Surprise, surprise — Broder has an unrealistic compromise to offer

April 10, 2007

The Washington Post’s David Broder wrote half of a good column today about the war in Iraq. It’s the other half that’s the problem.

Broder seems to understand the broader dynamic quite well — Dems are right about the war, they’re right about withdrawal, and the public firmly stands behind them in this political fight. But, despite all of this, they should surrender to the president’s demands anyway and accept a political compromise. (As a rule, Broder believes in compromise the way most of us believe in gravity.)

What ought to happen is clear. There ought to be direct talks between them — with senior administration officials on one side of the table and leaders of the House and Senate on the other. It might not be a bad idea to bring senior officers back from Iraq for the talks to give the conferees a sense of reality.

From the start, Democrats ought to concede one big point: Absent any readiness on their part to cut off funds to the troops in Iraq, those forces will be there as long as George Bush wants them to remain. Once that point is conceded, Bush should be called upon to pay some attention to the Democrats’ demands — and the public opinion that supports them.

At a minimum, he should say he is willing to enforce on our Iraqi allies the requirements everyone knows are necessary steps for a political settlement of the internal conflict: the agreement on distribution of oil revenue, the promised amendments to the constitution, the creation of local and regional governments. Bush should indicate publicly — for the sake of American public opinion and as a clear signal to the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki — that without those pledges being met, he cannot justify the sacrifices American troops are making.

I’ve read this several times, trying to make sense of it, but still don’t see the wisdom in what Broder describes as his “clear” compromise. Under Broder’s scenario, the Dems give up their policy altogether — a policy that he concedes is both right and popular — and the president will continue to pursue his already-stated goals. That’s not a compromise; that’s ridiculous.

As Matt Yglesias put it, Dems are supposed to throw in the towel “in exchange for which Bush will continue to implement Bush’s war policy absent formal fetters but will suddenly start doing so in the manner of a mature, serious person, rather than, say, George W. Bush.”

As for the notion that Iraq must meet certain benchmarks or Bush won’t be able to “justify the sacrifices,” we’ve been at this point for quite a while now. It’s the exact same toothless-benchmarks policy the president has pursued for over a year.

Broder’s point seems oddly self-defeating — Bush should tell Iraq to meet to solve its problems, and if it doesn’t, oh well. “Those forces will be there as long as George Bush wants them to remain.”

Broder certainly knows more about compromise than I do, but when one side gives up all of their (right and popular) position, and the other side gives up nothing, isn’t that more aptly described as a “surrender”?

One final point. Broder notes that no matter how much “logic” is on the Dems’ side, it can’t overcome the “fundamental fact…that George Bush is committed to seeking victory in Iraq.” That’s White House rhetoric and Broder should know better. To insist that Bush wants victory is to suggest that his critics want defeat.

If anything, that reflects an upside-down landscape. It’s not necessarily that the president wants to fail, but rather that his policies have led to nothing but failure. What Bush is “committed to” is irrelevant — the debate should be about what’s possible in reality, not the president’s imagination.

April 10, 2007 at 12:36 pm

Poor David Broder. Now that the Alzheimers is so obvious, there’s no way for him to politely retire with his reputation still intact.

One of the commenters on the article itself termed it, somewhat disgustedly, as “let George Bush do what he wants”. I guess David Broder can send his jacket in to get measured for the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Obviously, Broder has signed on to Bushreichspeak. Having a discussion means listening to Bush. Reaching a compromise means doing what Bush wants (also see “bipartisan”). Congress has no authority except over funding. Accountability is undefined.

In any language, it’s propaganda, and logic is irrelevant.

Bush should indicate publicly — for the sake of American public opinion and as a clear signal to the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki — that without those pledges being met, he cannot justify the sacrifices American troops are making.

Met when? And what happens if they’re not met?

Broder is either assuming that Bush will agree to actual deadlines with teeth (which isn’t likely, since that’s exactly what he’s threatening to veto) or he’s assuming that Bush isn’t just full of crap and won’t promise to enforce the pledges and then find enough loopholes to make it to 2009.

Shorter David Broder: “You’re stupid enough to give Bush another blank check.”

American people: “Screw David Broder and the chattering classes who brought us this nightmare.”

I am sick and tired of people saying senility or Alzheimer’s are Broder’s problem. I expect name calling from the right, not people who use their brains. So please stop it with the old guy slurs. Not much different than what Imus said (and says all the time). There is plenty of substance, or lack of substance, to attack in Broder’s column.

