Taking on Bush … with a non-binding resolution?

January 10, 2007

There is no shortage of ideas for how best Congress can take on the White House over the war in Iraq, but according to the New York Times, Dem leaders in both chambers seem to believe a non-binding resolution is the way to go.

Democratic leaders said Tuesday that they intended to hold symbolic votes in the House and Senate on President Bush’s plan to send more troops to Baghdad, forcing Republicans to take a stand on the proposal and seeking to isolate the president politically over his handling of the war. […]

The Senate vote is expected as early as next week, after an initial round of committee hearings on the plan Mr. Bush will lay out for the nation Wednesday night in a televised address delivered from the White House library, a setting chosen because it will provide a fresh backdrop for a presidential message.

The office of Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the House, followed with an announcement that the House would also take up a resolution in opposition to a troop increase.

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow criticized the proposal, saying, “We understand that the resolution is purely symbolic, but the war — and the necessity of succeeding in Iraq — are very real.”

Two thoughts. First, non-binding resolutions need not be just a lot of self-serving blather. Republicans used similar resolutions on Iraq to put Dems in awkward positions repeatedly in the last Congress, even though they were just “symbolic.”

Second, if the point of this new resolution is to put the GOP in a bind, and possibly lead to additional congressional action, it may not be as hollow as it appears.

To be sure, my initial reaction to this approach was annoyance. Dems finally have the majority, they have public opinion at their backs, and they see the president about to make yet another mistake. With a variety of options on the table, they pick … a non-binding resolution? It sounds like exactly the kind of move that reinforces the image of Dems being “weak.”

But it may not be as meaningless as it appears. This resolution would, as the NYT noted, “represent the most significant reconsideration of Congressional support for the war since it began, and mark the first big clash between the White House and Congress since the November election.” It’s apparently a two-prong approach: isolate Bush, then treat the resolution as a first step towards further action.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said, “We believe that there is a number of Republicans who will join with us to say no to escalation,” adding that he’s hoping to build “a bipartisan approach to this escalation.” He might be right. From the NYT:

…Republican officials conceded that at least 10 of their own senators were likely to oppose the plan to increase troops levels in Iraq. And Democrats were proposing their resolution with that in mind, hoping to send a forceful message that as many as 60 senators believed strengthening American forces in Baghdad was the wrong approach. Democratic leaders said they expect all but a few of their senators to back the resolution.

In an interview on Tuesday, Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, said he was becoming increasingly skeptical that a troop increase was in the best interest of the United States. “I’m particularly concerned about the greater injection of our troops into the middle of sectarian violence. Whom do you shoot at, the Sunni or the Shia?” Mr. Warner said. “Our American G.I.’s should not be subjected to that type of risk.”

The more Republicans are willing to abandon the White House on a resolution vote, the more isolated the president will appear on this.

As for the other prong, a non-binding resolution should probably be considered a first step, not a last. From the NYT:

In both chambers, Democrats made clear that the resolutions — which would do nothing in practical terms to block Mr. Bush’s intention to increase the United States military presence in Iraq — would be the minimum steps they would pursue. They did not rule out eventually considering more muscular responses, like seeking to cap the number of troops being deployed to Iraq or limiting financing for the war — steps that could provoke a Constitutional and political showdown over the president’s power to wage war.

I was initially disappointed by the symbolic-resolution approach, believing that it lacked backbone, but I’m willing to take a wait-and-see attitude. For now.

“Wait-and-see for now”??? Is Sen. Warner guest blogging by any chance?? How long does the carpetbagger mean by “for now”…

The biggest flaw with the non-binding resolution is that it lacks urgency and it could end up like that old resolution which called for 2006 to be the “year of significant transition”.

I call for the “muscular” response. Give me the “Constitutional and political showdown”. Now.

  • I think this is a fine response. If the Dems vote to deny funding, it would put them in the awkard position of looking like they’re sending to troops to slaughter without adequate body armor, sufficient support, and the requirement medical backup. Plus, now is not the time to get bogged down in an area that is really, like it or not, the baliwick of the executive.

    The Dems are better served by getting this through and then focusing on the rest of their 100 hour agenda. That way, they’ll have some positive accomplishments to show Bush up during his own State of the Union.

