As everyone has surely heard by now, both chambers of Congress fairly easily passed the war-funding supplemental last night. The White House strongly supports the funding package, and Bush will sign it into law, effectively ending this round of the policy fight.
Even before the measure was formally approved, Dems were already talking about looking forward to the next fight.
Democrats may have lost the first round with President Bush on ending the war in Iraq since taking over Congress in January, but they say their fight has just begun.
In the months ahead, lawmakers will vote repeatedly on whether U.S. troops should stay and whether Bush has the authority to continue the war. The Democratic strategy is intended to ratchet up pressure on the president, as well as on moderate Republicans who have grown tired of defending Bush administration policy in a deeply unpopular war.
“I feel a direction change in the air,” said Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record), D-Pa., chairman of the House panel that oversees military funding. […]
“Those of us who oppose this war will be back again and again and again and again until this war has ended,” said Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass.
No one’s come right out and said, “We won’t screw up next time,” but there seems to be an implicit understanding among much of the Democratic leadership that they got spun like a top. They don’t want to see a repeat in the fall, but they don’t seem to fully appreciate how, exactly, they managed to blow this opportunity.
As we’ve noted a few times this week, it all came down to fear. This fight was seen as a political crisis, not a political opportunity. They were afraid of looking weak, afraid of being labeled anti-military, afraid the media would buy into the GOP’s bogus narrative(s), afraid they might suffer in the next election cycle (which is 18 months away).
Bush started this showdown saying, “I’ll accept nothing less than everything I want.” From there, anxiety-ridden Dems said, “We’re willing to negotiate.” Surprise, surprise, the immovable object didn’t move.
If Dems are gearing up for another round, here’s a radical thought: stop being on the defensive.
When Congress approved funding for the war and the troops, Bush vetoed it — and said Congress was denying funding for the war and the troops. Dems denied it, but the pushback was, of course, from a defensive posture. It set the tone for the ensuing post-veto debate.
So, what should the Dems argue? What might offense look like? Kevin Drum explained the virtue of making “a positive case for withdrawal.”
Not just that the war is unwinnable, or that it’s costing too many lives — both of which seem merely defeatist to a lot of people — but that America will be actively better off by getting out of Iraq. I admit that’s a tough case to make, since we liberals have been less than totally candid about acknowledging the almost certain chaos and bloodshed that will follow an American departure. With that in mind, Democrats likely fear that if we forced a withdrawal we’d spend all of 2008 on the defensive as Republicans insisted that Dems were to blame for the ongoing civil war in Iraq. The public, not having been prepared for this, might agree.
But I doubt it. The public wants out, and the death toll is so high now that they’d likely accept that further bloodshed was bound to occur whether we had stayed or not. Unfortunately, Dems don’t have the courage to take that chance.
That’s probably true, but it’s also crazy. The key to the rhetorical debate, it seems to me, is trying to explain to people why withdrawal would help conditions in Iraq. It would undermine our enemies. Polls show Americans support the Dems’ policy anyway; let’s give them a reason why.
Can we give this rhetoric a shot next time around?