WASHINGTON, May 22 — Congressional Democrats relented Tuesday on their insistence that a war spending measure set a date for withdrawing American combat troops from Iraq. Instead, they moved toward a deal with President Bush that would impose new conditions on the Iraqi government.
The decision to back down was a wrenching reversal for leading Democrats, who saw their election triumph in November as a call to force an end to the war. It was the first time since taking power in Congress that the Democrats had publicly agreed to allow a vote on war financing without a timetable for troop withdrawal.
But even so, many Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California, indicated that they would not support the war money, meaning that a significant number of Republicans would have to sign on to ensure the plan’s approval.
Ms. Pelosi made clear that if money for the war was going to be provided without a timeline for withdrawal, it would be without her personal support. “I would never vote for such a thing,” Ms. Pelosi said as she entered the office of Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, to put the final touches on the $120 billion proposal.
The Democrats’ decision to give way appeared likely to bring an end to a legislative battle that has raged since Feb. 5, when Mr. Bush first requested the additional war financing. Mr. Bush had insisted that the money not be bound by time constraints, and Democrats proved unable to override his veto of their initial, defiant vote in favor of a spending bill that called for a troop withdrawal to begin on Oct. 1.
In backing down on Tuesday, the Democratic leaders accepted an outcome that had appeared increasingly likely for weeks, particularly as Democrats became concerned that their defiance could be portrayed as indifference to the troops. But the Democrats have pledged to renew their fight this summer by seeking to attach timetables to subsequent war financing measures.
As late as last week the Democrats were still pursuing timelines in their negotiations with the White House, and the decision on Tuesday by Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Reid and other leaders to abandon them was not going over well with most antiwar lawmakers or with some activist groups that had argued that Democrats should seek to cut off money for the war.
“There has been a lot of tough talk from members of Congress about wanting to end this war, but it looks like the desire for political comfort won out over real action,” said Senator Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, who was unsuccessful last week in his push for a withdrawal of combat troops by spring. “Congress should have stood strong, acknowledged the will of the American people, and insisted on a bill requiring a real change of course in Iraq.”
Other Democrats said they had no choice. “It was a concession to reality,” said Representative James P. Moran, Democrat of Virginia, who said he intended to oppose the war spending portion of the bill.
In an effort to appease antiwar Democrats, the party’s leaders plan to allow two votes in the House. One would provide the war money, and seems likely to be opposed by large numbers of Democrats. The other, separated out to allow more Democrats to vote in favor, would include popular measures that are also part of the package, including a minimum wage increase and $17 billion in added domestic and military spending.
The bills would then be combined into one and sent to the Senate, with the idea of getting the measure to the president by the weekend.
From what I'm reading here, the congressional Democrats have been trying to create a troop funding bill, with a withdrawal timeline, that can gather enough Republican votes to override a Bush veto. President Bush just wants a blank check for his war, and has forced the Republicans to toe this line. That is the impasse between the two political parties, and between Congress and the White House. It was a game of chicken between the congressional Democrats and President Bush--and Bush had no intention of backing down. The Democrats blinked. Now I've written a number of posts on this showdown between Bush and the congressional Democrats. I have stated that we need to get out of Iraq. But even I knew that the Democrats did not have the votes to push a withdrawal timeline over President Bush's veto--certainly not in the Senate. And I knew that President Bush would never cave in to the Democrats' demands for a timetable. In one sense, this impasse had only one way to go--Democratic capitulation to President Bush's blank check. So I'm not really angry that the Democrats capitulated to Bush at this time. According to this May 9, 2007 Washington Post story, the Pentagon needed until September of this year to determine if its counterinsurgency plan was working. And according to this January 11, 2007 MSNBC story, President Bush said that his troop surge strategy would allow the Iraqis to take control of their security by November, 2007. There was an original timeline that the Bush White House, and the Pentagon, provided for the American people as to when this current troop surge would be showing some results of a success--and that was September-to-November. So in a sense, I am willing to give President Bush his war funding until this September, even though I know that the Iraq war is lost. I am willing to allow Bush to go through this latest troop surge, even as the war continues to deteriorate, even as this surge is reported as a failure. And then in September, 2007, we will be told that the surge has not been as successful as the Bush White House had hoped it would be. It would be in September that I would certainly demand that the congressional Democrats not fund this war, and not back down against this president, even as I know now that this Iraq war is a complete loss. Even as I know that we need to get out of Iraq now. By letting President Bush's troop surge plan play out to its ultimate failure, the Democrats can then tell President Bush and the Pentagon that the war in Iraq is lost, the Bush troop surge plan clearly shows that the Iraq war is lost, and that it is time to pull out the troops. No more war funding. No more spin. No more talk of Operation Law and Order--Part II, or Newer New Way Forward. The failure of this war is again laid squarely on the Bush White House, and the Republicans, rather than the congressional Democrats, to which the Republicans can blame the Democrats for "losing" Iraq. And the longer this war continues, the greater the political damage will take place against the Republicans in 2008. It is a conflict that I have with the anti-war folks on the left, even as I also wish for the troops to be pulled out of Iraq now.