    Finally, the thing I like best about the resolution is that it ties the escalation millstone even tighter around McCain’s neck. Either he votes in favor of it, leaving him no way out of denying his support of the policy, or he votes against it and is exposed as someone who now puts political expediency over independent thinking.

  • “I’m particularly concerned about the greater injection of our troops into the middle of sectarian violence. Whom do you shoot at, the Sunni or the Shia?” Mr. Warner said. “Our American G.I.’s should not be subjected to that type of risk.”

    I recommend an excellent Horsey cartoon from today’s Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

  • I like their approach. Hopefully it will be coupled with serious investigations of Bush’s malfeasance regarding the military, especially with regards to veteran care for troops injured in the wars. Let the Republicans cry about supporting the troops then.

    Although the vast majority of Americans support getting out of Iraq, I doubt if anything like a large majority would support cutting off funds yet. We need to turn up the heat as much as America is ready for, but no faster.

    Once the hearings begin and it becomes painfully obvious to even the wingnuts that Bush doesn’t give a crap about the troops, there will be more appetite for cutting off the funds for his quagmire.

    So bring on the hearings, soon. And focus on things that will piss off the wingnuts (towards BushCo).

  • I should add that we should show a little bit of faith in Pelosi and Reid right now. Let’s give them a chance!

    The Republican base always showed a lot of patience and support for their team, and it usually paid off for them. We should be just as disciplined.

  • I think as a stand alone response to the escalation it is weak and timid, but as an opening gambit it seems reasonable to me. Getting some of the Republicans who have been making noises about not supporting escalation on record would be extremely useful. It would serve notice to BushCo on how weak their hand is.

    Now, there is urgency as Ohioan has pointed out. BushCo intends to begin the escalation by the end of this month. However, this is not evidence that that such an opening gambit should not be used. What it does mean is that the time lag between an opening gambit and a powerful second move cannot be long.

  • I don’t understand the argument that cutting funding shows an unwillingness to support the troops. That’s a load of liquid crap. No one’s saying cut the funds now with no provisions to bring the troops home. Seems to me perfectly reasonable to tell George Walker Bush that we’re cutting off all funding six months from today and then leave it to the Deciderator to figure out what to do next.

  • May I remind everyone, that the wingers constantly waive the non-binding 1997 Senate resolution rejecting the Kyoto Treaty as if it were in fact everything and more – and they will need to be reminded of that every time they dismiss this as meaningless.

    I myself don’t think this is a good tactic. I’d hate to see Bush being put on the defensive and appeal to the American people as the only one in Washington standing behind the troops. I think, regarding the war, the Dems need to be non-confrontational, and give Bush all the means he needs to discredit himself further (as if) – all the while building up momentum and discredit Bush by building a case with oversight and hearings just how lax and mis-managed and corrupt Bush’s conduct of the war is. Then, and only then, when the public is more prepared for it, do they go into overt oppostion to Bush’s war. But for now, they’re doing it too early without enough laying enough foundation, and I think Bush will get to successfully use it against them. Bad move, Dems.

  • To be sure, my initial reaction to this approach was annoyance. Dems finally have the majority, they have public opinion at their backs, and they see the president about to make yet another mistake. With a variety of options on the table, they pick … a non-binding resolution? It sounds like exactly the kind of move that reinforces the image of Dems being “weak.”

    I disagree, but not for the reasons you subsequently discuss. Why should the Democrats put themselves in a position to become the scapegoat when the occupation of Iraq inevitably fails and U.S. forces are eventually forced to abandon the country in defeat? Congress should give Bush whatever he wants to continue losing the war on his own terms, while making clear that it takes no ownership over the administration’s poor decisions. A non-binding resolution is the ideal way to do that. It puts Democrats on record as saying that escalation is a bad idea, but it avoids a situation in which Bush, McCain and Lieberman can say in two years, “We would have won in Iraq if the obstructionist Democratic Congress hadn’t blocked our plan for success.” This way, it’s the Democrats who get to say, “We told you so,” when the escalation ploy fails.

  • I think the problem is that Bush will get his escalation on before Kennedy’s bill gets passed. I hope Kennedy’s bill goes through, but in the meantime, what else is there to do?

