It only counts in horseshoes

Damn, they keep coming so close but when it comes right down to it, the Democrats just can't pull off a really good impression of a vertebrate. I refer to the statement from Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi in response to Bush's "invitation" regarding war funding, a statement which was deeply disappointing and a sign of the Democrats' refusal to stand up to the White House thugs.

First, the background. It seems that yesterday, our Cacoepist-In-Chief

invited Democrats to discuss their standoff over a war-spending bill, but he made clear he would not change his position opposing troop withdrawals. The White House bluntly said the meeting would not be a negotiation. ...

"At this meeting, the leaders in Congress can report on progress on getting an emergency spending bill to my desk," Bush said. "We can discuss the way forward on a bill that is a clean bill, a bill that funds our troops without artificial timetables for withdrawal and without handcuffing our generals on the ground."

What, then, is the Congress supposed to be like a coporate project manager being called to the boss's office in order to explain themselves? What the crap is this "report" nonsense? Does Bush even think of Congress as a co-equal branch of government?

[White House deputy press secretary Dana] Perino said Democrats could benefit by meeting with Bush.... "Maybe they need to hear again from the president about why he thinks it is foolish to set arbitrary timetables for withdrawal," she said.

Okay, I take it back. Congress is not supposed to be a corporate project manager being called to the the boss's office. It's supposed to be a recalcitrant grade school student being called to the principal's office.

In response, Democrats, doing their very best to look like evolved creatures, declared that they were ready to talk with Bush, but, in the words of Harry Reid, in order for that to happen

Bush must agree to "take a seat at the table of negotiation, of compromise, of direction change."

So far, so good. But, as one might expect, the Dummycrats couldn't leave it at "good." That might leave the wrong impression. So Reid and Pelosi issued a joint statement staking out a Democratic Party position on Iraq. This is it, quoted in full (the introductory paragraph of the press release is not included):

The American people want the President and the Congress to work together to bring a responsible end to the war in Iraq. Congressional Democrats are willing to meet with the President at any time, but we believe that any discussion of an issue as critical as Iraq must be accomplished by conducting serious negotiations without any preconditions. Our goal should be to produce an Iraq supplemental bill that both fully funds our troops and gives them a strategy for success.

With his threat to veto such a plan for change in Iraq, President Bush is ignoring the clear message of the American people: We must protect our troops, hold the Iraqi government accountable, rebuild our military, provide for our veterans and bring our troops home.

The President is demanding that we renew his blank check for a war without end. Despite the fact that the President persists in trying to score political points at the expense of our troops, congressional Democrats have repeatedly reached out in the spirit of cooperation. We renew our request to work with him to produce a bipartisan bill that provides our troops and our veterans with every penny they need, but in turn, demands accountability.

This statement, received well in various parts of the lefty blogosphere (for example here and here) is actually a mismosh of nonsense and bullshit, both internally contradictory and vacuous.

Look, let's cut to the chase. Reid and Pelosi insist they want to "bring our troops home." They want us to believe and accept and come next year vote on the basis of the Democrats being the antiwar party, the "bring 'em home" party. This in the same statement where they declare their desire for a supplemental bill that "fully funds" Bush's war and produces a "strategy for success."

Just what the hell is a "strategy for success" in Iraq? In fact, what the hell constitutes success, much less a strategy for it? Four years in, hundreds of thousands of dead, hundreds of billions of dollars spent and, it feels like, a lie for every dollar, a history of deceit, ignorance, hubris, and greed that has chaos and civil war as its only progency, and people want to talk about a "strategy?" About success? Just how blind, how removed from reality, how stupid can some people be?

No, that's not right. Not stupid. Rather, how motivated by partisan ambition can some people be? Refine it further: We know how motivated by partisan ambition the Bushites can be, we've had six years of seeing it. But now we're seeing just how motivated by the same the Democrats can be. This is not a statement of position but of positioning, not of policy but of politicking, carefully designed to appear antiwar while fleeing in terror from the prospect of being called "anti-troop" or "wishing for defeat."

It is, in fact, just another attempt to straddle the divide, to say "We're for the troops! We're for victory! We're for ending the war!" all at the same time. And what's more, "We want 'accountability!' But we won't take any steps to enforce it." Reading their statement made me feel like the Robot going "It does not compute!"

Because it doesn't. Not so long as George W. Shrub can say, and has said, essentially the same thing: "I want the troops home as soon as possible but we have to support them and we can't withdraw before victory."

To put it calmly, despite the good sign that others take the Reid/Pelosi statement to be, I am singularly unimpressed. And until the Dems offer an actual "strategy for success" that involves "bringing the troops home" instead of "supporting them" by prolonging the bloodshed, I will remain so.

Footnote: Perino said that

We understand that Congress has a role to play. We understand what that role is.

It would have been amusing and, I suspect, instructive if someone had asked "And just what is that role?"