There is an interesting article by Michael Tomasky regarding the Democrats accepting the Iraq funding bill without the timetables (Hat tip Fleet Admiral). Tomasky writes:
They [the Democrats] agreed to such a bill earlier today, giving President Bush what he wanted - a bill that keeps funding for the war going at full levels through September 30 and includes no talk of withdrawal. Tomorrow's papers will all characterize this as a major Bush victory and, in the short term, it is.
But here are two reasons why this "victory" won't exactly ring down though the ages.
First, this development is completely unsurprising, since everyone has known for some time that there was nothing else the Democrats could do. Back in January, it was clear that, whatever the Democrats decided to do with their new congressional majorities, there was one thing they could not accomplish: stop funding for troops already in the field.
Iraq is Bush's war and Bush's failure. But if his Democratic opponents had stopped funding the war, Republicans would have argued that the fiasco was suddenly the Democrats' responsibility and failure. Pundits would have drawn immediate parallels to the way a previous Democratic-led congress de-funded Vietnam, and the party would have lost its standing in this fight.
They might have been up to taking the chance of de-funding if they'd had a united caucus. But they don't, not remotely. The key number here is 61. That's the number of Democrats in the House of Representatives who represent districts that Bush carried in 2004 (by contrast, only eight Republicans represent districts that John Kerry won). Many of these 61 are scared to death that they could lose their seats in 2008, and with good reason - the Republicans are targeting them and are intent on winning the 15 seats they need to regain control of the House.
De-funding the war would - there's no escaping it - put some of those 61 at risk.
[....]
The second and more important reason that Bush's victory is chimerical is that public opinion is firmly against him. Americans are against this war, period - firmly and strongly. They want it over as that can be accomplished responsibly. A short-term legislative win for Bush will do absolutely nothing to change this fact. The only thing that would change it is success in Iraq.
That continues to seem unlikely. If the celebrated surge hasn't shown results by September, public opinion will harden even more; people will start demanding timelines and Bush will be in a corner.
As indefensible and tragic as the war is, this is the best Democrats can do right now. De-funding would have handed the Republicans a great argument going into next year's election - which is, of course, one in which Democrats have their best shot at winning the White House in a long time. Iraq is Bush's war, and Democrats need to make certain that it stays that way.
In a sense, Tomasky is correct on both counts here. If the troop surge doesn't show any results by September, then public opinion would harden even more against the war. The public demands for withdrawal timelines would certainly increase, forcing more pressure against President Bush and the congressional Republicans. Of course, Bush could care less about public opinion and the withdrawal timelines. But the public pressure for withdrawal timelines would place the congressional Republicans, who currently support the Bush war, into a corner. As the war deteriorates, public anger is going to be directed against President Bush and the congressional Republicans for continuing this war, rather than the Democrats. The Republicans will not be able to use the argument that the Democrats have lost Iraq by de-funding the war, and perhaps regaining congressional seats the GOP lost in 2006, and even regaining control of Congress. So politics has a major part in this latest story. And while the media will call this a Bush victory, it is still a victory in a losing war.
No comments:
Post a Comment