A Victory for Whom?
For more on the new Democratic war-funding bill, the one without a timeline for withdrawal, the one that I addressed here (and Shaun Mullen here), see The Washington Post.
Here’s how that distinguished (deservedly or not) publication puts it on the front page of today’s edition: “Democrats gave up their demand for troop-withdrawal deadlines in an Iraq war spending package yesterday, abandoning their top goal of bringing U.S. troops home and handing President Bush a victory in a debate that has roiled Congress for months.”
Oh, really? How is this a victory for Bush? Because the timeline isn’t in it? What a narrow way to define victory. I have already made the case that a timeline wasn’t in the Democrats’ best interests, but, regardless — if I may quote my own post linked above — the Democrats have made their points, backed Bush and his Republican supporters into a corner, and, if this bill passes, set up another and likely more pressing battle with Bush once the fiscal year ends at the end of September, General Petraeus offers his assessment of the surge (which isn’t working), and a few more months of Republican discontent, as well as ongoing failure in Iraq, have passed.
How is that failure? It isn’t. WaPo gets it wrong. (By way of comparison, see CNN, which offers this: “[Leadership aides] said Democrats won’t give up on a deadline for pulling troops out of Iraq, hoping to write language into defense appropriations and defense authorization bills over the summer.” They also “said… benchmarks would be tied to Iraq reconstruction aid and would require President Bush to present to Congress numerous reports before August”. Well done, CNN.)
Of course, not all Democrats are happy with the new bill. For example, Russ Feingold, whom I admire but with whom I disagree (somewhat, at least in terms of means) on this issue. He writes at Daily Kos: “This situation is a collapse for Democrats. We had a strong start, pushed back against the President’s failed policy and held our ground that the supplemental should include binding language to end the war. But now, as Congress gets ready to send the President a bill that does nothing to get our troops out of Iraq, we are just folding our cards.” (This is Shaun’s view as well.)
True enough, Democrats shouldn’t play by Republican rules on this, nor by the Republican timeline: “Why should this wait until September?… Now is the time to be pulling out all the stops to end the war.” Absolutely. Democrats ought to continue to apply pressure and to demand action from President Bush. The American people are on their side, as is the reality of the war, a failure that keeps going on and on. But the political reality is that Bush will not, at present (if ever), sign a bill with a timetable for withdrawal. (The reality is also that, like it or not, Bush is still president. What would have been the point of sending him the same bill as the one he vetoed?) No, I do not want Bush and the Republicans to manipulate the war so as to win it as an issue at home, but it seems to me that this bill is a decent compromise. If Bush doesn’t sign it, then the Democrats can hit back hard. If he does, then they can still continue to push for an end to the war.
The cards have not yet been folded.
17 Responses to “A Victory for Whom?”
I think you’re right about this.
You’ve lost me here. Why do you think the Democrats will be able to win this battle in September, if they can’t win it now? The arguments will be the same: timelines are “surrender dates”, we’ve got a new plan, we can’t abandon the troops, Iraq is just on the verge of success, etc.
When Bush asks for $150 or $200 billion to support the war through 2008 and swears he’ll veto any bill that isn’t essentially a blank check, why should he believe that Congress will stand up to him?
Why do you think the Democrats will be able to win this battle in September, if they can’t win it now?
My take on this question is that, as the occupation drags on without any noticeable signs of success, Republicans will feel increasing pressure to either back specific timetables, or face electoral disaster in 2008.
Whether that will result in a veto-proof majority by September is another question entirely.
And frankly I’m not optimistic that such a majority will ever come to fruition short of November 2008.
Mikef–
As is indicated in the passage you quote, it seems likely that, come September, in the absence of measurable change for the better in Iraq, more Republicans will vote with the Democrats.
You don’t have to love this plan, or agree with it. But there it is.
I’m not sure what you think would happen if the Democrats don’t provide funding for the war. Do you think President Bush will just throw in towel and bring the troops home? What’s your plan?
The Democrats have control of the FY2008 DoD budget. They can take things out and changes fundings levels. This give them much more power than picking a fight over a supplemental budget. All the Democrats have to do is put the time limits on the money for each line item that they want to control.
It’s not a matter of loving or agreeing with the plan, I don’t understand what basis anyone has for believing in it, other than gut instinct.
I thought it was much more likely that the Republicans, after suffering a huge defeat in 2006 on the war, would have taken the opportunity to demand that George Bush start including them in the strategy and goals for a war he’s running badly. It’s in their own best interests that this conflict either be over or showing substantial signs of success in a year. George Bush will be leaving, they have to deal with the aftermath – yet they don’t even have a seat at the table.
Instead, the Republicans have doubled down. They’ve defended the president’s strategy uncritically, asserted that Congress has no right to demand accountability and suggested that even placing demands on the Iraqi government is tantamount to a victory for our enemies. They have put themselves in a much more precarious position, now, than they were in just a few months ago. They can’t suddenly erase all that rhetoric in 4 months.
Mikef–
Do you have an alternative plan that would get the troops home before September? Or sometime soon, however you care to define “soon”?
Doubling down……apt analogy, mikef.
However, while bloggers live each day’s events as watersheds, I think there are 10′s of millions of voters who do not. It will be the events of the last 30 days, not the last three years, that form their opinions
IMO, purely as a political calculation, there is time for Republicans to play the string out awhile.
