That's the headline in a frontpage article on the LA Times webpage. I was skeptical, because as a rule whenever I see a headline about Democrats, no matter what it says, I expect it to be unflattering. Remember the "Dems in Disarray" years?
But this article is quite good, actually, at describing the nature of the problem (read: Republicans) in passing a bill to withdraw troops from Iraq. The article explicitly states that Democrats in the House and Senate are trying to pass legislation to begin withdrawal, that the President is against any attempts to wind down US involvement in Iraq, and that Republicans are pretending to want withdrawal, but are blocking all attempts by Democrats to actually get out.
I know, that's not news to you. But it puts that confusing Dems Filibuster The War! "news" narrative to rest, and very clearly lays the blame where it belongs.
To wit:
Since January, Senate Democrats have orchestrated nine major votes on measures designed to change course in Iraq; House Democrats have arranged for four.
Every proposal but one has died in the Senate, where Republicans have used that chamber's rules to block the measures.
And what is the solution to Republican obstructionism and obfuscation? To play hardball.
This week, the latest proposal, which would have required that most troops be out of Iraq by April 30, died as Democrats failed to reach the 60-vote supermajority needed to cut off debate.
At the same time, Reid stunned Republicans when he shut down votes on alternatives that would have given them opportunities to back less forceful measures. The move locked a political escape hatch for GOP lawmakers, denying them opportunities to tell their constituents that they voted for legislation calling on the president to change course.
I think this is the best part of the article:
Democrats still need 14 more Republicans in the Senate and close to 70 more Republicans in the House before they could overcome a nearly certain presidential veto of any withdrawal measure.
That's exactly it: legisltation isn't getting passed because the Democrats don't have the votes to override a Presidential veto. Why don't they have the votes? Because there aren't enough Democrats in the House and Senate to do it alone, and they can't find even 14 Republican Senators who are willing to do the right thing.
Like I said, I know it's not news that the Republicans are the reason we are still in Iraq. But sad as it is, it is news when the MSM actually conveys that information.