Iraq War Funding: The Democrats Capitulate
I have put considerable energy over the last few hours into trying to rationalize the decision of congressional Democrats to call a truce in the Iraq war funding battle as something other than rank capitulation.
Smart politics, perhaps.
The recognition that the compromise with the White House – which shifts the focus from a troop withdrawal deadline to imposing new conditions on the Iraqi government — doesn’t really change much since that government can’t even wipe its own ass.
Just another step in a long and involved political dance.
But no amount of rationalizing can rinse the bad taste from my mouth.
The Democrats were given an unambiguous mandate in the mid-term elections to bring the troops home. Even though they are short of a veto-proof majority, an increasing number of Republicans were jumping ship to join them in agreeing to legislation with a troop withdrawal timeline.
But in the end, Democrats did not bow to the inevitable, as their spin doctors are depicting the decision. Nothing in this topsy turvy war is inevitable except for more unnecessary death and destruction and the failure of the Bush war policy.
No, in the end the Democrats capitulated. And lied to the American people just like the White House has lied.
65 Responses to “Iraq War Funding: The Democrats Capitulate”
Shaun,
What would you do if you were up against a stubborn, obtuse leader with veto power? The best way through is around at this point. It is a compromise, and it is naivete to think that any politician will follow through on such an ambitious, over-arching plan.
I personally think we need to put pressure on Congress to restore Habeus Corpus- and if the administration doesn’t, then they are treasonous to the very principles established by braver men over 200 years ago. And what’s the penalty for treason?
hanginjohnny–
You’re making sense. Maybe too much sense for some.
Shaun–
You’re making the following assertion: “an increasing number of Republicans were jumping ship to join them in agreeing to legislation with a troop withdrawal timeline.”
Now back it up: name those Republicans. Name enough of them to make, as you call it, a”veto-proof majority”.
Without that, all we’ve got are troops out in the field who need to be equipped!!
Shaun,
Their is only four months left in the current fiscal year. Any longer delays basically means cutting off funds for this year. What would Congress do if the Bush Administration decided to furlough all of the civil servants working at a few facilities in a blue state?
Congress knows that the FY08 defense appropriation bill is due in four months . That is the place to begin to make changes.
However, I doubt that a Pelosi lead house will be any better at putting their budgets together on time anymore that a Hastert led Congress was. The constitution gives the House the duty of passing the budgets each year. Yet, is seems that is the last thing that the leadership in the house ever wants to do. If Speaker Pelosi had better political instincts, she would ensure that all Appropriation bills were pass well before October 1, 2007 and then go on every talk show in existence and remind the American public that Democrats can get things done that Republicans could not in 12 years.
I am far more cynical. The war has failed, as a growing number of folks can finally come to admit. So why stay? Could it be it makes a nice ‘whip up the base and indepenedents’ issue at the same time as leaves a fatal albatross around Reps necks?
I can see some real politcal calculus on the dems part here. If the war is still is going on by the election, than that it will ensure a Dem sweep. It will the defining issue of the election, period. And, one that faovrs them by a vast majority.
I agree with everything said, but what would you do?
There are important legislative initiatives that need attention after all these years of republican neglect.
How much more time should be allotted to battling this intransigent monarch?
DaveA,
I think you are incorrect on the Dems strategy. I think they want it over with well before the Nov 2008 election. The Democratic nominee will almost certainly win but I doubt any of them want to be blamed for what Iraq will become after the west pulls out of the country. The strategist of Clinton, Obama, and Edwards would love for the U.S. to be out of Iraq before the summer of 2008 so that the mess in Iraq can be blamed on the Republicans.
This is NOT why I voted Democratic in November:
Regardless of what you voted for in November, your predeliction for 2008 campaign strategizing, the intransigence of the monarch and the unfounded fear that the troops will be left barefoot and bereft, you simply can’t put lipstick on this pig.
the Democrats have been counting on GOP support for limiting executive power on the war- it has not been forthcoming. Even Republicans who criticize the conduct of the war still vote with their president out of party loyalty- with a couple of exceptions like Ron Paul and Hagel. The only way to get out is to have a bipartisan effort to curtail the Bush admin. who will not withdraw troops under any circumstances, but who want to turf it to the next president.
Shaun–
Still waiting for you to name the Republicans whose votes would have made this veto-proof.
If you care enough to show us that you can support your assertions, please do!!
