Rich on Iraq

Frank Rich writes:

"My own guess is that the Republican revolt will be hastened more by the harsh reality in Iraq than any pressure applied by Democratic maneuvers in Congress."

No way. Events in Iraq didn't do a thing to budge the republicans. The calculus is more specific (and petty) than that. The question they faced was "Will we look obstructionist if we block these hollow resolutions or will it benefit us to keep a bunch of dems from soapboxing on a resolution that won't pass a veto anyway?"

The answer was obvious and I disagree with Obama that it turns any heat on republicans to force them to squelch the issue. That would be the case if it was in the face of a united democratic party who were on talk shows marching in lock step with the aid of Chuck Hagel and few other re-pube-licans. However, instead the dems appear as disunited and disorganized as ever. The story isn't that republicans blocked a debate, the story is that dems couldn't muster enough unity to even pass a non-binding resolution. They couldn't provide a place for 'revolting' ("You said it, they stink on ice") republicans to go. So, instead Warner votes against his own bill with his tail between his legs. Not much of a revolt.