Iran could flair up, Bin Laden could get nabbed, Petraeus might do enough to start moving sentiment or some Dem could do something utterly stupid.
None of the above might happen, but if you jump now you preclude any possibility of it whatsoever.
George, I think you’re missing my point.
My question is why anyone would think that the situation will be different in September from what it is now – Bush will continue to threaten vetos and the Republicans will continue to support him.
Michael is arguing that come September, the Democrats will be able to force concessions that they weren’t able to force in this bill. That argument seems entirely based on the idea that Republicans in Congress will begin to abandon George Bush’s war plan, but I’ve seen no evidence that they’ll ever do that and their actions in the last few months have made it harder, not easier for them to ultimately oppose Bush.
That leaves Reid without enough votes to force a change of course, either now or in September.
The Republicans are left with the hope that Bush’s plan will succeed, but they’ve cut themselves out of the loop. They’re left cheerleading and hoping that either the Iraqis or the President will show a level of competence we haven’t seen yet, or that fate will intervene to save them.
Bush and the Republicans have blocked any change in policy in Iraq and they own the problem – sure the media will frame this as a Democratic “loss” – this is an American loss due to George Bush and the Republicans – it is time to be intellectually honest about this instead of just listening to sensational headlines.
Mikef–
In fact, I find your point pretty compelling. And since I support what the Democratic leadership is doing, it’s kind of chilling to be reminded that it’s all based on the hope that Republicans–at least, enough of them–will start doing something different.
But I want to know what the alternative is.
Because I’m not inclined to think the President will just throw in towel. And seeing that he is already like that fairy tale dude with no clothes, I doubt he’d require much of a fig leaf.
So: what next? I hate to be uncivil here. But, seriously, I want to know if you have a good answer to that. Because I can’t imagine anything but chaos.
Relief from the Scalia-Thomas-Roberts-Allito Court?
Or maybe enough of those doubled-down Republican Senators will vote for his removal after the House impeaches him?
And if that happens, repeat the process with President Cheney?
Just how quickly do you think you’re gonna get those troops home?
I hope you have a good answer. Because I’m serious when I say I find your point compelling.
I found this an interesting reflection as to the other side of the aisle…….
Taking the long view may well be the best course for the left on Iraq right now, but taking a quick look back wouldn’t hurt either. Of the three big netroots victories in the Senate, (Sens. Jim Webb (D-VA), Jon Tester (D-MT), and Sherrod Brown (D-OH)) none voted in favor of the Reid-Feingold plan to end the Iraq war. Talk Left’s Big Tent Democrat even takes Tester to task for “Repeating GOP Talking Points” on the issue. As the netroots look ahead to WH ’08, they may want to make sure their eventual nominee doesn’t disappoint them on their signature issue as well.
I’d say the Dems decided to keep their powder dry. I would have preferred that they spend some of their political capital, but they don’t seem to think they have enough.
Both sides are now politicking this war. I think the Dems are probably right to think they have time on their side, but that’s cold comfort to those who feel, in one way or another, the effects of this war. The Dems have declined to take on an identity other than the non-GOP, which will probably work for them in ’08 but probably not as long after as they’d like to think.
The GOP was the leadership party. Having lost that, they’re now in a bind. The Dems look to me like they’ve decided to get while the getting is good until the GOP gets their leadership mojo back. Could be we get no leadership at all for the forseeable future.
Congress needs to remember that its a co-equal branch of government. Democrats became responsible for this war the day they took over, whether they wanted it or not.
The president can veto all the bills he wants, but he can’t write his own checks. His stubbornness, in the end, is irrelevant. He can’t wage a war without funds. If Congress insists on a bill that’s tied to concrete results, he’ll eventually have to accept it.
If the president refuses to work with the Congress to define a strategy and objectives, they need to do it for him. He’s learned that he can ignore all advice, because they’ve refused to say “no” to him.
George Bush believes he has sole authority in this war, but he’s wrong. Congress will be dealing with these decisions for years and they have a right to make demands on him. They can’t simply hope that the next chief executive is more competent.
Mikef–
I respect your willingness and ability to make your meaning clear. Further, I respect your ability to expose the logical flaws in my own thinking.
My position–like that, I believe, of the Democratic leadership–is that as more time passes without progress in Iraq, Republicans will be forced by electoral considerations to turn on the President’s policy. Your complaint is that the Republicans, for electoral reasons, have already made the decision to support the President no matter what, just as they have always consistently done.
I have hope, but you have evidence. So I concede your point is better than mine.
However, your position–I think I’m saying this fairly–is that if the Democrats in Congress refuse to fund the war, the President will have no recourse but to stop it. My complaint is that so far the President has been utterly intransigent in his conduct of the war and the adjudicating authorities (the Scalia-Thomas-Roberts-Allito Supreme Court; the nearly half-full-of Republicans US Senate) are more likely to favor him.
I hope I’ve made my meaning reasonably clear.
I’ve put some words in your mouth here, so please feel free to have the last word.
Mikef,
I think the point about September is that quite a lot of people think that Petraeus’ report will be negative and that the GOP Congress will use that as political cover. They’ve been reluctant to join the Dems in anything that opposes Bush at this point and they’re concerned about pulling out too soon and being responsible for the bloodbath that will follow. They are for giving the surge a chance but in real terms as well as political ones I think most of them know the chances aren’t good and that if the Iraq govt continues to neglect it’s responsibilities then they’ll have the political cover that will prevent their move from being characterized as a flip flop.