Perhaps for those new Democrats who were elected, but they still have about as slim a majority as one can get. A tiny majority does not equal an unambiguous mandate in my view, or more the Democrat’s majority would have been larger.
It was pretty apparent to me that their strategy was doomed from the beginning and they seemed to make the assumption that unpopularity with the course of the war would translate into votes for their particular “plan” to address it. They’ve also failed to explain the plan to the American people in my view and have really failed to provide cogent answers to some legitimately critical aspects. I follow Iraq and the politics surrounding it and the plan was so poorly explained publicly that I had to do independent research to figure out its details. It was widely viewed as a “withdrawal” plan, meaning total withdrawal, when in reality it would have drawn forces down but left thousands, if not tens-of-thousands of troops in Iraq. The plan’s supporters were never really able to explain just how many troops would be left and left unanswered important questions like if they could be protected if the sh!t really hit the fan and open civil war and ethnic cleansing erupted following the draw-down.
Then there is the wisdom (or lack thereof) for attempting to tie their demands to a funding bill that everyone views as necessary and they allowed the Republicans to rake them over the coals and raise questions about “supporting the troops.” That was just plain dumb, imo. I think they would have been wiser to go after the AUMF first and amend that – then both parties could safely politic without fear of harming actual combat operations. Congress has the tendency, unfortunately, of thinking of everything in terms of money and its allocation. Frankly, I don’t understand why they’ve ignored the AUMF – it’s the law that authorizes the war after all.
I could go on, but I hope you get the point. The Democrats did not have their ducks in a row, they were unprepared, and they made too many assumptions. We’ll see if they learn anything.
I agree with George Sorwell. The Democrats’ hopes have always relied on bipartisan support for withdrawel. Even though Republicans are uneasy about this war, it is still popular with their base and they aren’t about to face Karl Rove’s revenge in ’08. So, even though the Democrats believed there were GOP members who would help them get a supermajority, that never materialized, as even Republicans who spoke out against the surge voted along party lines at every opportunity. Why not complain about their complacency and uberloyalty to party over country???? They know just as the Democrats do that Iraq is a lost cause.
While it would be interesting to watch you put lipstick on a pig, that’s not what’s being asked here
The question remains how you think the Dems should have pushed their timetables through Congress…against a president determined to say “No”…against a Congress in which they have only a small edge…and against members of their own party who didn’t approve of the idea.
They gave up because they knew it was a losing battle, and one that would be used in the next election to get them out by framing the party as ” ensuring America’s defeat” or “abandoning the troops”. Its disappointing, but its the political reality. The Republican base gets slanted news from FNC , the WSJ and the am talk radio hosts and still believe that if we “finish the job” it will end in “victory”.
Kritter,
Of course a key difference is that the Republicans are not forcing people out of their party because of their views on the war. Bipartisanship is a two-way street and it’s pretty disingenuous to single out one party and not the other. In any event, if the Republicans were complacent and “uberloyal” then those chickens may come home to roost in the 2008 elections.
And I don’t agree that Republicans know, just as Democrats supposedly do, that Iraq is a “lost cause.” Not even the supporters of the Democratic plan believe this since the plan advocates leaving a significant number of US Forces in Iraq indefinitely albeit with a change of mission.
Mr. Sorwell:
The following Republicans have stated outright or indicated that they would consider voting with Democrats on a troop withdrawal timetable:
Senate:Sens. Warner, Hagel, Smith, Coleman, Specter, Snowe, Collins.
House: Reps. Paul, Latourette, English, Keller, Ramstad, W. Jones, Coble, Upton. (I think there are more, but these will do for the moment.) Additionally, I spoke to Rep. Castle at a Memorial Day parade on Sunday and he stated outright he would vote for legislation mandating a troop withdrawal.
Alan G:
I am not going to suggest how the Democrats would push their timetables through Congress. That was not the purpose of my post. The purpose of my post is to hammer home that no matter how you look at it, the Democrats cravenly and crassly capitulated. (Try saying that three times fast.)
They’re not??? What about Hugh Hewitt and his Victory Caucus that threatened to mount campaigns against any of the 17 House members that voted with Nancy Pelosi in March?
Privately a lot of Republicans ARE very nervous about Iraq, but they don’t want to buck the party, so they don’t often go on record. Even those who speak out, vote differently.
And there’s a difference between leaving forces there to prevent destabilization of the region and usurpation of the oil fields by terrorists and believing that Iraq will become a stable Democratic ally of the US, or that their government is capable of ruling its people.
