 | The Politics Blog No-holds-barred commentary on the political arena. |
It’s hard to believe that only a week ago, the biggest debate over the Iraq supplemental funding bill was among Democrats. With the bill being reshaped to suit the “blue dogs,” the concern of many was that it had been rendered so weak as to be worthless. Right up until the moment of passage, there was concern that the bill might fail, not because of universal opposition by Republicans, but because of those who felt they could not in good conscience vote for a bill that didn’t do enough to end the conflict. It seemed almost reasonable at the time.
Thank goodness it passed.
There are many good reasons to celebrate the passage of this bill, and E. J. Dionne’s most recent column discusses most of them. Having blown the dust from Washington by starting the Congressional session with the Hundred Hours plan, Democrats felt (rightly) that they had to make a stand on the most important issue before them, Iraq. In doing so, the party — and particularly Speaker Pelosi — put a huge amount of hard-won momentum on the line. You better believe that every newsroom in the country already had their “Democrats in Disarray” headlines laid out. Down at the Fox newsroom, the famous talking points were surely being drafted to include plenty of “poor Nancy” jokes.
In getting the bill through the House, Nancy Pelosi proved that she could pull together her occasionally fractious freshmen and her cautious congressional veterans. And what do you know, she did it without holding the debate open for hours, or threatening anyone’s future on the floor of the House. The value of this victory as a sign of Democratic unity is inestimable, if only because the consequences of failure would have been so painful.
Now that the bill has gone to the Senate, it once again faces a razor thin vote. However, there’s a chance that the bill could be pushed over the top not by gaining support of the last one or two Democratic holdouts, but by bringing in the support of that rarest of creature — the moderate Republican.
Why would any Republican vote for this bill? Because Bush has put them in a horrible position. By continuing to insist on a completely no strings attached, my-way-or-the-highway approach, Bush forces the Republican senators to either sign on to his extremely unpopular notions for Iraq, or to break ranks with their party’s leader. It’s hard to think that any Republican might be moved to “vote their conscience,” since all of them by this point have voted again and again for odious policies and unconscionable violations of civil rights. But if they can’t be moved by morality, they can still be moved by their shrinking chances in 2008.
With most counts showing Senate Democrats needing only one more vote to approve the call for troop withdrawals next year, antiwar pressures are growing on Sens. John Sununu (R-N.H.), Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Norm Coleman (R-Minn.). All face reelection next year, as does Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.), who is already seen as leaning toward the withdrawal plan.
Smith’s shaky position in the polls may be all that it takes to force him to vote for this bill. Or, who knows, there could yet be a Republican who has had enough of licking the brush cutter’s boots.
Once the first cracks appear in the Republican’s sagging dam, the trickle of support to the Democratic side could become a flood. After all, Smith isn’t the only Republican able to read the polling data, and he’s far from the only Republican senator facing a tough battle in 2008. Republicans seem already to be preparing themselves for defeat.
To the extent that there has been movement in the Senate, the indications are that support for Bush’s policy has slipped. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) suggested yesterday that a bill containing a withdrawal provision could eventually reach the president’s desk and require a veto.
There’s little doubt that Bush will veto the bill. But by doing so, he will become the one delaying funds from reaching the troops. It will be Bush who is putting his personal pettiness and ego, over the needs of forces in the field.
Personally, I’d like to see the Democrats respond by putting an even tougher bill on his desk next week, and keeping it up until Bush either signs on the dotted line, or so clearly demonstrates his disdain for those in service to the nation that his signature is no longer required.
In any case, getting this bill to this point was vitally important. Democrats showed an ability to forge a position with input from the whole spectrum of their members, and to move that agenda forward. Republicans showed themselves helpless tools to Bush’s intransigence. And the sweet irony is that a bill many regarded as too weak to help, may be just the medicine needed to move us closer to the end of this insanity.
Invoking the words of John Lennon, The Nation has issued an editorial call-to-action for Congress.
“War is over, if you want it,” declared John Lennon in the thick of the Vietnam nightmare. To the extent that Lennon’s “you” referred to the US Congress, he was right, then and now. The House and Senate have the authority to end the war in Iraq quickly, efficiently and honorably. Claims to the contrary by George W. Bush and his apologists are at odds with every intention of the authors of the Constitution.
Noting that we are now entering the fifth year of this war, the editorial opines that the Demoratic opposition to Bush’s Iraq policies do not go far enough. That as the supplemental spending bill now stands, realistically there would be no troops withdrawn from Iraq for more than a year, and that:
Forcing Americans and Iraqis to die for Bush’s delusions for another year while emptying the Treasury at a rate of more than $1 billion a week is unconscionable. That is why House members who have battled hardest to end the war are so frustrated with Pelosi’s approach. “This plan would require us to believe whatever the President would tell us about progress that was being made,” says Representative Maxine Waters, speaking for the bipartisan Out of Iraq Caucus. Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chair Lynn Woolsey has been blunter, saying of the legislation, “There’s no enforcement mechanism.”