I agree that Broder is spectacularly wrong on substance nearly every time he opens his mouth, and he won the Wanker of the Day contest at Atrios’ site (I still think this was a two wanker day with the Post’s Cohen equally deserving).

BroderSpeak—“Give Bush what he wants as a precondition to negotiations.”

How neurologically inept does this facetious little twit think people are? He wants to unilaterally determine the end result of negotiations prior to the negotiations? Let’s play this one out….

Bush demands tough sanctions against North Korea—and then starts brokering weapons deals with North Korea.

Bush makes war on Iraq—and seeks to establish de-“MOCK”-racy by providing logistics support and escort-duty for the MeK—the equivalent of two-to-three Iraqi Baathist combat divisions with enough firepower at their disposal to sop up the Euphrates River with the Iraqi “defense (insert raucous laughter here) forces.

He is in direct violation of his own executive orders barring the conducting of business with listed terrorist organizations; he is conducting transactive business with North Korea, in violation of UN resolutions and sanctions.

In short—he’s doing business with the Enemy. I recall that the correct term for this conduct is Treason—a “High Crime” as established under US Law.

So George—we talkin’ Impeachment here—or a firing squad?

For all the time Broder has spent in DC he really hasn’t a clue.

“fundamental fact…that George Bush is committed to seeking victory in Iraq.”

There’s just one problem: Bush has never stated what victory actually means.

To be honest, if Bush and Broder and the rest of the Iraq Cheerleading Squad really, really want to “win” in a classic sense, then they need to show some testicular fortitude and do what really needs to be done: pummel the enemy into submission.

Send over some B-2s and, once American forces are fired upon (no matter from where, when or how) flatten the entire area. Reinstate the draft and flood the area with at least 400K troops. Tell troops to fire upon the enemy with extreme prejudice.

Don’t get me wrong here: I do NOT advocate such a thing.

I’m just saying that Bush Co. has never shown any desire whatsoever to win in any sense of the word. Not militarily, not diplomatically, and not logically. Not sure why Broder can’t figure that out …

attention david broder: americans do not want congress to compromise with the white house on this matter. they want out of iraq now. why aren’t you paying attention?

Hizzonner Ed Koch comes up with similarly obtuse ‘compromise’ ideas. He suggested that the President send diplomats to negotiate with our allies to have them do more in Iraq or….get this….we’re going to remove our troops ASAP.

The title of his piece (courtesy of the RealClearPolitics editors) is:

We Shouldn’t Be Alone in Fighting Terrorists

You can’t make this up. Are they having some serious problems or what?

Why does everyone give people like Broder the benefit of the doubt by assuming they are dumb, or wonder why they say the things they do? They say what they say because 1) they are paid to say it and/or 2)they support their millionaire values(epitomized by Republicans) and pretend to not know things so they can get their spin out. Broder doesn’t really care about anyone but himself, and actively disdains those below him. He believes that the country is for him and his rich pals…they are the ones who do/should be making the decisions. All the littles have no idea how the “world really works.” Broder doesn’t want out of Iraq because it is an important piece on the geopolitical chessboard the “ruling class” likes to discuss at those upscale Washington parties they all attend. Those people are driven by a worldview that is would probably be considered distasteful to most here and abhorrent to others. It is not about dealing with good or bad rulers, or uplifting others, etc., it is purely about figuring out how to get what they want without the lessers revolting.

From the start, Democrats ought to concede one big point: Absent any readiness on their part to cut off funds to the troops in Iraq, those forces will be there as long as George Bush wants them to remain. — Broder

I think Broder’s objective is the same as that of many Repubs. It’s not that he wants Dems to surrender; it’s that he wants them to cut the funding off, entirely. So that whatever fiasco ensues can be — more or less legitimately — hung on the necks of Dems.

For the birds, Davie; the answer, for the moment, is NO.

Believe it or not, Broder actually used to make sense. He was once one of my favorite columnists. Broder’s failing is that he seems to be constitutionally incapable of appreciating what the Republican party has turned into, and that they, almost totally by themselves, are responsible for the loss of Broder’s prized bipartisanship. Why Broder can’t get this is a mystery to me; Grover Norquist made the party’s position on bipartisanship (“=date rape”) perfectly clear some time ago. For whatever reason, Broder continues to insist that the Dems need to compromise with a party that’s hell-bent on their destruction. It’s baffling, and sad.

Comments are closed.