If the Democrats were wanted an end to the war, they would have dug in their heels and refused to pass any funding without benchmarks and deadlines. Heck, if they were truly serious, they wouldn’t have funded continuing combat operations at all.
Perhaps Democratic candidates were more interested in saying what they thought they needed to say to get elected than in actually bringing an end to Bush’s foolish adventures?
And that voters were silly to have thought the Democrats would follow through on their promises?
Nah, that can’t be it, there has to be something more than just lying politicians and naive voters, right?
Yeah, the Victory Caucus is dumb. But for every such right-wing group there is one on the left. Look, this debate is pointless. Both parties try to maintain loyalty and use nefarious measures to do so. Saying the Republicans are “bad” for doing this only tells people you support the other party, not that you support bipartisanship. The left wing of the Democratic party succeeded in kicking a moderate, Joe Lieberman, out of the party, so to point the finger at Republicans is just silly. Both parties do it and both parties use extreme measures to ensure loyalty. It’s a result of our broken political system more than anything else.
You’re right, and I would like to see more people talk about alternatives to “staying the course” and abandonment. The problem with the Democrats is that a very powerful wing of their party will settle for nothing less than full and complete withdrawal and on the Republican side there is a powerful wing that will only settle for “victory” which leave little room for a compromise. The Democrats could make the case for compromise – it should be relatively easy since each day that passes the prospect for achieving the stated Administration goals grows more distant – but so far they’ve done a p!ss poor job of it. I would like to support an alternative, but I suspect that events will choose an alternative for us before our corrupt political class from both parties, dominated by uncompromising extremists, ever decide on a course of action.
Shaun–
I’m going to try to take it down a notch here.
There was an actual vote in the actual Senate on April 26. That vote was 51 to 46 in favor of the deadline for withdrawal. Here’s the CNN report about that vote.
Only two actual Republicans voted in favor the withdrawal bill, Hagel and Smith. It may–or may not– be true that all seven of the Republicans you’ve named, as you put it, “would consider voting with Democrats on a troop withdrawal timetable”.
But so far–and “so far” means as of the last actual bill the Senate voted on–only two did so.
Also, an override of a veto in the Senate requires a two-thirds majority, which would be 67 votes. Seven Republican votes aren’t going to overcome the will of President Bush, even if every Democrat votes for the timetable.
I’d imagine that at some point, given the continuing unpopularity of the war, Republicans will begin to desert the President like the proverbial rats deserting a sinking ship. But so far, the great majority of Republicans are supporting the President’s position.
The idea that you’re promoting in this post, that the continuation of the war can be blamed on the Democrats, is not supported by any actual facts. At least, not by any facts that I can see. If you can supply some facts that I’m missing, please do.
Aside to Entropy: I believe one of the above-named Republlicans, Chuck Hagel, will be facing a primary challenge due to his oppostion to the President’s war policies. So far, it seems to me, there isn’t otherwise much reason for Republicans to force anyone out of their party, because the vast majority of them don’t disagree when it counts–when they have to vote.
Entropy, you’re exactly right. The funny thing is that the Democrats didn’t want to cut and run, like most Americans want them to do with our troops in Iraq. They wanted to maintain a very strong presence there. An imperial force to keep watch over the precious oil fields.
That’s why, in the end, they capitulated to the President’s demands. They’ve bought into the plan of running of the Middle East’s oil fields. The Democrats just want to pretend that they are offering a different vision.
Sorwell,
It’s a joke to call those bills you refer to as withdrawal bills, considering they left 10s of thousands of troops in Iraq, and that’s without mentioning our mercenary “private contractors.”
The logical conclusion is that the Democrats didn’t want to leave Iraq, or hand it over to an international coalition (which is what we should do to try to keep the peace). They still wanted to control the oil fields, while letting the blood spill in Baghdad.
This way they could pay lipservice to the antiwar movement by withdrawing some troops, and also pleasing the hawk crowd by promising to still fight Al Qaeda with the troops left in Iraq. Don’t let them fool you.
Mr. Sorwell:
I admire your ability to take an extremely simple and straightforward post and parse.
I did not say nor suggest that the Democrats are to blame for continuing the war. It is obvious that they do not have veto-proof majorities and wouldn’t for some time — if ever.
I make a single overriding point in the post: The Democrats capitulated. Period.
Shaun–
“Capitulated”.
To what?
