Democrats Plan “Symbolic” Stand
As John Dickerson predicted yesterday, the Democrats will not endorse the Ted Kennedy approach to opposing the surge, and instead will take the easy way out:
Democratic leaders said Tuesday that they intended to hold symbolic votes in the House and Senate on President Bush’s plan to send more troops to Baghdad, forcing Republicans to take a stand on the proposal and seeking to isolate the president politically over his handling of the war.
Senate Democrats decided to schedule a vote on the resolution after a closed-door meeting on a day when Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts introduced legislation to require Mr. Bush to gain Congressional approval before sending more troops to Iraq.
The Senate vote is expected as early as next week, after an initial round of committee hearings on the plan Mr. Bush will lay out for the nation Wednesday night in a televised address delivered from the White House library, a setting chosen because it will provide a fresh backdrop for a presidential message.
The office of Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the House, followed with an announcement that the House would also take up a resolution in opposition to a troop increase. House Democrats were scheduled to meet Wednesday morning to consider whether to interrupt their carefully choreographed 100-hour, two-week-long rollout of their domestic agenda this month to address the Iraq war.
In both chambers, Democrats made clear that the resolutions — which would do nothing in practical terms to block Mr. Bush’s intention to increase the United States military presence in Iraq — would be the minimum steps they would pursue. They did not rule out eventually considering more muscular responses, like seeking to cap the number of troops being deployed to Iraq or limiting financing for the war — steps that could provoke a Constitutional and political showdown over the president’s power to wage war.
Typically for the Democrats, their stance will satisfy no one – Republicans will wonder what happened to the pledges to work with the President and Republicans (apparently that offer was limited to situations where the Democrats get to call the shots). Democrats will wonder what happened to their spines.
Meanwhile, Bush will apparently get his surge…more throughout the today, including, of course, commentary on the President’s speech tonight…
The Iraq war is the most consequential issue of our times. Is it your suggestion that it is somehow wrong for those in Congress to take an identifiable stand on the issue?
Your other post criticized Kennedy for his bill which would require Congressional authorization for the escalation. You are now criticizing the Democrats for this bill. Given that the electorate clearly expressed its preferences — and all (or nearly all) Democrats in Congress oppose the escalation — what would you suggest that they do?
I’d like to see the Democrats get on board and try to figure out how to win instead of just how to lose the least badly…
I think we are past the point where victory, however loosely defined, is still attainable. If that is the case, then the issue turns to finding out how we can leave Iraq with the least amount of damage to the Iraqis, those in the region, and our national interest.
Well, and that’s the problem, as I see it – the Democrats share your idea of Iraq as essentially lost, and I’m not there yet. Maybe you’re right and I’m wrong, but I’m not ready to throw in the towel…
I think you have to ask yourself what combination of circumstances in Iraq would lead you to conclude that we’re just throwing more lives away without any measurable results, and hence it’s time to withdraw. Because you continue to support the war effort, in your opinion we haven’t reached that point yet. For most Americans and nearly all of the Democrats in Congress, we’ve reached that point some time ago. In the fullness of time, you may be proved right – or maybe not – but in any event, there is no mystery as to how the public feels about the war.
Given these circumstances, the question arises as to what the Democrats in Congress ought to do. During the election campaign, we repeatedly heard how the Democrats lack a position on Iraq and are simply anti-Bush. Now that they are in a position of responsibility, they are voicing a plan which starts with the current troop level as a line in the sand, and with the findings of the ISG report more or less representing the consensus opinion. They were elected by constituents who clearly want to wind down the war effort: why would you have them act any differently?
Wait, wait, wait – how is the ISG report the consensus opinion? Seldom have I seen a more ballyhooed effort disappear into irrelevance with the speed this thing did…I don’t think even the Democrats were satisfied with the recommendation that the way to improve Iraq is the move the Iranian and Syrian foxes officially into the henhouse…
I think the ISG’s recommendation of gradual disengagement is the consensus view – I would also venture to guess that if you were to poll Congressional Democrats, you would find that they mostly support a more aggressive diplomacy which would include talking to Iran and Syria – I don’t see a lot of controversy among Democrats regarding Baker’s view that there are times when it behooves us to speak with our enemies, and a solution to the Middle East’s problems is unlikely without their involvement.
Also, I wouldn’t characterize the report as irrelevant — the Bush administration and its apologists painted the report as irrelevant so they wouldn’t have to confront its findings, but outside the fingers-in-the-ear, I-can’t-hear-you approach, there is a lot of relevancy there –
Dems determined to repeat ‘nam defeat with a defeat in Iraq
Gateway Pundit slams home a point I’ve had floating around in my mind the last several weeks (but haven’t articulated) with his post titled “How Democrats Lost Vietnam… And, How They Plan On Losing Iraq“.
Cox and Forkum sa…
Mark:
First of all, if this is true, Bush will get what he asked for — one last chance to turn around his policy in Iraq. Given that the Democrats do control congress, this is a positive development, especially since it looked two months ago like Bush would be “negotiating” with Iran and Syria to quell the violence in Iraq.
Second, I can recognize that, from a political position, the Democrats only option for opposing Bush is to cut off funding. If they exercise that option, they could set off a firestorm of criticism. And Democrats who initially voted for the resolution in ‘03 (including two of the “big three” at this point) would be particularly vunerable. Since I don’t want to see them cut off funding, I’m all for this little bit of political theater.