  • I’m reading a lot of solid opinions on how Democrats should position themselves so as to be politically safe and to not be called “weak” or “taking ownership of the mess the Republicans created”…

    Agree with all of that. But meanwhile, 11 Americans died in Iraq in 2007. That’s in just 9 days. Is this really the time to chart the most politically “safe” course for Dems in the years to come and ensure the braindead media won’t call us “weak”, or to take advantage of the upper hand and hit it out of the park? I say, start debating the Kennedy bill and do the latter.

  • This is a political chess game at the moment and the Dems are making a safe and wise move. Central to that move is all of us, the American public. The non-binding resolution will be the litmus test, much as the AUMF was at the start of this whole thing. After the vote, the public, who came out in droves to vote out the hawks last November, will know where their Congressperson stands. After the vote, the feathers will fly and those in support of escalation will hear from their displeased constituents.

    Bush’s speech is a direct appeal for public support, the Dems move is a preemptive action to short-circuit that appeal.

    Not to play politics with the issue of the escalation, but the results of the vote will carry great weight in the 2008 elections, just as the AUMF votes did in 2004.

  • While I agree with Ohioan in #1 when he says: Give me the “Constitutional and political showdown”. Now. I can also understand this strategy and agree with it.

    Quite frankly, even after 4 years, there are a large number of Democrats – not to mention Republicans! – who are afraid of taking action against the President. This is a way for them to stick their toe in the water and discover they won’t die. They’ll get feedback from their constituents for this vote, and I think they’ll hear people saying things like Ohioan and I – or any of the rest of us here – would say: stop him!

    Yes, it sounds like too little, and yes, what part of FUBAR do these people not understand? But we need to get them to see they can take the step, see that they get support for taking the step and also encouragement to take stronger steps. Then they will.

    Remember, “there go my followers, and I must run to catch up with them, for I am their leader.”

    This is just another step in leading the horse to the waterhole. Let him take a drink and he’ll be happy we brought him there.

  • I think what people are missing is that everything that is a law fails. Congress passes it, Bush vetoes it and not enough Republicans vote to override the veto. It might not even make it pass a Senate filibuster. So, a non-binding resolution is the first step to see how many Republicans are willing to abandon the President. A non-binding resolution is the least threatening way for the Republicans to break with Bush.

  • It is the sense of the Senate that GWB is today and has always been a responsible, wise and competent leader of our troops and of the mission in Iraq to preempt a dire threat to the security of the USA by eliminating Sadaam’s WMD and/or get Al Qaeda and/or to bring liberal democracy to the region via the reverse domino theory and/or to free the Iraqi people and/or to create a stable goverment in the region that no longer threatens its neighbors and/or to just not let the place go to hell in a handbasket before we leave and declare victory and/or whatever the reason dejure is today for invading Iraq.

    As such it is furthermore the sense of the Senate, that due in part to his record of accomplishments, competent leadership and strategic decision making demonstrated during this Iraq War, the Commander and Chief has established beyond all doubts that it would be unwise for the Congress to exercise any congressional oversight on matters related to (as determined by the Decider) the Iraq war or for that matter for any United States Citizen to second guess the any element of “The New Way Forward” or whatever slogan replaces it in the future.

    All in favor vote aye.

  • Folks,
    a non-binding resolution’s only purpose would be to get Republicans on record either supporting (or not) this escalation of the Iraq war. Give it the old ‘up or down vote’ the repubs have been so fond of in the last few years. That’s all. It has no hope to persuade the President one way or the other. Nor, I believe, is it meant to. But, if we don’t have a vote on it, every repub out there a year from now will say they were actually against an escalation but they would not vote to cut off funding to the troops. However, with a non-binding resolution, they don’t have that out. It’s simply do you go along with putting 20 thousand more troops in harms way or don’t you? Cutting off funding and other actions may come in the future but right now it’s important to lay out before the American people just who supports this fiasco and who doesn’t. If nothing else, it will tell us who’s office phone to wear out with calls about how wrong they are to support escalation.

