The search for a ‘middle-ground’ proposal

September 6, 2007

It’s not that I’m necessarily opposed to some kind of compromise on Iraq. There’s a Democratic Congress and a Republican White House. The Senate is practically split right down the middle. Given reality, it should be fairly obvious that the president’s policy is misguided and lawmakers have to impose a major change in direction, but we’ve seen that Groundhog Day-like scenario play out a couple of times now. We know it doesn’t end well.

What I’d like to see happen is Democratic lawmakers push for funding with a timeline for withdrawal. If Senate Republicans filibuster, Dems can block any other funding alternatives. If Bush vetoes, send it back, over and over again, accusing the president of denying resources to the troops in a time of war.

By all indications, however, this isn’t going to happen. Despite the failures of the Bush policy, and the public demand for substantive changes, Congressional Dems apparently believe they’d risk a voter backlash if they pursued this strategy. At the same time, they also don’t want to deliver Bush a blank check (again).

So, they’re left looking behind Door #3.

[S]enior Democrats now say they are willing to rethink their push to establish a withdrawal deadline of next spring if doing so will attract the 60 Senate votes needed to prevail.

Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, said, “If we have to make the spring part a goal, rather than something that is binding, and if that is able to produce some additional votes to get us over the filibuster, my own inclination would be to consider that.”

Consider what?

The emerging proposal by Mr. Levin and Senator Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island, would still order the administration to begin pulling at least some combat troops out of Iraq, probably by the end of the year. It is not clear what other provisions the measure may include.

This is one of those debates in which “compromise” — in which both sides give up something in exchange for some of what they want — is practically impossible. Bush demands an open-ended commitment with no restrictions. Anything less is unacceptable. Where’s the elusive “middle”?

There really isn’t one. Dems are, instead, going into this funding confrontation with their top goal already off the table, in the hopes that Republicans — especially those who may be concerned about their re-election chances — are willing to give Dems something.

Both Republicans and Democrats said that talks of any compromise remained in the early stages but that they believed there would be new potential for finding a consensus once the administration’s reports were aired. “I will do the best I can to work with other members of the Senate to come up with a bipartisan resolution,” said Senator George Voinovich of Ohio, one Republican in the sights of Democrats.

Mr. Levin, the Armed Services Committee chairman, said he detected substantial desire among his Republican colleagues to force a change in Iraq. “We just have to talk to more people to see what it is that can get us over the filibuster,” he said. “That is key. If we can get up to 60, that would be a major step.”

I’ve got a bad feeling about this. Dems are probably going to accept some kind of symbolic gesture that doesn’t mean anything, Bush will get his money, the status quo will continue through 2008, and David Broder will praise lawmakers for coming together behind a “consensus” strategy with no teeth.

Ugh.

Chris Dodd had this to say via his website, http://chrisdodd.com/node/2301 :

“Rather than picking up votes, by removing the deadline to get our troops out of Iraq you have lost this Democrat’s vote.

“Despite the fact that this has been the bloodiest summer of the war and report after report says that there has been little to no political progress, the White House continues to argue that their strategy is working.

“It is clear that half measures are not going to stop this President or end this war.

“I cannot and will not support any measure that does not have a firm and enforceable deadline to complete the redeployment of combat troops from Iraq. Only then will Congress be able to send a clear message to the President that we are changing course in Iraq, and a message to the Iraqis that they need to get their political house in order.

“I urge my colleagues to join me and declare their opposition to this measure.”

This is what I would like to see and hear more of – and would like to hope that Clinton and Obama, rather than hiding on this issue, would join Dodd in expressing these views.

We call that leadership…

  • How about another GAO report on benchmarks in Iraq as a compromise? That’s changed a lot of people’s minds.

    I’m being facetious of course. The only solution is to withhold King George’s ransom, period.

    And any trolls out there looking in that want to call me a “surenderer,” I say include a provision in the compromise for you as well –to stand in Baghdad and wave a white flag yourself as the U.S. Armed Forces withdraw from the occupation in an orderly and deliberate fashion.

  • Maybe instead of tying funding to withdrawl, the Dems should try tying funding to funding– that is- not borrowing more money but raising it domestically through taxes.

    The occupation is bad enough, but to do it on borrowed money. The people who will pay that money back, children and their yet to be born posterity, don’t have a voice in this debate. That’s taxation without representation, is it not?

