Democrats got the headlines they wanted from Tuesday’s Republican filibuster of an amendment aimed at restricting US troop commitments to Iraq, but Republicans got near unanimous support for an amendment that recommends against the passage of any such legislation.
Only six Democrats didn’t vote for the Cornyn amendment to the defense appropriations bill, a “sense of the Senate” resolution which says that “the Senate should not pass legislation that will undermine our military’s ability to prevent a failed state in Iraq”: Russ Feingold, Tom Harkin and Robert Byrd voted against it, while Joe Biden, Hawaii’s Dan Inouye and South Dakota’s ailing Tim Johnson didn’t vote.
One could argue that Democrats who think our military has no ability to prevent a failed state in Iraq — indeed, has already failed to do so — can safely vote for Cornyn’s bit of fluffery on the basis that even though he, Cornyn, regards the amendment as discouraging legislation that would reduce or end the commitment of U.S. troops to Iraq, we, Democrats, know better and can legitimately tell Cornyn that “We do not think those words mean what you think they mean.” And that’s probably what the argument will be if disgust with the vote ever reaches the point where a response from the Democrats who voted for it is required (unlikely, since the vote was barely reported).
But Levin’s amendment too highlights the question of how serious Democrats really are about ending the U.S. military presence in Iraq, since it doesn’t actually seek to do that; rather it purports to limit the number of troops to what’s necessary for carrying out specific missions, and leaves it to the Bush administration to define those missions and determine how many troops are needed. I think we can all guess what the administration’s response would be in the unlikely event that the amendment was adopted and the bill not vetoed: “We do not think those words mean what you think they mean.” The amendment would accomplish nothing but to tax the administration’s ability to mangle the meaning of words a bit more than it already is taxed, which is to a level that might bankrupt ordinary men but which the White House shrugs off as though they’ve a license to print that particular currency. Which in fact they do, thanks in no small part to Democrats such as those who voted for Cornyn’s amendment. Almost all of them, in other words.
So the appropriations bill, which will eventually pass, now includes Cornyn’s words and the attached approval of all but a handful of Senate Democrats, but not Levin’s words, which would at least have forced the administration to pay the Orwell tax. One has to think that Democrats, to say nothing of the future dead soldiers and civilians in Iraq, will ultimately have gotten the light end of that bargain.
The fuss made by Harry Reid and others over the importance of getting the Levin amendment attached to the appropriations bill, and the perfidy of Republicans in blocking it, can lead to one of two conclusions, depending upon the amount of charity in one’s soul. Either Reid and Levin and their fellow travelers don’t realize that the administration would interpret Levin’s language as instructions to do whatever the White House wanted to do at the time, which would involve keeping a bunch of troops in Iraq until we’re all past caring about it, or they do know and don’t care that Levin’s language would have no practical impact even if the White House were to acknowledge it.
I lean toward the second interpretation, and ascribe it to a combination of unwillingness to actually cut the cord and get out, and the realization that they can score political points off the Republicans ad infinitum without actually taking the radical step of legislating a complete withdrawal of our troops.
I want to lay out a little timeline for those who think Reid and Nancy Pelosi are pursuing a sane strategy aimed at getting us out of Iraq. Let’s say that the Levin amendment passed, and either the White House signed the appropriations bill or their veto of it was overridden. And let’s say further that they didn’t simply ignore the new restrictions but instead claimed to be abiding by them.
We now find ourselves in April of 2008, when all the “unnecessary” troops have been withdrawn, but the “necessary” ones total about 130,000—about where the numbers were pre-Surge.
Now what? Do Democrats engage the White House in an endless round of argument about who is al Qaeda and who isn’t and how many troops are needed to fight them, or about how many troops are really necessary to protect the embassy and the supply convoys and the bases? or do they accuse the administration of bad faith and attempt, in what will by then look like a fit of pique at being outmaneuvered, to legislate a total withdrawal? and if that last, how will they explain away their votes on the Cornyn amendment?
Meanwhile, Congress has passed another supplemental spending request for funding of the occupation, and are preparing to debate the new defense appropriations bill, which will take us, if this and previous years are a guide, into August of 2008, coming up fast on the national party conventions, the elections, and yet another supplemental request. And we’re no closer to getting out than we are now, which is to say that the earliest it might happen is sometime in 2009, assuming the new president and Congress actually want out.
Obviously none of that prospective maneuvering will happen, since the Levin amendment won’t become law. But why even take the chance? If legislation that wouldn’t even have a material impact on the occupation is doomed, why bother with it? If you’re going to lose anyway, why not lose on the question of getting out, rather than on some half-measure?
