More thoughts on funding

Realized I gave the whole funding thing short-shrift last night in my effort to catch up. The way I see it is that the Dems didn't have the votes to overturn a Presidential veto and the meta-message these days is that not funding a continued presence in Iraq is not supporting the troops. It's as if people think that by not funding the troops, they'd be over there with nothing but rocks to throw and dirt to eat (as an aside, with this administration, they just might). So a showdown here would be all about who "supports" the troops. And on this, the Dems lose. The narrative is too ingrained at this point, and people are still too willing to make the easy (irrelevant and/or wrong) arguments rather than look at the facts and the implications of each side's actions. So in the end, I think the Dems had to avoid an ultimate showdown.

What truly sucks is that (1) the administration talking points write themselves, "Democrats had an opportunity to de-fund the war, they chose not to do so. In fact, they passed an incremental that is precisely what President Bush was asking for, after all, the President has been emphatic in his desire to see benchmarks for the Iraqis. As a result, it is hypocritical of them to now criticize the President's plan since they have, in fact, endorsed it. Blah, blah, blah."

(2) the left is REALLY pissed off about this. And the anger is understandable. They were electing people to go and make changes, principally to take Bush on over the war. Dems caved. Listen, if you think that the war is unwinnable, then you have to want it to end. I want it to end. But at the same time, I realize that with the egomaniac we currently have in the White House, it is not going to end. And as long as the narrative continues to run as it is currently, the Dems are in a box.