So, are Lynne Woosley and Barbara Lee "cowards" for supporting the compromise Iraq bill?

[bigtree]

I sure as hell don't think so . . . and I'd be amazed at anyone who would call these legislators less than courageous who have argued vigorously against the compromise bill and have recognized the political pitfalls of rejecting the leadership bill, in effect, doing nothing but sitting on their hands.


Liberals Relent On Iraq War Funding

2007-03-23

Liberal opposition to a $124 billion war spending bill broke last night, when leaders of the antiwar Out of Iraq Caucus pledged to Democratic leaders that they will not block the measure, which sets timelines for bringing U.S. troops home.

The acquiescence of the liberals probably means that the House will pass a binding measure Friday that, for the first time, would establish tough readiness standards for the deployment of combat forces and an Aug. 31, 2008, deadline for their removal from Iraq.

Even more than the conservative Democrats leery of appearing to micromanage the war, House liberals have been the main obstacle to leadership efforts to put a timeline on the withdrawal of U.S. forces. They have complained that the proposal would not bring troops home fast enough. Their opposition has riven the antiwar movement, split the Democratic base and been the main stumbling block to the legislation, which had originally been scheduled for a vote Thursday.

As debate began on the bill Thursday, members of the antiwar caucus and party leaders held a backroom meeting in which House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) made a final plea to the group, asking it to deliver at least four votes when the roll is called. The members promised 10.

"I find myself in the excruciating position of being asked to choose between voting for funding for the war or establishing timelines to end it," said Rep. Barbara Lee (D-California). "I have struggled with this decision, but I finally decided that, while I cannot betray my conscience, I cannot stand in the way of passing a measure that puts a concrete end date on this unnecessary war."

Shortly after, Out of Iraq Caucus leaders decided to break the pact that members had made to stick together against the bill. "We have released people who have been pained by all this," said Rep. Maxine Waters (D-California). "We told them we don't want them to be in a position of undermining Nancy's speakership."

http://freeinternetpress.com/story.php?sid=11003

[rodeodance]

1. of course NOT.

[bigtree]

2. It would be gratifying for me to have those who threw around all of the insults to respond

but, I won't be surprised to see that, if they do respond, these good and fine legislators will be thrown from their pedestals for recognizing what we've been saying all along . . . that we need VOTES to get anything out of the House, and that just doing nothing but voting 'no' wasn't going to be enough to move their argument about ending the occupation forward.

[mmonk]

3. No choice. Doesn't make it right.

Just means they had no good choices they could help implement.

[bigtree]

4. that seems to put them in a different place than those who recognized the odds in the first place

and immediately worked to fashion a response which would get the widest amount of support in the body. They are no less courageous than these 'progressive' legislators who also recognized the odds, albeit after they first lobbied for support for their more strident approach.

This seems as clear an endorsement of the compromise approach as it can be:

Barbara Lee: "I cannot stand in the way of passing a measure that puts a concrete end date on this unnecessary war."

She thinks it's a good choice because it is the only possible approach, given the balance of power. Congress will have to work together to get these rebukes to Bush's militarism and neglect of our troops out of the chamber.

[mmonk]

5. Not a good choice. The only choice available

that has an end date that can pass. Therefore, better than the alternatives.