The obvious answer is that not enough congressional Democrats are in favor of it. Once again, our elected political leaders are terrified of actually leading, or of even standing with the crowd. I suppose they’re to be congratulated for having the sense not to reject outright the political gifts Republicans offer — it’s an improvement — but it’s hardly a sign of political genius or moral courage.
[...] House Link to Article iraq Democrats fall down on Iraq … again » Posted at BTC News on Thursday, [...]
[...] Clark Link to Article joe biden Democrats fall down on Iraq … again » Posted at BTC News on [...]
Weldon,
Given the apparent distribution of votes, what would you want Pelosi and Reid to attempt?
Hi Jack – I want Pelosi and Reid to disregard the apparent distribution of votes and to do the right thing: Use the Constitution to reassert Congress’s constitutional duty and authority and to stop a lawless administration.
In a situation like this, where the Constitution and the republic are being undermined – and just as important, human beings are being killed and maimed in a war based on lies – vote-counting is the surest way to not do anything. These sorry excuses for political leaders are counting trees instead of seeing the forest. The trees are all the big and little transgressions of law, and all the insults to the separation of powers, and all the little, ineffective ploys and maneuvers Democrats and Republicans are wasting their time and effort on. The forest is the Constitution and the republic.
How many votes Pelosi and Reid can get is irrelevant in the larger picture. If both would have the courage of their convictions – assuming they’re not lying about their convictions – they would have no choice but to force the issue of war funding time after time until the Republicans and weak-minded Democrats cave under the pressure of ethics and public opinion. Pelosi would open impeachment hearings, and Reid would hold contempt hearings before the bar of Congress in the U.S. attorneys scandal.
In other words, both should do the right thing regardless of the votes. In this case, the right thing is just too vital to be elided with by counting votes.
Hi, Jack. I’d like to see them attempt to end the occupation by setting a date when the money shuts down. That won’t happen either, but at least it would put pressure on those Democrats who don’t really want out, or are afraid to say they do, between now and the elections. I want them to move the goalposts so that when there is a new president, the starting point isn’t a pointless half measure that kicks the ultimate end of the adventure down the road another year or two.
Montfort and Weldon,
I have no problem with repeated efforts to make the Republicans and Democrats vote on measures meaningful to the cessation of the Iraq War. My problem is with things that distract from that objective. You can both jump in on a post in Politics in the Slate fray where this is being debated. Monty, your bride jumped back in on another topic. Jump in yourself.
If that’s just too obnoxious a prospect, let me summarize. Most of the allegations charged against Bush/Cheney are properly charged against Bush/Cheney/Congress. Don’t forget that virtually all their bad acts were either ratified or authorized by their rubber stamp Congress. Many of the representatives, Republican and Democrat, participated and are unlikely to impeach themselves (figuratively) and, as you know, conviction is a pipe dream. The U.S. Attorney issue won’t fly for impeachment either and I suspect you both know that.
So, I say, try to stop the damned war; throw the bastards out and if we can find something prosecutable, prosecute them. But, first, stop digging!
Jack
Jack, I’m not at all persuaded by the distraction argument. I certainly recognize complicity as a dissuading factor in impeachment, but there are several issues which don’t touch on that, at least for Democrats — Bush’s acknowledgement of violating FISA being perhaps the most obvious one.
There are a number of reasons why I find taking impeachment off the table to be profoundly distressing, and I’ll be writing about them when I’m able.
Meanwhile, re the war, my problem with Pelosi and Reid is exactly that they are not forcing anyone to vote on measures that would actually get us out of Iraq. What they’re doing, instead, is protecting those Democrats who aren’t willing to take a stand, at the expense of a lot of dead people and the rest of the country. It’s not excusable, at least to me.
… to clarify: Pelosi and Reid are extending the war in order to protect some dozens of congressional Democrats from electoral angst. If we stay in Iraq an extra year because of that, which I think is a modest estimate, each of those Democrats will be responsible for billions of dollars and tens of American lives lost, along with a host of less immediately tangible damages. Seems a high price to pay for their peace of mind.
The only problem with that is the notion that something effective would pass and not be vetoed. Recall that it has to pass both houses.
The same applies to something ineffective, which is my point: if you’re going to go to the trouble of voting on measures that won’t pass and will get vetoed if they do, then vote on the real thing, not something like Levin’s amendment. It won’t pass either, and it wouldn’t get us out even if it did. Putting pressure on Democrats now will make genuine legislation easier to pass later, when (one hopes) the veto is no longer a concern.
