I was pleased to see Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid pull the Defense appropriations bill yesterday, after the latest in a seemingly endless stream of Republican filibusters. Reid was fed up with the obstructionism, and effectively told the GOP, “We can vote on appropriations when you let us vote on amendments.” Good for him.
There was, however, a downside.
After the vote, which followed a rare all-night debate, Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) startled colleagues by announcing that the Senate would not vote on several other proposals intended to force Bush to revisit his war plans. Although war critics in both parties had supported the measures, Reid and other Democratic leaders dismissed them as too weak. Instead, they are holding firm in their bid to persuade GOP critics of Bush’s Iraq policy to embrace more aggressive Democratic measures to begin withdrawing troops.
Reid’s move was hailed by antiwar groups, which have urged Democrats not to compromise. But his decision may also have the effect of providing Bush with an opportunity that he has wanted: 60 more days to make his case that the war is making progress.
For weeks, the White House line has been the same: let’s talk again in September. Senate Dems, and now four Senate Republicans, responded: the time to act is now; the crisis won’t wait. Yesterday scuttled Dems’ efforts, pushing off any Iraq legislation until after the August recess. It wasn’t the intention, but Bush is getting the delay he was asking for.
Regardless, Republicans whined rather incessantly yesterday, insisting that there were other, non-controversial amendments (including a military pay raise) that the Senate could pass without filibusters, but Reid recognized the game for what it was. Republicans were willing to allow votes on measures that made them look good, but would not allow votes on measures that actually mattered.
The question now, of course, is what happens next.
Spencer Ackerman explained that Reid is counting on the delay ratcheting up the pressure on the GOP between now and September. Indeed, the Senate Dems see it as a practical certainty.
“It’s a politically untenable position for the GOP,” says [a] senior leadership aide. “They cannot possibly hold out much longer. A change is around the corner.”
The thinking goes that the public, exhausted with the war and knowing that President Bush won’t end it, is going to hold the GOP increasingly responsible for the war the longer the U.S. remains in Iraq. Reid thinks he’s actually succeeded in darkening the GOP’s political fortunes by yanking the defense authorization bill. That’s because he thinks he’ll also be able to blame the GOP for not just the continuation of the war, but for the total lack of Congressional action on it, which he thinks will further inflame voters and increase the pressure on Republicans even more.
There’s a lot of post-hoc rationalization here. The Democrats gambled incorrectly that ten GOP Senators would be nervous enough in July about the war’s cost that they would break with their leadership. It could similarly be the case that Reid is misjudging Republican tolerance for constituents’ antiwar pressure, and that the August recess won’t bring enough of a change to get more GOPers to break ranks by the time Petraeus throws his stars into the ring.
And speaking of Petraeus, what should we expect from him come September? It’s probably best to lower expectations now. Petraeus’ credibility suffered a serious blow this week when he appeared on far-right activist Hugh Hewitt’s radio show, and stuck closely to the White House script. As Sullivan put it:
If I were eager to maintain a semblance of military independence from the agenda of extremist, Republican partisans, I wouldn’t go on the Hugh Hewitt show, would you? And yet Petraeus has done just that. I think such a decision to cater to one party’s propaganda outlet renders Petraeus’ military independence moot. I’ll wait for the transcript. But Petraeus is either willing to be used by the Republican propaganda machine or he is part of the Republican propaganda machine. I’m beginning to suspect the latter. The only thing worse than a deeply politicized and partisan war is a deeply politicized and partisan commander. But we now know whose side Petraeus seems to be on: Cheney’s. Expect spin, not truth, in September.
Stay tuned.