Better or worse than General Custer?
Posted by David M. Nieporent on March 14, 2007
Regardless of how one feels about the Bush administration’s handling of the war in Iraq, one thing is undeniable: the Democratic response has ranged from feeble (nonbinding resolutions) to absurd (“timetables”). Even the reliably liberal Los Angeles Times is condemning the House Democrats’ latest timetable plan, the one which calls for all sorts of “benchmarks” and schedules withdrawal by mid-2008, asking, “Do we really need a General Pelosi?”
The plan is an unruly mess: bad public policy, bad precedent and bad politics. If the legislation passes, Bush says he’ll veto it, as well he should.
Wow. For the L.A. Times, which generally sits around complaining that Bush is too unwilling to consult with others, to actually advocate that Bush should veto a Democratic proposal, is pretty amazing.
This is not to say that Congress has no constitutional leverage — only that it should exercise it responsibly. In a sense, both Bush and the more ardent opponents of the war are right. If a majority in Congress truly believes that the war is not in the national interest, then lawmakers should have the courage of their convictions and vote to stop funding U.S. involvement. They could cut the final checks in six months or so to give Bush time to manage the withdrawal. Or lawmakers could, as some Senate Democrats are proposing, revoke the authority that Congress gave Bush in 2002 to use force against Iraq.
[…]
By interfering with the discretion of the commander in chief and military leaders in order to fulfill domestic political needs, Congress undermines whatever prospects remain of a successful outcome. It’s absurd for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) to try to micromanage the conflict, and the evolution of Iraqi society, with arbitrary timetables and benchmarks.
Exactly. The real problem here isn’t that the Democrats disagree with Bush on foreign policy; the real problem is that Democrats aren’t thinking of this as foreign policy at all. They’re thinking of this as purely a question of domestic politics. I don’t say that they want the U.S. to fail in Iraq — but they’re more worried about making sure that Bush is blamed for it than about avoiding it.
(Hat Tip: Baseball Crank)
Ron Coleman said
Er, and how would their policies and pronunciations look different, David, if they did want the U.S. to fail in Iraq?
Bill Dooley said
Shame on you for asking such a question.
Ron Coleman said
Okay, so does anyone else want to try answering?
David Nieporent said
Unfortunately, at this point I’m not sure that they would be doing anything different. I still don’t think they want the U.S. to fail — but I think they think that it’s inevitable, and if it is, they might as well make the best of it. (And in this case, the best of it is “scoring political points.”)
Ron Coleman said
I believe that a significant number of Democratic members of Congress are absolutely committed to the failure of the policy and the war. The worse the failure, the more hay they will make of it in not only this election but the next. The rest are, more or less as you say, merely anticipating the boon from its failure.
I believe at least one Democrat in the Senate agrees.
Ara Rubyan said
War’s over, gentlemen. Saddam is dead, there are no WMDs, Iraq has a democratic government. Mission Accomplished. Declare victory and come home already.
In that vein, the House Democratic proposal is a mess. I’d vote against it — and I’m a yellow dog Democrat. I’d vote against it and start over with a much simpler proposal that provides 100% of the funding requested by the president with the proviso that the funds only be used to withdraw the troops (see above, “Mission Accomplished”).
P.S. Crikey — Lieberman’s not a Democrat.
Ron Coleman said
Well, Bill, and everyone else, I have to eat at least some of my words.
hydralisk said
Every time I’m tempted to think the worst of the Democratic leadership, or the Republican leadership for that matter, I remind myself that their policies and views reflect the views of their constituency, else they wouldn’t have political power. And so the real problem is widespread national apathy.
(This doesn’t stop me from giving into the temptation though)