  • Finally, the thing I like best about the resolution is that it ties the escalation millstone even tighter around McCain’s neck. Either he votes in favor of it, leaving him no way out of denying his support of the policy…

    Agreed. He can kvetch that he wanted more escalation uhh..I mean “surge”, but it will still effectively tie McCain to the continuing of the Iraq fiasco. This is good for the Dems 2008 White House hopes. Sadly, it is really bad for our troops.

  • Bleah. The only way this might work is if it so enrages the Monkey in the White House that he tries to shut down Congress. We know he is big on symbols (and not much else) so a symbolic finger may do the trick. Still, I don’t see why they can’t make it a vote that counts, after they fully explain to Americans why they are doing it.

    However, I fear the Addict-in-Chief will just see it as proof that Democrats are all a bunch of wimps that he can go on ignoring and bomb Iran without asking. We’re already bombing Somalia and I haven’t seen where that has been debated any where.

  • Think of the entire anti-war effort as a great big house, with all the different tradesmen involved in the construction of that house “doing their thing at the exact same time.”

    You’ve got the roofing crew (the “impeach-now” crowd) trying to nail shingles onto a roof that’s not even built yet.

    You’ve got the finish carpenters (the “Hague groupies”) trying to install the kitchen cabinets in a kitchen that hasn’t even been framed yet.

    And, you’ve got the carpet-and-linoleum people, the painters, the drywall-hangers, the framers, the plumbers, electricians, insulating crew, HVAC, and so on (let’s call this collection of groups the “investigate everything NOW” squad) who want to stretch the carpet and glue the tile to a floor that’s nothing but a patch of open air, located somewhere above the ground surface. Those guys are funny to watch sometimes—especially when they’re trying to put quarry-tile in a basement den, and the foundation hasn’t been dug yet.

    Now, try to think of this “non-binding resolution” as the building permit. You’ve got to have the permits before you do anything, or else the inspectors just come out, condemn the whole thing, and give you a court order to tear it down

    So, we get “the permits” (the non-binding resolutions) first.

    Next comes the hearings. (we’ll call these “digging the foundation). Subpoenas are the foundation blocks; testimony are the blocks being laid up with mortar (contempt citations, or the threat thereof). As that foundation rises from the ground, people start to gather around. They take notice of the fact that a new house is being built. They start asking things like: What’s the family like? Do they have kids? Will they be good neighbors?

    Time marches on, and the house nears completion. The exterior is done, the inside, too; and you notice the looks on the faces of all the neighborhood children when—a shiny new swingset appears in the yard one day, and a couple of kid-sized bikes come rolling down the ramp of the moving van.

    The point of it all is, you just can’t tell about something before it’s had a healthy beginning. Houses take time—and so will this.

    And all the while, from beginning to end, people will gather around that one point.

    That “unifying focal point.”

    Watergate was Nixon’s unifying focal point, and it got his butt whipped out of the White House.

    A crapped-out economy got Bush the First out from behind the Presidential Seal.

    And Iraq will be the culminating extinction-event of the current—and hopefully, the last—Bush behind the Presidential Seal.

    It’s slow; it’s time-consuming; it’s sometimes horribly expensive. But—it’ll get done….

  • I’m with Steve @ 21 on this, although I’d describe it a bit differently. Seems to me that Dems have been lining up their ammunition while keeping their powder dry. All we know of Bush’s “plan” is what the admin has leaked. Let him show his hand tonight, and let’s see what Dems do in response. It appears to me that they have considered their Congressional options and are ready to begin their counter attack — at least I hope so.

    The real problem here is that the American voter reelected Bush (through whatever means you choose to believe) to a second term. As CinC he has authority that Congress doesn’t have, despite the buyer’s remourse that voters are feeling.

  • Personally, I would like to see them start impeachment hearings last week, but watching the political system is like watching paint dry, it’s way too slow. At least someone is finally saying something, even if it is too timid. I don’t think it would hurt to tell our congressperson to support a rapid de-escalation of this fiasco, and perhaps in a few months the whole congress will be on board.

    It is really stunning to see how frightened this congress seems to be of Bush even after the last election. Whoever said it is important to trust our new congressional leaders is correct. We have given them the power, so we have to hope that they use it wisely.