I don’t know what you call it, but I call what they capitulated to “reality”.
The reasons why I call it reality are explained in many comments to this post.
The President is intransigent.
The Republicans in Congress are still quite unified in their support for the President’s policies.
What else can the Democrats do? Please, please, please explain. Are the troops supposed to go unfunded?
All of you attacking Shaun seem to think that the Democrats had to cave in because George Bush wouldn’t.
There’s an implicit assumption in there, that Democrats wouldn’t allow the money to run out, and that George Bush would.
This is an absurd position. It’s Bush who wants the money and Bush who would’ve caved in, if he had thought the Democrats would stand fast.
The previous “compromise bill” included timelines that the president could ignore completely. Bush called that unacceptable, even though it’s a virtual blank check.
This is a huge loss for the Democratic leadership. Bush can now safely assume he can ignore their concerns and opinions, just as he ignored the Republicans before them. That gives the man who led us into this catastrophe sole authority over a war that will cost at least a quarter trillion more dollars and tens of thousands of lives and we’ll watch Iraq continue to spiral out of control.
Mikef–
I would like to see a single fact in support of the idea that George W. Bush would have, as you put it, “caved in”.
Seriously. Support your bold assertion. If you have a single reason, in light of recent history, to believe that President Bush would hesitate to play politics with their lives, I’d love to know what it is.
If President Bush doesn’t care, as you concede, what his own party thinks, why would he care what the other party thinks.
He is, as you may have heard, the decider.
Mikef,
Excellent comment. The Democrats didn’t need a veto-proof majority to end the war in Iraq. That’s why it’s obvious that they don’t want it to end.
Mikef–
What I will say is, having read your argument, I understand what you’re saying, and by extention, I finally understand Shaun’s previously obscure point.
But, Holy God: Your argument is that Bush would “cave in”–??
As my colleague Chris effectively said yesterday, “No bill, no veto”.
Food and forage provisions would feed and supply the troops regardless.
The Dems didn’t even need to show up at the ballpark much less go there to lose a game.
The President can’t do sh!t unless in the war department unless Congress authorizes and funds it. Bush may be “led” us into this, but he couldn’t have done with initial and continued support from Congress. And that’s why it’s strange to me the Democrats seem to be ignoring the AUMF. Adding restrictions to funding is both counterproductive and Constitutionally dubious. Amending the AUMF to limit or repeal that authorization is not.
I don’t think the Democrats have capitulated, they choose a course of action and it predictably failed. That’s different from capitulation, in my view. They’ll have to try something else now. Continuing down the path they were on – in other words, not capitulating – would not bring any more success any more than continuing down the same path in Iraq has brought us success there.
Mikef:
An excellent comment indeed. Thorwing “facts” around is not going to change that reality.
Chris–
You’re also of the opinion that President Bush would “cave in”?
Shaun–
You also think President Bush would “cave in”?
Mike f- George Bush has proven that he never caves in, as long as he has an iota of support from his own party and their base. The only time he’s caved was the Dubai ports deal, when he was attacked by all sides. If you go on politico.com and other sites, it will tell you that the Democrats could only hope to peel off Republican votes as the war grew more unpopular-that’s been their strategy since November.
entropy- so now you admit that your party kicks people out for their stand on the war?. The Democrats are not united on this issue- many want complete withdrawel, others want to leave some troops there indefinitely. Most support a timeline, some do not. They do not have the party unity you presuppose- the Blue Dogs are more hawkish. Yet conservative candidates like Heath Shuler were recruited by the Democrats, even though they knew they would not have unity when it was time to vote. So, I think you are mistaken.
I agree with you that all sides need to compromise- this vote IS a compromise, since it retains language about benchmarks- no GOP Sen would vote for language containing timetables- except Hagel and Smith. My opinion is that we should have gone with the ISG report recommendations- Bush missed a good opportunity by caving to the extremists in his party who were calling Baker-Hamilton surrender monkeys.
Mr. Sorwell:
I will say it one more fricking time:
My post was not an encyclopedic account of all that has come before and will come after May 22, 2007, regarding the interplay between the Congress of the United States and President George Walker Bush. It was a brief and to the point commentary that the Democratic leadership has capitulated.
Sorwell,
Bush doesn’t need to “cave in” for the war to end. He can’t simply appropriate the money to continue the war, unless he officially declares an end to our constitutional republic.
