Democrats begin backpedalling. I was hoping to see more leadership from them, and less grand standing and politics. All is not lost, though. They can return the matter with a show of good will, forcing Bush to do likewise. Real negotiation is not about stonewalling or power plays, but of true consideration meeting the other's needs amicably will not compromising principles.
Look at this: Veto Makes Democrats Weigh Concessions
Yesterday, I wrote: Iraq Spending Bill Dooms Soldiers. Now, the imminent has become absolute. The Democrats are doing what they should have done yesterday. Instead, they lost by proving that they are still required to negotiate.
Hoyer gets it, "We're not going to leave our troops in harm's way . . . without the resources they need," said Hoyer, D-Md."
Bush, too, needs to negotiate. If he is not interested in hearing a time line plan, what is he interested in? He, like Americans as a whole, does not want to be Iraq forever.
What does an exit look like?
Will it be when a Christian can read in public from the Great Commission passage (it commands evangelism) in the Book of Matthew without being threatened with death?
Will it be when the Sunnis and Shiites get together and hug on Dr. Phil or Oprah?
Is it finding bipartisan turnouts at elections?
Would 50% turnout be enough?
What if sectarian murders diminish for a set period of time?
No comments:
Post a Comment