This one paragraph sums up exactly what is wrong with this plan. While Americans will continue to die at a rate of more than two per day, and Iraqis will continue to die at a higher, though unknown rate since no one is bothering to keep track of that, everything is left in George Bush’s hands. It is George Bush who will certify whether the Iraqi government meets the prescribed benchmarks. And as he has already shown, he is perfectly willing to lie about that. And it is George Bush who will be able to continue to send ill-equipped, untrained troops on multiple deployments merely by signing a waiver that claims a national security interest. But who will be certifying the certifier and who will question how our national security is threatened by another country’s civil war?
It is pointed out that the leadership bowed to pressure from conservative Blue Dog Democrats, and that any teeth that this bill once had are gone. Now there are those that say the Blue Dogs are simply representing their constituency and that taking this position is their duty and their right. Of course, if they truly believe that enforcement language in this bill would unfairly tie George Bush’s hands, then they should be willing to have a separate vote on all of the provisions that they had removed. Stand up with pride and vote for giving George Bush the authority to use military force against Iran, say that George Bush should continue to send troops on endless deployments without equipment and training, even if they are medically unfit, and say that George “We’re winning, absolutely” Bush should decide if benchmarks are being met.
The Nation says:
Democrats should recognize that the time has come to use the full power accorded Congress in time of war: the power of the purse. As Senator Russ Feingold says, “Some will claim that cutting off funding for the war would endanger our brave troops on the ground. Not true. The safety of our servicemen and -women in Iraq is paramount, and we can and should end funding for the war without putting our troops in further danger.”
Instead of negotiating with Bush to give him another year of his war before facing consequences, Democrats should refuse to write another blank check.
And that’s what the supplemental spending bill is…another blank check. A blank check on spending, on accountability, on troop safety, on everything except beginning the end of the nightmare that is our involvement in Iraq.
Should we as Democrats support the supplemental spending bill? The Nation emphatically says no and advocates the Barbara Lee proposal for a fully-funded withdrawal by the end of the year. Others say yes, anticipating perceived political points and the suggestion that we have to start somewhere. And me? I say no for the simple reason that the bill doesn’t do a damn thing. But if we’re going to the floor with the bill we have, not the bill we want, then at the very least our Congressmen should be willing to stand up and publicly vote for everything that they are supporting with this bill.
The fight within the House Democratic Caucus over the upcoming Iraq supplemental appropriations bill has broken down generally along Blue Dog/Progressive Caucus lines. Caught in the divide is the so-called Murtha Plan — a mechanism that reportedly used the Congressional “power of the purse” to prohibit the use of appropriated funds for the deployment of troops who were not adequately trained, rested, armored, and combat ready. Additional differences have arisen over the use of the same “power of the purse” to give teeth to the so-called “benchmarks” for progress the president would be required to meet in order to continue to prosecute his war in Iraq.
Now, the bill’s not public yet, but I’m told that the language most at issue reads like this:
Funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this or any other Act may not be obligated or expended to deploy or continue to deploy members or units of the Armed Forces in Iraq after the conclusion of the 180 day period for redeployment specified in subsections (c) and (d).
What are subsections (c) and (d) about? I’m informed that they’re apparently the ones that lay out the so-called “benchmarks,” which means this language — since removed from the bill at the behest of the Blue Dogs — was the mechanism for enforcing those benchmarks.
At the moment, it appears that the political calculus hinges on what happens with those “teeth.” That is, the leadership’s math goes like this: they figure they get and keep more Blue Dog votes by removing the ability to enforce the benchmarks than they lose from the Progressive Caucus, who think the president can’t be trusted and will game the benchmarks and continue to humiliate and embarrass Congressional Democrats.
So as things stand now, the language is out, because by the leadership’s count, there were more Blue Dogs at least implicitly threatening to vote against a bill that included it than there were Progressive Caucus members threatening to vote against a bill that excluded it.
Fair enough, from a purely political perspective.
But it begs the question: How serious were the Blue Dogs about that? And how would you find out?
With the enforcement language out of the bill, enough Blue Dogs have apparently signaled their consent so that it has a chance to pass, even over the objections of some number of Progressive Caucus members. It’s a much more comfortable vote for the Blue Dogs now, though a much more uncomfortable vote for progressives, who view it as a matter of principle that the legislation take what concrete steps are possible to end the war. The flip side, of course, is that many Blue Dogs assert that it is a matter of principle for them that the Congress not “tie the president’s hands” in conducting military operations.
But as we can see, procedure has intervened to give the advantage to the Blue Dogs. As the bill stands now, the enforcement mechanism cited above is out, though the Progressive Caucus may or may not be permitted to offer an amendment to put it (and other language aimed at forcing withdrawal) back in. The onus, then, is on the Progressive Caucus to either stand on principle and cast the tough vote that threatens to send the message that Democrats are divided by voting against a bill that’s toothless, or to subsume that principle in order to give the Democrats a “win.”
