Decision ‘08

Stop The Surge? Not Very Likely

John Dickerson on Ted Kennedy’s lonely battle to withhold funds and kill the surge:

Sen. Ted Kennedy is the Senate Democrats’ army of one, trying to launch a revolution when they would prefer cordial discussion. Scheduled to discuss health care at the National Press Club, Kennedy uncorked a stemwinder about the Democrats’ responsibility to shut down the Iraq war. He is proposing legislation that would prevent the troop surge President Bush will unveil tomorrow night by prohibiting additional troops and additional dollars for it. Kennedy implored his brothers and sisters in Congress to resist the president’s specific new plan, and to revive their branch of government—to “reclaim the rightful role of Congress and the people’s right to a full voice.”

“We have the solemn obligation now to show the American people that we heard their voices,” Kennedy thundered. Democrats in Congress must fight Bush with something more than “pale actions, timid gestures and empty rhetoric.”

Shortly afterward, across town in the U.S. Capitol, the new Senate Democratic leaders took their place before the microphones just off the Senate floor to put forward their plan: a bipartisan, nonbinding bill called the Pale Action and Timid Gesture Resolution. That wasn’t the real name, of course, but it is exactly what Kennedy insisted Congress should not do. Afterward, I asked Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois what had happened to his own suggestion that Congress limit the number of troops that could fight in Iraq as a way to stop the surge. “That’s Senator Kennedy’s bill,” said the second-highest-ranking Democrat. Yes, but didn’t you suggest that troops be limited, I asked? “That’s Senator Kennedy’s bill.” You’re on your own, Ted.

Senate Democratic leaders say they are merely being sensible. They don’t want an effort to stop funding for the new strategy to be misinterpreted as a lack of support for American troops. In two days of reporting on the House and Senate side, it is clear that Democratic leaders are more worried about being tagged as anti-G.I. than being penalized by liberals for not doing all they can to end the war. Their posture may change, but for now, what seems likely is that the Democrats will do no more than put together a nonbinding resolution that would show disapproval.

There are reasons for Democrats to be cautious in challenging the president on Iraq. As Sen. Joe Biden argues, the president has the authority to conduct his war, so why provoke an ugly fight that the Democrats would lose and that would also expose them to easy caricature?

Look, forget for a moment the constitutional niceties - it’s just bad politics. The Democrats have as commanding a position as they’ve had since the pre-Monica Clinton years (better, actually). If they throw it away with a futile gesture that is so easily portrayed, rightly or wrongly, as harmful to our troops…well, if it wasn’t so bad for the country, I’d be tempted to say their funeral…but we need Democratic support, so I hope Bush will resist calls to stick it to the Democrats making these noises, and make an earnest attempt to win, if not their enthusiastic support, then their tepid acquiescence (hey, you gotta start somewhere - and the latter, as Dickerson notes, is the most likely outcome, hidden though it may be behind a big-on-words, short-on-action non-binding resolution)…

19 Responses to “Stop The Surge? Not Very Likely”

1 Peter Says:
January 9th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
The electorate voted overwhelmingly for anti-war candidates over pro-war candidates. Opinion polls show less than ten percent of respondents favor an escalation. How could it be “bad politics” for Congress to reflect popular opinion?
2 Dwiddle Bug Says:
January 9th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
Out of curiosity, does anyone know if Congress can revoke Bush’s authority to wage this war? If they gave him the authority, then can they take it away? If so, with the Dems in charge, what is stopping them?
3 Blue Crab Boulevard » You’re On Your Own, Ted Says:
January 9th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
[…] UPDATE: Others: STACLU, Wake Up America, Ace, Dan Riehl, (Dan is a bit optimistic on the numbers, I think. But he is absolutely correct in one thing. The Democrats do NOT have a mandate to lose this war. And they had better not even go down that road if they do not want a drubbing in 2008.) OTB, Don Surber, Decision '08, TMV, Talk Left, (who deserves to be quoted here): The bottom line is clear. WHETHER the United States enters war or CONTINUES at war is the exclusive decision of the Congress. Bt the CONDUCT of that specific war, subject to Congress power of military rulemaking (on torture, the UCMJ, the Geneva Conventions, etc.), belongs exclusively to the President. […]
4 jpe Says:
January 9th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
Out of curiosity, does anyone know if Congress can revoke Bush’s authority to wage this war?