  • Well said, Steve (#21). But it wouldn’t hurt for “the buiilders” to at least indicate some plans for what happens after obtaining the permits. Or at least not keep telling everyone that the proposed house, and even its foundation, is “off the table”.

    Sometimes evidence of intent to build (e.g., gearing up for impeachment or war profiteering hearings) can be a stimulus to the process of obtaining a permit.

  • Damn … I posted about third in this thread, but was called away by the phone. I return to find my comment failed to load (I think I misspelled “orange” in my rush to the phone). So now I’m WAY down here.

    Okay, here’s what I said: for once I find myself on the less cautious side. I really would like to see the Democrats stand up to Bush on this, and point-blank block his plans for escalation. I’m mostly compelled to that position because I think that the more troops we send in, the more come back in body bags.

    But, I agree that as an initial step, a non-binding resolution is very likely the right way to go. Several comments above reinforce that with additional considerations (e.g., how it will force McCain into a very difficult spot). It may be the only way to get a significant number of GOP senators — 10, which is actually a lot — off the fence and onto the record. That’s pretty important.

    But I also agree with the commenter above who noted that the time between this opening gambit and the second move should not be very long. I believe the Democrats will make an enormous mistake if they think that any non-binding resolution will have ANY effect on the Cheney Regime. Cheney and the Sock Puppet will ignore it, and the Democratic leadership should proceed with absolute conviction on that point. If they think that this resolution will have any real impact on the ShrubReich’s warmongering, they are fooling themselves.

    The choice after that is not “support the troops” versus “cut funding.” A number of Democrats — Murtha among them, I believe — have already outlined withdrawal plans that will not leave our troops unsupported. Congress can surely find a way to attach limitations on how funding is used (e.g., full funding for the current troops in every respect, but not a nickel for escalation of the war). There’s precedent for that, including a similar piece of legislation in around 1970 that prohibited sending U.S. troops into Cambodia and another in the early 1990s concerning Somalia.

    Bush owns this war. That’s a done deal. Getting out now, or within the next year, will probably benefit the GOP in the next election; letting Shrub keep us in until the Democratic president can withdraw fully in 2009 would hurt the GOP in 2008, but rebound against Democrats (for “losing” Iraq) for the 30 years after that. But the worst thing is losing more American troops — and in any way causing more harm to Iraq — by remaining. So I cannot help but favor Congress doing whatever necessary to (a) block the escalation, and (b) force a withdrawal.

    One other worry, though: if Bush DID withdraw … why, then he’d have his shiny Army available to invade some other country (doubtless one with the initials IRAN). So if we do see partial or full withdrawal from Iraq, Democrats need to consider legislation flat-out barring Bush from taking any aggressive actions against any other nations. Anything to get us safely through the next 740 or so days until the Cheney Administration rides into the sunset.

  • Ohioan #22 – Why is George Bush so aggressively attacking marriage between one man and one woman? … And we’ve been told activist judges were bad. Bush is redefining marriage as the bloodspattered union of these body parts and those human remains.

  • 21+23! Steve and Beep. absolutely. I’m hoping this will bring the scum to the surface. (yes, you, Norm Coleman)
    btw, this non-binding whaddya think vote now resolution was basically my idea, except I was talking about impeachment.

  • Sorry, and with all due respect to some of the people above advocating lesser measures, a nonbinding resolution here is yet one more example of bringing a knife to a gunfight. And the Times’ notion that this would be the first significant opposition of this Congress and the most significant opposition since the war started merely highlights how debased our institutions have become.

    This is an illegal war. I cannot emphasize that strongly enough. It was started by a fraud perpetrated on Congress and the American people. people are dying in it for a lie. This is wrong not only in and of itself but because of what it says about the people who made it happen: If you’ll lie this nation into a war, you will lie to it about anything and everything else. And after six years, I am absolutely opposed to waiting even one more minute to see what this group of documented criminals will try next.

    Under these circumstances, you don’t express “the sense of the Congress” (and I wish I could convey in writing the contempt I can convey when I say this aloud.

    No.

    What you do is, if they push, you knock ’em down. If they try to get up, you hit ’em with the chair. If they knife you, you shoot them. Yes, dammit, the stakes ARE that high. And dear God, people, they’ve obviously been that high for quite some time.

    • Comments are closed.