"I've been pretty clear that I think the enactment of specific deadlines would be a bad mistake. but I think the debate itself, and I think the strong feelings expressed in the Congress about the timetable ...probably has had a positive impact — at least I hope it has in terms of communicating to the Iraqis that this is not an open-ended commitment," he said.
This is an excellent point. Though I find it hard to believe that the comments of the anti-war side over the last four years didn't already convince Iraqis that our commitment is not open-ended. That message has been sent for years now, I think.
Of course, this generous interpretation of the actions of our loyal opposition only makes sense if the "bad cop" is simply playing a role and wants the same thing as the "good cop."
As Congress plays the "bad cop" role with gusto, I'm not so sure about that alignment of interests:
But the new majority must decide how far to go in trying to tie Bush's hands and what will happen after the president's inevitable veto.
The debate is likely to expose fissures among Democrats, who remain divided on whether to cut off money for the unpopular war and risk leaving troops in the lurch.
"My feeling is at a certain point we're going to have a 'come-to-Jesus' moment in the caucus and talk about whether you fund (the war) or not," said Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash.
Remember, in the end the "bad cop" doesn't just beat up the suspect if the suspect doesn't cooperate or meet benchmarks of progress in cooperating.
Of course, an actual bad cop will just shoot the suspect with an unregistered gun and then put the weapon in the dead man's hand to make it look like the suspect's fault.