Will they choose to be “good Democrats” first, and principled progressives second? Is that even a fair description of the choice they’re being given? Nobody can say for sure.
But what if the procedural decision had broken the other way? What if the enforcement mechanism had been left in, and the Blue Dogs had been offered the opportunity to bring an amendment to the floor to eliminate it? What do we think the outcome would have been in that case?
Then the game would have been very different. The onus would have been on the Blue Dogs to either stand on principle (here, that the president’s hands not be “tied”) and cast the tough vote that threatens to send the message that Democrats are divided by voting to remove the bill’s teeth, or to subsume that principle in order to give Democrats a “win.”
Do we see a quantum difference between the principles at stake in these two hypothetical votes? Do we see a difference in the likelihood that, put on the spot, the Blue Dogs or Progressives would be forced to buckle and cast the uncomfortable vote? Progressives, if they get to offer an amendment, would be asking to change the status quo to put teeth in. I see that as a vote more of them are likely to stick to their guns on. Blue Dogs, if the roles were reversed, would be taking the floor to ask that the teeth be taken out. I’m not nearly as sure that they’d really show up in numbers to do that.
But as things stand now, the pressure is on the Progressives and enforcement, as opposed to being on the Blue Dogs and benchmarks.
Are there other enforcement mechanisms in the bill? Maybe. Nobody’s seen them yet. But I find it very telling that the provisions I’ve learned have been removed — as well as who insisted they be removed — has set up a vote that will require amending on the floor in order to change the status quo with respect to the power of the president vis-a-vis the Congress, rather than forcing those who prefer the status quo to amend the bill in order to freeze it in place.
Which do you think would have won?
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urged the Democratic-controlled Congress not to interfere in the conduct of the Iraq war today and suggested President George W. Bush would defy troop withdrawal legislation.
Many of you likely know this already from having watched the Sunday shows. And many of you knew it even without hearing it again today.
Of course, Democrats pushed back to some extent, too:
But Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said lawmakers would step up efforts to force Bush to change course. “The president needs a check and a balance,” said Levin, D-Mich.
I agree. He needs a check and balance. And while I applaud Levin’s efforts, I do so only because I know they kick the can further down the road we all know we’re bound to travel here. Senator Levin says the president needs a check and balance, but I don’t think he’s hearing Secretary Rice. The president will defy your legislation.
The president will defy your legislation.
Now, that doesn’t mean this isn’t something Levin and his colleagues aren’t going to want to see for themselves. But time’s a-wastin’. Let’s get this show on the road, already. We know what’s going to happen, and we know what your choices are going to be at the end of the road: roll over, or impeach.
How do we know? Well, Rice says so. On what basis? Well, to the extent that she needs a basis for a statement like that, she’s probably pointing to the fact that this “administration” believes Congress is literally powerless to stop the war.
Levin and his colleagues propose to repeal the 2002 AUMF, replacing it with a resolution that would restrict the use of American forces in Iraq and eventually force a withdrawal. On what grounds does the president plan to defy this? Well, he’s got a multilayered strategy available to him. For one thing, he could opt to fall back on the 2001 AUMF — the one originally passed to authorize the use of force in Afghanistan — by claiming (as he’s already done on numerous occasions) that Iraq is part of the greater war on terror, and that since al Qaeda is (now) operating in Iraq, the 2001 AUMF authorizes our continued presence there.
But couldn’t we then amend the 2001 AUMF? Sure, assuming you could get the votes for it. But dig this: Bush doesn’t think he needs the 2001 AUMF either. John Yoo tells us why:
In both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution [the AUMF], Congress has recognized the President’s authority to use force in circumstances such as those created by the September 11 incidents.
Recognized. Not granted.
Neither statute, however, can place any limits on the President’s determinations as to any terrorist threat, the amount of military force to be used in response, or the method, timing, and nature of the response. These decisions, under our Constitution, are for the President alone to make.
If this strikes you as familiar, it may be because I’ve shown it to you before.
And the same conclusion holds now as held then:
Yoo’s theories having reduced Congress to a cipher, from the White House point of view, it hardly makes a difference how they opt to wait out the last two years of Bush’s term.
If they’d like to spend it methodically demonstrating Yoo’s point for the American public, that option is open to them, and the path runs through Congressional “oversight,” subpoenas, repeal of the AUMF and all the other goodies that have been dangled before us as “alternatives” to impeachment.
Again, I applaud the effort to the extent that it hastens the inevitable, but I told you a month ago (and, for the record, several times before that) what Bush’s response to this — and everything else in the Democratic arsenal — was going to be, and it’ll be another month before Levin even puts himself in a position to get that answer.
Yes, I know impeachment is “off the table.” But we’ll cross paths with it soon enough, since Bush keeps pulling our chairs out from under us.