  • Our presence in Iraq is the most frustrating fact in a life full of frustrating facts. These stupid people whom we refer to as our leaders are clueless. We so need a strategy to have our voices heard and not made trivial by the lies and BS coming from the WH. The behavior of Bush & Co is disgraceful, but the behavior of Congress is even more disgraceful. They could defund the war tomorrow if they had the courage and they would be heroes. Is their seat in Congress so precious that they would sell their souls for it? They need to listen to the voice of the people and stop listening to the profiteers of this immoral war.

    Nancy Pelosi where are you? We trusted you and it looks like you have sold us out for political expediency. It is time to stop the march of this imperialistic dictator before we lose our republic for good.

  • I like the idea of tying funding to funding–that is, sunsetting of Bush’s tax cuts. If you want war, then pay for it. Plain and simple.

  • I’m with Haik. The Dems should definitely make the Republicans choose between their war and their wallets.

    Want more money for your war? Fine. The income tax will be raised by the amount necessary to pay for it, and the increase will clearly be noted on everyone’s tax bill as “Taxes To Pay For The Iraq War”.

    The war would be over in a week.

  • I still think some sort of Murtha/Webb Plan best serves the needs of both substantive outcomes and good politics. Rather than a flat out withdrawal, simply pass things that are common sense to everyone in the world but BushCo: sufficient armor, longer rest periods, limits on number of redeployments and “stop loss” orders, strict reporting requirements against benchmarks, pay-as-you-go fiscal management. Call it the Support The Troops, Their Families, and Their Hometowns Act of 2007. Put in incentives for small businesses harmed by having employees deployed, paid for by taxes on large defense contractors. Put in funding for better mental health support for returning vets. Put in the increases in GI education funding the Dems wanted. Put in petrochemical/hydrocarbon disincentives to “reduce the need for future entanglements in the Middle East.”

    The bottom line is the WH cant live with it because the troop rest and redeployment provisions make it impossible to prosecute BushCo’s plans, yet every last bit of it will strike everyday Americans as eminently reasonable steps we should have been taking all along. If the R’s in Congress want to vote against troop safety, time with families, help for small employers, and troop health care they can be my guest.

    I’ve always thought the Webb/Murtha approach is absolutely no lose if the Dems would have the guts to do it without backing down at the last minute.

  • When will the democrats stoop playing the victims…”Waah…we can’t get enough votes to withdraw our forces from Iraq…Waah , we can’t get 60 votes…” when it should be the other way around.

    It should be seen that Republicans in the Senate cannot get enough votes to continue funding the Occupation…they need 100 votes.

    Reid and Pelosi are unwilling to do what is necessary to stop this occupation from continuing. They have the support of 70% of the nation and still they are unwilling to stand up and do what is necessary to stop it. They don’t need the republicans to do it. If republicans want to continue cutting their re-election wrists then let them…but quit whining about what you can’t get or do and start showing us what you “can” do.

    You have what Bush wants…Not the other way around

    You have the reports, the facts, the will of the nation behind you. You have the power to stop this occupation anytime you choose and regain some respect. Do you not see by the polls that we “hate” what you have been doing each time the funding issue comes up.
    We oppose what the republicans are doing but at least they MAKE A STAND.

    All the power is in the Democrats hands now. The republicans cannot get enough votes to defeat you if you take a stand.

    You support the troops by PROTECTING them not “forcing” them to fight and die policing a civil war causing them to be sacrifices and not heroes. They are begging you to support them by protecting them from Bush’s obsession with Iraq. Please stop funding the occupation. Funding should be for withdrawal only. Stop whimpering like you are being victimized or waiting for Bush or the Republicans to “see the light”. You don’t have to give in to them anymore. Take charge, take control. Refuse to give them what they want no matter how much they try to hold the troops hostage as blackmail to get you to give in. More will die, 3-5 a day if you don’t stop it. And that $50billion extra Bush is asking for is to cover the initial costs of attacking Iran. That’s why Gates didn’t know about it or have it in his budget…he couldn’t budget in attacking Iran. The dems now will have the blood of those who are going to die on their hands for not stopping this. Bush must be forced from Iraq and this is your only chance to accomplish that. Just say NO..no more funding. Bring our troops home…NOW!

    • Comments are closed.