The Case for Gamesmanship

The Democrats' internecine squabbling over the war is a family argument about tactics, not a showdown over principle. The left should remember that.

By Jonathan Alter

I've been reading a lot of commentary, and have written some of it myself, denouncing Democrats who failed to oppose to the death the supplemental spending bills allowing Chimpy the Prez to continue his war in Iraq. I've also grown increasingly uncomfortable with the hysterical, absolutist, and all-knowing--even though it's not really all that smart--hectoring.

So when Howie mentioned Jonathan Alter's contrary argument, I went ahead and read it.

Alter makes clear that he has lots of disagreements with aspects of the Democratic congressional leadership's handling of the issue but insists that doesn't change "the elemental fact" "that Democrats may have won the midterms but they lack the votes to end the war in Iraq." They "didn't have anywhere near the votes to override [Bush's] veto [of their bill with a timetable for withdrawal]. Bush and his war might be terribly unpopular, but under our system, he's still holding the high cards."

So why not keep passing bills and letting Chimpy veto them ("the 'Chinese water torture' option backed by John Edwards, among others")? Two reasons, says Alter....LINK