As things currently stand, the funding for the Iraq war ends September 30th. Following the all-night Senate session Reid announced that the Defense authorization bill has been tabled. Obviously, that can’t stand forever but Reid does have some leverage. The beauty of this is that the longer this drags on the more pressure that is put on Republicans by the public to stop obstructing the withdrawl of American combat troops from Iraq. Yes, stalling only means more American’s will be killed and for no real reason but when the votes aren’t there I don’t see other options.
As we have learned, even when you get 60 votes in the Senate it does not assure that the measure will even make it to the President’s desk and a likely veto. If the American people want to change how business in conducted in Washington D.C. they need to do it in the form of a crushing defeat of those obstructing, namely the Republicans.
Jack,
You say:
“Most of the allegations charged against Bush/Cheney are properly charged against Bush/Cheney/Congress. Don’t forget that virtually all their bad acts were either ratified or authorized by their rubber stamp Congress.”
Jack, please illustrate specifically what you mean by: “Most of the allegations…”??? “virtually all their bad acts”??
Oh, yeah. Congress made/allowed Cheney and Bush’s subversion of checks and balances? Congress made them skew justification and bullheadedness to enter this war half-cocked? Congress made Cheney undercut investigations that would financially harm his ripoffartist cronies? (See http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/071907J.shtml for merely the latest news on such scandals.) The list of Executive usurpations by the both of them is multiplying, or rather our belated discovery of them is, thanks indeed to a benumbed press only tardily waking up.
Congress acquiesced too damn long but that’s exactly the point. And they didn’t exactly acquiesce if you look at what the Democrats have done once they finally had the power of subpoena again, although the very chance that they might pull punches ought to be making the case all the more why they need to feel the pressure from us to insist that they enforce the Constitution. In EVERY one of the charges that would be filed against Cheney and Bush, it is their overreaching of executive authority, their conduct in secrecy and subversion of civil rights and more, their granting of favoritism to cronies for political donations quid pro quo, not Congress’s. Congress has its own dirty hands but their sin isn’t a grosso modo upending of the very Constitution… except to the extent, as Bruce Fein faulted them on Moyers, that they have been weaklings [wittingly so while the GOP was in control] who failed to exert the full degree of their responsibility to say “No” to the Executive to this point.
I know you heard the Moyers show on impeachment last Friday night, but it seems we heard very different things in it.
and ps: It is too obnoxious a prospect. I regret going there myself.
Zinya,
Just to cite one example, consider the Military Commissions Act. Congress affirmatively authorized the denial of court access to persons held in federal custody (habeas corpus) and reduced the jurisdiction of the federal courts in order to accomplish that. The United States Supreme Court allowed Cheney to assert executive privilege as to the energy consulting meetings. One could go on but to no point. The House is not going to vote to impeach.
I understand the frustration involved. We all shared it when our foolish body politic put these people back in power in ’04. It’s going to take time to turn it around. It probably can’t happen sooner that the ’08 election. ’06 may have been the “voters’ choice” to end the war but the voters, in so choosing, did not give us the votes needed to accomplish it.
Jack, one way the Democrats could stop the war is to refuse to send any bill providing war funding to the president. None. Nada.
As Weldon says, Pelosi and Reid are instead protecting those Democrats – including themselves – who are unwilling to take the heat (Republican, Faux News, rightwing radio, Wolf Blitzer, etc. etc.) to keep American soldiers and Iraqi civilians from being killed – an average of about 900 American soldiers a year. These people are being sacrificed – literally sacrificed – for the careers of politicians who we hoped, by our votes in 2006, would put an end to this catastrophe. That is the bottom line.
Despite the vote counting, Pelosi and Reid can stop any bill from going forward. Force the issue. The Democrats may then remove these two from their leadership positions. But at least everybody will have to take a stand, and people can then see what they really stand for. Drastic situations sometimes call for drastic remedies, which is this case is also a moral remedy for an immoral war.
I think Monfort’s “don’t fund” line has to be underlined. Likewise, filibuster? Well, BOTH SIDES can do that. If 41 D. senators refuse funding, for instance. We have to underline, and in their fashion Weldon, Montfort and JackD all note this, that the Dems have responsibility too. It is not just “them.”
BTW, as Jack notes per voters, it is also “us.” This is our system. Our ire here is not just at “them” but the people they represent. Scream at Lieberman but not his voters? A bit silly, isn’t it? But, we know this by some of the aggravation addressed to fellow comments.
