September 06, 2007 04:03 PM UTC

Sen. Salazar's Iraq Push in National Spotlight

• 0 Comments
• by: Colorado Pols

As the New York Times reports:

After short-circuiting consideration of votes on some bipartisan proposals on Iraq before the August break, senior Democrats now say they are willing to rethink their push to establish a withdrawal deadline of next spring if doing so will attract the 60 Senate votes needed to prevail…

Some Democrats have concluded that their decision earlier this summer to thwart votes on alternatives left them open to criticism that they were being intransigent. Democrats had wanted to keep pressure on Republicans over the summer by denying them votes on Iraq. Now, with the recess over, Democratic leaders are more willing to allow alternatives to a hard withdrawal date to reach the floor to keep pressure on President Bush…

Republicans and Democrats are also discussing ways to tweak a bipartisan plan by Senators Ken Salazar, Democrat of Colorado, and Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee, to address Democratic concerns that it did not have enough teeth. That plan, which would enact the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, is drawing new backing in the House from Republicans looking for an alternative to the status quo. [Pols emphasis]

“I think there is a general feeling that people would like to pull something together that would have bipartisan support,” Mr. Salazar said.

And in today’s Los Angeles Times:

Frustrated with the fierce partisanship of the war debate, moderate lawmakers on Capitol Hill are intensifying their drive to craft compromise measures to break the congressional impasse over U.S. policy in Iraq.

Democrats and Republicans involved in the efforts say they want to pressure the White House to change course so American troops can start coming home. But their proposals stop short of setting a withdrawal deadline, the centerpiece of the Democratic legislative campaign to force an end to U.S. involvement in the war.

“There is a lot of frustration out there. People want us to end the war,” said Sen. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.). “But what people also want in my state is they want Congress to do something.” Salazar has been pushing a proposal to implement the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, which last year urged changes in Iraq policy designed to hasten a U.S. withdrawal.

Both articles go on to explain that Salazar’s proposal has a long way to go against determined opposition from the House’s 70-member Out of Iraq Caucus, and that Salazar is hard at work on modifications to his plan intended to strengthen it and attract more bipartisan support.

But the key point expressed by these stories is that Americans are increasingly frustrated with a Democrat hard line on Iraq which has so far failed to produce any results, and want something done now. We believe the American people are interested in solutions, not partisan sniping, not grandstanding on proposals that are DOA the moment they pass Congress (if they even manage to pass).

This is a very important moment–not just for Ken Salazar. It’s also an important moment for you, politically active netizen, and you, irate liberal blogosphere. We stand by everything we said the day before yesterday about the angry net-left’s unproductive, politically cynical approach to Iraq since the Democrats took power last year. We believe that continuing down this path of confrontation and friendly fire will result in a loss of credibility for them, and a loss of influence with Democratic leadership. It’s academic psychology–do you like talking to people who insist on unrealistic solutions and then threaten you when you don’t buy in to them?

What some of you need to ask yourself, very carefully, is this–what will you do if Salazar’s plan actually works? What if it passes with a bipartisan veto-proof majority? What if the defection of a sufficient number of Republicans to this plan really does force the Bush administration’s to change course in Iraq? Do you really want to be on the wrong side of that, out of partisan spite or insistence on the unachievable?

It’s put up or shut up time.