Broder: Dems Are Right On Iraq And Public Supports Them, But They Should Cave, Anyway
April 10, 2007 -- 10:24 AM EST // //

Matthew Yglesias deftly skewers David Broder's column today, pointing out that Broder says Democrats are right on Iraq but that they should nonetheless cave to President Bush in hopes that he'll try to forge a compromise on Iraq with Dems that he's never, ever, ever going to seek in the real world.

But lemme add a crucial point: Not only does Broder think that Dems are right on Iraq, he also says outright that public opinion is on their side, too. He adds the caveat, however, that unless Dems move outright to cut off funding for the war -- something Broder doesn't call on Dems to do -- the President will be the one with the "leverage" and the Dems should basically concede the game.

So, a question: If Broder thinks:

(a) Democrats are right in trying to end the war;

(b) The public wants Dems to end the war; and

(c) The only way this can happen is if Dems cut off funding...

...then why isn't Broder advocating that they do just that?

In other words, why not come out and advocate for something that he himself sees as the only route to the right outcome? If you hold the beliefs Broder professes to hold here, I just don't see how you avoid concluding that cutting off funding is the only right course of action.

The larger point here is that pundits who hold the view in one form or another that we should pull out of Iraq really should feel obliged at some point to take an actual realistic position on how this might be done -- one that doesn't depend on whether Bush will do this or that or anything else he just ain't gonna do.

---

---