I don’t think the fact that Dems enabled things makes targeting the more guilty wrong. Did not Dems in some fashion enable Nixon by waiting a long time before targeting him? Did not the Congress as a whole vote for the Tompkin Resolution … their late to the party opposition didn’t make it wrong.
If nothing of substance is done before Jan. 2009, one should fear for the future. Likewise, if the core of the party doesn’t expect more from the winner than the Congress now … a credible non-Bush that leaves a lot to be desired … also, problem.
On that level, constant pressure will be of some value. This includes on the people themselves, who can’t just think “well they are gone … we can exhale now … let’s vote for x again, he support Bush, sure, but hey, Bush isn’t around anymore, so it’s okay.”
Jack, I got interested in the vote breakdown on the Military Commissions Act, and it’s obvious, like you say, that Pelosi and Reid have their work cut out for them. And maybe this is the best rationale yet for simply stopping any war-funding bill to progress.
Eleven Democratic senators voted for it. That was one-fourth of the party’s vote in the Senate. Both of New Jersey’s Democratic senators voted for it. Of course that damn Salazar from Colorado did, and Nelson of Nebraska. If South Dakota’s Tim Johnson ever returns to the Senate, his assistance is doubtful, since he also voted for it. Even Michigan’s Stabenow was for it. I wonder what they think of the bill now.
The House was not as bad – about 15 percent of the Democrats voted against it. It helped that some nearly entire state Democratic delegations voted against it – California, New York, Illinois. It’s as if individual state delegations were more disciplined than the Congressional delegation as a whole.
It is these politicians from their own party that Reid and Pelosi have to stop from advancing Bush-Republican policies. If they don’t listen to moral reasoning, then the two leaders have to prevent them from voting at all.
And meanwhile the leaders – including the leaders of the congressional campaign committees – have to get the word out in the states those people represent that their senators and congressmembers are helping the Republicans and prolonging the war. Most represent districts and states with large conservative voting blocks – most are from Southern states (New Jersey is hard to explain, since Lautenberg doesn’t have to run again till 2008 and Menendez won against a very popular Republican); another, for example, represents the wealthy, conservative residents of the 8th district suburbs northwest of Chicago – she got only 51 percent of the votes her last time out, and all the surrounding suburbs went for Bush in 2004.
Yet there is something more important than political survival at stake here, and that’s the literal survival of thousands of people. Although the main purpose of getting elected is to get re-elected, that old axiom (why I dropped my poli sci major at age 17) sometimes has to give way to moral imperatives. The party should not tolerate such self-serving votes in a matter of such overriding import. Pelosi and Reid should play every card they have to prevent it.
Refusing to forward a defense appropriation would stop the war, I think. I do not think that a majority of Democrats would support it and, indeed Pelosi and Reid could lose their positions if they attempted to implement it. The concern of the objectors is, of course, that they will be perceived as abandoning the troops not as stopping the war. Given the performance of the American public since 9/11, their concern is probably well founded. As things presently stand, it does appear that the Republicans are increasingly shrill in their criticism of the move by Senator Reid to prevent any of the the Republican “compromise” amendments to be voted on and it may be (we’ll see) that the pressure may induce them them to actually vote on something substantive that contributes to stopping the war.
Sometimes we gotta play by their rules if we are to have any hope of changing things.
“Sometimes we gotta play by their rules if we are to have any hope of changing things.”
Ach du lieber Augustine! If Democrats hadn’t been doing that since about 1980, and certainly since 1992, I might agree. However, Democrats have been playing by Republican rules for a long time now, at least since their favorite Republican, Bill Clinton, entered the White House, and our current disaster is the direct result. Time to change the rules.
“Drastic times call for drastic measures.”
BTW, are you familiar with the origin of that German phrase? It’s tellingly pertinent here. Seems a guy named Augustin had too much wine one night during the plague years of 1768-69 in Vienna and fell asleep in the street on the way home. The plague-corpse patrol came along, tossed him in the wagon and took him to the morgue. He woke up, and soon the rumor was spreading that wine was not only a cure but a prophylactic for the plague.
Which, of course, it wasn’t. Time to change the rules, my friend.
If you’ve got the muscle, you can change the rules. If not, not. Or, as contemporary idiom has it, “money talks; bullshit walks.”
[...] this includes proponents of the legislation that would withdraw all troops but the ones Bush thinks are essential — you probably have something close to a majority of Democrats in both chambers of Congress [...]