They can indeed. One of the more interesting proposals I’ve heard is to put the Authorization of Military Force up for another vote - a redo, if you will. Honestly, can you imagine more than 30% being pro? Such a move would really sharpen the points.
5 Mark Says:
January 9th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
Peter, did you read the Dickerson article about how the Democrats are running from Kennedy as fast as they can? Could it be I’m not the only one who thinks it’s bad politics to be seen as unsupportive of the troops?
6 Peter Says:
January 9th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
He only made the proposal today — I would give it a little time before declaring it to be an “army of one.”

I think most Senators would wait until Bush’s speech tomorrow before deciding how they want to react to it. I’m not predicting a groundswell of support — I don’t know what will happen — but I wouldn’t write it off yet.

Incidentally, there is a front page article in today’s Wall Street Journal outlining various disaster scenarios for Iraq. They center around the possibility that the situation will continue to decline and the warring factors will all seek regional sponsors (Iran for the Shia, Saudi Arabia and Egypt for the Sunnis) which will lead to a war among several Middle Eastern nations. Saudi Arabia reportedly told Dick Cheney that it would intervene militarily in the event that Shia militia started ethnic cleansing of Sunni areas. Another scenario is the collapse of the Jordanian government: 15% of the current population of Jordan is comprised of Iraqi refugees, and the article speculates that Iranian assasination squads will target the exiled leaders (and it quotes a Jordanian official saying that there is plenty of instability in Jordan as it is).

My point here is that the situation is far more complex than Bush’s sloganeering about “victory” or “staying until the job is done” suggests. It’s quite clear that the Bush administration has lost control of the situation and it’s time for wiser heads to lead the way. I don’t suggest that Congress is the repository of all wisdom, but the newly elected Democratic majority could scarcely do worse than the administration has done, and their judgment should be part of the equation.
7 Scrapiron Says:
January 9th, 2007 at 11:37 pm
Since there is no formal declaration of war the vote by congress was just the ‘gentleman’ thing to do by the president. Offer the dhimmi’s a hand and they bite you. The constitution gives the commander in chief his war power and the dhimmi’s can only take it from him by total destruction of the constitution. That would mean the United States no longer exist as an organized country and could and would become an old west battlefield. Guess who would die in that battle?

Kennedy is of the same mantallity as the newly elected member of the congress of the United States that is running around bragging that he dileberately insulted the President, First Lady. V.P., and the SOD. Now someone please tell me what level of mentallity this guy is operating on. Somewhere below adolescent pre-school level, but then the children I reared had more brains, or showed more intelligence at age two that a man elected to the congress by the dhimmi’s. That is scary. Now tell me this country isn’t in trouble and will be lucky to survive the next two years.
It’s been real comical since the election but people like this are dangerous when backed by the retards that support the drunken Kennedy, or any member of his alcholic/drug adicted family.
8 too many steves Says:
January 10th, 2007 at 4:57 am
The Democrats are relearning that with power comes responsibility. When you are the minority, in Congress, you can say almost anything. When you are campaigning you can promise the world. When you are in power you are forced to confront both practical and political realities.

The Democrat leadership has determined that taking on the President over Iraq, directly, is a political loser. They apparently have decided that the risk from that action is worse than any ill will that might accrue to them for “ignoring the will of the people”. We shall see if they are right or wrong.

My guess on the reason for this approach is: they fear that taking on the President over Iraq, even if successful, will undermine their “100 Hours” policy agenda and strengthen the GOP chances of retaining the Presidency in ‘08.
9 Andy Vance Says:
January 10th, 2007 at 7:13 am
Scrapiron’s closest to the mark. This fight isn’t about Iraq; it’s about those “constitutional niceties.”

The “surge” may be incoherent as military strategy, but as a delaying action on the question of presidential prerogatives it’s quite shrewd. It also explains why the preznit waited lo these many weeks to roll it out.