My party? Which party would that be? I’ve never been a member of either political party. I don’t understand the rest of your point. My contention is that both parties are internally divided and at the moment, the more extreme factions are in ascendancy. Yet both parties try hard to enforce “party discipline” with a variety of measures. Personally, I find this practice abhorrent. I elect my representatives to represent ME, not a political party and certainly not Nancy Pelosi or Dennis Hastert.
Two points:
From a early May CNN poll:
and per Entropy
So really only 24% would support not giving the funds, and they should modify the AUMF like Entropy suggests.
Also, does anyone know the extent of military/political planning if the Iraqi government asks us to leave? They’re going to vote on it for real when they get back and the non-binding procedural vote went heavily against us staying.
Oh in that same poll, 40% said they would support no funds if the choice was between that or nothing.
Shaun–
What I am fricking saying is that your “brief and to the point commentary that the Democratic leadership has capitulated” doesn’t make any sense.
Capitulated…to…what?
And you can try to make this about out how obtuse Mr. Sorwell is–but look at all the other comments you’re getting.
Facts are stubborn things.
I hope all that html works!
Chris–
I inderstand that the expression “cave in” is not very precise. By “cave in’, I mean bring the troops home.
Are you saying that, in the absence of this bill, President Bush would just bring all the troops home? You’re saying it would be that simple?
And if it wouldn’t be that simple, what next? Call the Sheriff and have him arrested? A civil case before the Supreme Court? Articles of Impeachment? Do you think two-thirds of the Senate would vote to remove the President?
Really, just how soon do you think the troops would be home?
casualobserver,
You need to look up the Antideficiency Act. http://www.gao.gov/ada/antideficiency.htm
If you look at the reference the law prohibits: Making or authorizing an expenditure from, or creating or authorizing an obligation under, any appropriation or fund in excess of the amount available in the appropriation or fund unless authorized by law.
If Congress does not pass a supplemental, the DoD is limited to the original 2007 appropriation. To keep the war going in Iraq and Afghanistan, the budgeters at the Pentagon would need to strip money from all other accounts. That is a club that a Democratic Congress is not going to hand the President.
Of coruse the Dems surrendered: they always do. It has been like this since George Bush became President. When there is a bill up he cares greatly about, he takes a position, often the opposite of what the Dems want, the Dems say ‘it ain’t gonna happen,’ Bush says ‘try to stop me:’ Dems give in.
[...] bill, the one without a timeline for withdrawal, the one that I addressed here (and Shaun Mullen here), see The Washington [...]
Sorwell,
I don’t know what would happen, and you don’t either, but it would be a hell of a lot better than continuing a war that is taking innocent Iraqi lives, innocent American lives, and is increasing the likelihood of terror attacks on U.S. soil.
This is the United States we live in, it’s not supposed to be some Banana Republic where the President is in fact some dictator.
QFT. The Democrats are not willing to disenfranchise the entire military either. I’m no longer in the military, but my wife still is and if such political maneuvers endangered our pay and benefits, then the Democrats can kiss pretty much all military and veteran support goodbye.
Personally I believe part of the Dem’s calculus is that they would be held responsible for any negative consequences as a result of amending or repealing the AUMF. They seem more interested in preventing negative political consequences than in actually ending the war. This was the entire purpose behind Murtha’s “slow bleed” strategy, which apparently never was abandoned.
Just because the Congress can’t seem to agree on how to deal with Iraq does not make Bush a dictator. Constitutional powers are still in place and the checks on executive power are there, intact and ready, even if they may be rusty from disuse.
Chris–
You’re right, I don’t know what would happen.
But, with all due respect, I think you’re wrong to assume that whatever happened, it would be “a hell of a lot better”. It’s easy for me to imagine things getting terribly worse along the Banana Republic frontier.
For example, the Supreme Court–you know, the Roberts Court–rules the President can do whatever he likes.
The President gets impeached, but only 66 Senators vote to remove him. Meaning that he can do whatever he likes.
Be careful what you wish for, my friend.
It would in fact be the Republican White House that would end up taking away military pay and benefits, not the Democrats.
Remember, the White House has opposed troop pay and benefit increases (actually working to cut them in some cases). Remember it’s the White House that has demanded the troops stay in Iraq without the proper amor, or a proper strategy. Remember it’s the White House that’s gutting our National Guard. Remember it’s the White House that’s asked our troops to debase themselves by engaging in torture.
If the military voters are too indoctrinated and ignorant to see that, then why bother courting their votes?