues to be hammered by groups like Americans United for Change, who produced the above ad and will continue to make Republican candidates running for office in 2008 pay a price for their support of Fearless Leader.  It's a story that has Republicans tearing their hair out as they fight for their political lives, and yet "Democrats in Disaray" — even as they act on the will of the majority of the American people — curiously continues to dominate the headlines.

Related posts:

  1. President Collins Calls Public Option a “Non-Starter”
  2. My Memory is Better than Ezra’s
  3. Americans Want A Public Option, Not Bipartisanship
  4. Democrats “Win” 2008 So Republican Can Write Health Care Bill
  5. Americans Care More About Having Public Option than Gaining Snowe’s Vote