With the Dems directing their fire at the New Way Forward rather than the war itself, Cheney’s Precious appears to be secure.
10 Decision ‘08 » Blog Archive » Democrats Plan “Symbolic” Stand Says:
January 10th, 2007 at 7:31 am
[…] Jackasses : Jan 10th - 7:31am « Stop The Surge? Not Very Likely […]
11 jpe Says:
January 10th, 2007 at 8:33 am
The constitution gives the commander in chief his war power and the dhimmi’s can only take it from him by total destruction of the constitution.

Not so much. In our scheme, the Congress is the organ grinder, and the President is the dancing monkey. His power is wholly derivative of Congressional authorization.

It’s been real comical since the election but people like this are dangerous when backed by the retards

Not for nothing, but you write like you’ve huffing paint. Glasses house, guy.
12 bobdevo Says:
January 10th, 2007 at 9:25 am
All you really need to know about Scrapiron is that he thinks (?) mentality is spelled “mantallity”. Further, the idea that destruction of the constitution is required to strip the Imbecile of his war powers is preposterous. He has admitted violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978; he merely claims - upon no authority - that the law does not apply to him. Each warrantless wiretap carries with it a penalty of 5 years in prison and a $10,000.00 fine. We’re talking aobut felonies that are only applicable to government employees and officers - which he is, and, as Justice Kennedy pointed out in his keynote address to the American Bar Association in August:

The rule of law is binding upon the government - and all of its officials.

The clock is ticking on The Deciderer, and if continues flouting the laws of the United States of America, he will be impeached, removed, indicted, tried and convicted.
13 Mark Says:
January 10th, 2007 at 9:29 am
bobdevo, there is no way - none - that Bush will be impeached…and typos are common in an arena where users can’t edit their own comments…
14 bobdevo Says:
January 10th, 2007 at 10:36 am
Mantallity is not a typo - it’s moronic.

And time will tell, just who has fell
and who’s been left behind . .

.

The clock is ticking on the Deciderer - and I’ll bet you dinner that he does not serve his full term.
15 Pug Says:
January 10th, 2007 at 11:05 am
The Decider will serve his full term. He will get his “surge” over the opposition of Democrats and against the advice of the military. Like everything else so far in Iraq, G. W. will have it his way; on troop levels, timing, funds, everything.

All of us had better hope that for the first time since the start of this disaster Bush is right. If he is wrong again many good young Americans are going to die and the Republicans are going down with him in 2008 even bigger than they did a couple months ago. Try as they might to pin this on the media, the “dhimmis” or whatever, the Republicans and W. own Iraq and, as they demonstrated on Novmeber 6, 2006, the American people know it.
16 jpe Says:
January 10th, 2007 at 11:47 am
All you really need to know about Scrapiron is that he thinks (?) mentality is spelled “mantallity”.

At first I just thought he was the lefty equivalent of jules critter, and was getting all homoerotic & hero-worship-y. Like “the Republicans are just too weak to handle Teddy’s mantality.”
17 Randy Says:
January 10th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Nope, Bush won’t be impeached. It’s too time consuming and costly and the end result would only be President Cheney. I’m hoping that the newly installed Democratic led congressional committees will do the smart thing and shine enough light on those cockroaches to cripple the executive branch completely until corrections can be made in ‘08. It should be fun to see. Pass the popcorn.

Pug said “All of us had better hope that for the first time since the start of this disaster Bush is right.” My God, what are the chances of that? I stopped believing in miracles a long time ago. It’s high time the adults took charge. Taking Bush’s ulimited charge card away would be a good start, but I’m not counting on the timid Dems to do the right thing, even in the face of huge public disapproval of the “surge”. Do I sound cynical?
18 Carl Gordon Says:
January 10th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
Ex-marine Pug Boyden used to say: “Go you devil dogs!”, and thats what I say. Anybody that soesn’t suport the president and his secret plan should just get out, now! Any difering apinion about what to d just shows you’re true colors - red! That includes all media people, democrats, liberuls, and any other cut and runers. Your all loosers!
19 too many steves Says:
January 11th, 2007 at 6:38 am
Political cynicism is virtue not vice. How old are you? If you are wicked old like me you have achieved master cynic status from many years of observation and experience. If you are not so old and cynical then you have achieved this exhaulted state sooner than most. Perhaps you were born this way?

Revel in your cynicism - it is part of who you are! (But don’t revel too heartily - I’m thinkin’ Eeyore here - because, well, cynics can never been seen to be having fun).