Last week, I was willing to cut congressional Dems quite a bit of slack when it came to how best to check the president’s power on escalating the war in Iraq. A non-binding resolution, which seemed to make the GOP uncomfortable, is on the table, and as Barack Obama noted yesterday on Face the Nation, it could be the first in a series of steps lawmakers take in holding the White House accountable.
But over the weekend, various House and Senate Dems outlined competing plans for bills, some of which sounded far less encouraging than others.
Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he is working with a bipartisan group of senators to pass a nonbinding resolution “simply saying that we do not agree that more troops are the answer.” Levin said he would not support a fund cutoff. He said yesterday on CNN’s “Late Edition” that his approach “will be a very strong message to the Iraqis that they’ve got to resolve their political differences.”
The Bush administration believes it has the funds to support the troop increase from the fiscal 2007 Defense Appropriations bill, the one money measure passed last year….
Appearing on the same program, Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, said he would not limit funds for the troops already in Iraq but would try to put language in the bill carrying supplemental funds for the war that could prevent the final two U.S. brigades from going over in April and May.
The problem, as the NYT noted, is that Levin argued that he did not believe Congress should use the power of the purse to halt the president’s plan and that “it should go no further than approving nonbinding resolutions opposing it.”
Now, I like Levin, and he’s been right about a lot of Iraq-related issues for quite a while, including having voted against the original 2002 resolution. But what, exactly, is the point of pursuing a non-binding resolution, while vowing in advance to go no further? Why argue from a position of apparent weakness?
Note to congressional Dems: think like a majority party. You won. You’re in charge. The public agrees with you. There’s nothing to be afraid of.
It’s difficult to understand exactly why congressional Dems are hesitating. My sense is that most the party establishment believes they can shut down the war after Bush’s new plan fails. Kevin Drum touched on this approach a couple of weeks ago.
Conservatives long ago convinced themselves against all evidence that we could have won in Vietnam if we’d only added more troops or used more napalm or nuked Hanoi or whatever, and they’re going to do the same thing in Iraq unless we allow them to play this out the way they want. If they don’t get to play the game their way, they’ll spend the next couple of decades trying to persuade the American public that there was nothing wrong with the idea of invading Iraq at all. We just never put the necessary resources into it.
Well, screw that. There’s nothing we can do to stop them anyway, so give ’em the resources they want. Let ’em fight the war the way they want. If it works — and after all, stranger things have happened — then I’ll eat some crow. But if it doesn’t, there’s a chance that the country will actually learn something from this.
I’ve talked to a few Dem insiders in DC who’ve said similar things. One told me last week that by the summer, it’ll be clear that Bush failed — and will officially be out of excuses. At that point, Dems will say, “Mr. President, we’ve tried everything you wanted. It’s over.” By then, everything will be on the table — including cutting off all funding. Congressional Dems just aren’t quite there yet.
McCain said yesterday that this new strategy is “the last chance,” and that “everybody recognizes that.” If Bush and his allies blow their “last chance,” they don’t get anymore.
I’m not entirely convinced — by the summer, Bush, McCain, and Lieberman will embrace the “new new way forward” — but there doesn’t seem to be any other explanation for the Dems’ short-term passivity.