Sidestepping the Surge Escalation
Democratic strategists say it would be politically foolish to help Bush by crafting a bipartisan war policy. "Why should we try to come up with a compromise policy with him?" asks Mike Ward, a former congressman who was back at the Capitol for opening-day festivities. "If we do that, we take ownership of the war. Why would we want to do that?" Only one reason I could think of: to end the war faster so that the troops could come home.Normally I'd be all for doing the right thing and devil take the hindmost. But the fact is, the Dems cannot end this war in any meaningful sense of the phrase. The president is the commander in chief and, shy of cutting off funding, the legislative branch cannot prevent him from having his war.
The best thing is for the Dems to hold all the hearings and investigations; insist that war funding be a part of the normal budget process; and pass bills like Leahy's War Profiteering Prevention Act. In other words, hang the war around Bush's (and McCain's) neck and make it THE issue in the '08 elections.
UPDATE: Joe Biden weighs in:
Sen. Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said it would be a "tragic mistake" if Bush chooses to increase troops. But Biden, D-Del., said cutting off funds was not an option.Unconstitutional? No. Bad politics? Perhaps. Micromanaging? Yes."As a practical matter there is no way to say this is going to be stopped," Biden said regarding a troop increase, unless enough congressional Republicans join Democrats in convincing Bush the strategy is wrong.
Biden added that it probably would be an unconstitutional violation of separation of powers if Democrats were to block Bush's efforts as commander in chief after Congress had voted to authorize going to war.
"It's unconstitutional to say, you can go, but we're going to micromanage," Biden said.
UPDATE 2: Josh Marshall (using more than my seven words) agrees:
Biden here is his reliably muddle-headed self. Congress can declare war (or, in this case, resolve to authorize the use of force) but not reverse itself later? Congress cannot redline certain defense expenditures?UPDATE 3: Murtha weighs in, taking a harder line than me, and basically telling Chris Matthews that Biden et. al. are full of it:Giving Biden the benefit of the doubt, what I think he is trying to say is that it would be utterly unproductive for Democrats in Congress to get bogged down in the tactical minutia of our Iraq policy. I completely agree. To surge or not to surge is really not the issue. But it would be nice to see a Democratic presidential contender better able to articulate that notion.
Posted by Ara | Link
| Comments
(5)
| digg this
| del.icio.us 
Categories: 2008 Election
, Democrats
, War in Iraq
Comments
You know, it has occurred to me of late that there is another more morally defensible reason to not try to obstruct the "McCain doctrine" – I means, beside that fact that it will probably send the Republicans to the political wilderness for generations (itself, a worthwhile moral and practical victory).
Hawks are all over complaining that this is the path to the victory that was stolen from them by weak-kneed congresscritters in Vietnam. If we don’t let this neoconservative tragedy play itself out according to their script, we will never be able to put a stake in the heart of their deluded notions about the legitimate purposes and usefulness of our force of arms.
The Democrats’ responsibility here is to put the harshest possible spotlight on Iraq policy (start to finish) and let the public tell their Commander in Chief where to go.
Posted by: shep![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.rubyan.com/politics/nav-commenters.gif)
|
January 8, 2007 02:35 PM
You're probably right, but it's a hell of a price to pay just to win an argument.
Posted by: Mark Adams![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.rubyan.com/politics/nav-commenters.gif)
|
January 8, 2007 03:49 PM
As long as this argument lives, the American people will be open to the idea of starting unnecessary wars. What price is too high to kill it once and for all?
Posted by: shep![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.rubyan.com/politics/nav-commenters.gif)
|
January 9, 2007 10:13 AM
The argument doesn't "end" until they (read: Kristol, Krauthammer and most of the PNAC crowd) get their war with Iran that they've wanted since the Shah was deposed.
Mind you, some of 'em (like Wolfowitz) will be happy as soon as Exxon and BP get their drilling rights in the Fertile Crescent, but the true demagogs (Pearl, Hannity) won't be satisfied until there are mushroom clouds over Teheran.
C'on dude. Nixon "surged" in Laos and Cambodia, and they blame the loss on the Dems. Ford is hailed as a hero of civility, saving us from our "nightmare," which only showed Cheney, Rummy and the Bush's that they could get away with mass murder.
They won't stop until they get their commercial empire, and they will never get their fantasy utopia.
Posted by: Mark Adams![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.rubyan.com/politics/nav-commenters.gif)
|
January 9, 2007 10:03 PM
"C'on dude. Nixon "surged" in Laos and Cambodia, and they blame the loss on the Dems. Ford is hailed as a hero of civility, saving us from our "nightmare," which only showed Cheney, Rummy and the Bush's that they could get away with mass murder."
Vietnam had a lot of fingerprints on it, both Democrat and Republican, and some semblance of a justification - at least as far as the public was concerned. Iraq is a Republican war sold on an obvious deception.
Vietnam also made the public more wary of American wars of conquest and/or occupation, which is one reason why the public soured so quickly on the Iraq misadventure. I think this can be the final lesson on unnecessary “strategic” wars as long as the public doesn’t start to see it as another bi-partisan failure.
I don’t much care what the neocon lunatics want. I just want the American public to tell them to go get f*cked. It’s pretty obvious at this point that it will be up to the public at large to lead this country to a rational and moral future. Pretty much the entire political and media establishment has proved itself too corrupted to do so.
Posted by: shep![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.rubyan.com/politics/nav-commenters.gif)
|
January 10, 2007 10:17 AM