Everyone's picking on poor Joe Klein. For good reason.
Yesterday I spoke with Congresswoman Jane Harman (D-Ca.) just back from Iraq, who voted for the bill--as did a majority of Democrats who are not running for President. "Look, I would love to have cast a vote against Bush on this. We need a new strategy and I hope we can force one in September," she told me. "But I flew into Baghdad on a troop transport with 150 kids, heading into the field. To vote against this bill was to vote against giving them the equipment, the armor they need. I couldn't do that."
According to the official tally of the House vote, she did do that. She's down there in the "nays," which is generally where they put people who vote against things.
This one is what got me:
Voting against it means you're in favor of a precipitous departure from Iraq.
Well, no. Maybe in the world of the Beltway you can get away with instant proclamations (I can't honestly call it analysis -- there doesn't seem to be any of that going on) and firm declarations of other people's motivations, but when it works its way to Chicago. . . . Well, we're worse than Missouri that way. (C'mon -- we don't even believe Dah Mare.)
Voting against the bill could mean a lot of things. Given Klein's blunder on the Harman vote, I'm hardly likely to take his word on it. "Precipitous withdrawal"? No one has suggested that, except the RNC Newspeak-meisters who are obviously feeding Klein his punchlines.
I have an idea. Before he tells us what the votes of Senators and Congressmen mean, why doesn't he ask them?
No comments:
Post a Comment