President Bush’s speech last night was a disaster. I especially loved Brit Hume’s take over at Faux News:
It is probably past the point now where it makes much difference politically if the President delivers his speech in a scintillating way or whether it’s a particularly well written speech or not a particularly well written speech-what matters it seems to me is likely to prove the plan itself.
Even the Bush-loving conservative bloggers over at Powerline, who once famously called President Bush a “man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius,” were thoroughly nonplussed. And, on the merits, anyone with any sense — which, according to recent polls, includes a whopping 89% of Americans — recognizes that dropping 20,000 more soldiers into the morass that is Iraq will accomplish little other than placing 20,000 more Americans in harm’s way.
So it is time for national Democrats to step up. It’s all well and good for a Senator to say, as Hillary Clinton has said, that she opposes the modest escalation proposed in last night’s speech. But will she do anything about it? Will she, for example, sign on to Senator Kennedy’s simple legislation that insists on congressional approval of troop increases? Or will she try to have it both ways?
Hillary wants to be seen as a leader. Time to lead.
And while they are at it, why can’t one of those new Democratic study groups release — as many BMG bloggers have suggested — a practical, constructive, affirmative alternative proposal for Iraq. Symbolic voting is an abdication of responsibility by the majority party when people are dying. I recognize that Bush is the C-in-C for two more years, but it would be helpful to have some real, as opposed to Iraq Study Group-esque semi-real alternatives on the table. Just look at all the blank boxes on this helpful grid of policy positions prepared by the NYT.
…and I’ll keep saying it. The Democratic constructive plan is to declare victory and get out. If by affirmative you mean something that “fixes Iraq”, the Dems don’t have one because it doesn’t exist.
<
p>
It’s like demanding that a mechanic offer an affirmative plan to get your car back on the road after you pushed it off a high bridge and into the ocean. It may be possible, but it’s not the wisest, most economical, or safest choice.
The Democratic “leadership” has decided to focus its “opposition” to Administration policy on the “surge” proposal. This proposal is a political gift to the majority of Democratic politicians who have been acquiescent, if not complicit, in the creation of the mess we’re in, because it affords them the cover they have been looking for to oppose the Administration, without addressing the real issue, which is the continuation of the War/Occupation in its present form. It permits them to continue to claim that the election expressed the disenchantment of the public with the Administration/Republican handling of this “fiasco,” while continuing to offer no solution.
<
p>
An article in the Globe (1/10.07) states:
<
p>
“House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has suggested that in the coming months Congress may use its control of federal spending to prevent any troop increase. But she and Reid have said they won’t stop funding the war, a move that would affect troops already deployed in Iraq.
<
p>
The new Democratic majority is confronting the reality that, when it comes to war, the executive branch holds most of the power. Several prominent Democrats — including Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, the Senate Foreign Relations chairman, and House majority leader Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland — believe congressional attempts to dictate war policy may be unconstitutional.”
<
p>
Rubbish! The Constitution is very clear about the fact that the Congress has both the power and the responsibility to both declare war and spend the people’s money. It is only these spineless legislators who have abdicated their authority and ducked their responsibility in these matters. It is a dereliction of duty the people should no longer tolerate.
<
p>
Another article in the NY Times (1/10/07) states:
<
p>
“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.
<
p>
Senate Democrats decided to schedule a vote on the resolution after a closed-door meeting on a day when Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts introduced legislation to require Mr. Bush to gain Congressional approval before sending more troops to Iraq.”
<
p>
“Symbolic” votes and political posturing are distractions from the only important issue; whether or not to continue funding the war and occupation. A ready vehicle for deciding that question is Rep. Jim McGovern’s bill, HR 4232, which has been languishing in a Committee of the U.S. House of Reps since November 2005. Here is the Act in its entirety:
<
p>
“SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the `End the War in Iraq Act of 2005.’
SECTION 2. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS TO DEPLOY ARMED FORCES TO IRAQ
(a) Prohibition- Except as provided in subsection (b), funds appropriated or otherwise made available under any provision of law may not be obligated or expended to deploy or continue to deploy the Armed Forces to the Republic of Iraq.
(b) Exception- Subsection (a) shall not apply to the use of funds to–
(1) provide for the safe and orderly withdrawal of the Armed Forces from Iraq; or
(2) ensure the security of Iraq and the transition to democratic rule by–
(A) carrying out consultations with the Government of Iraq, other foreign governments, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the United Nations, and other international organizations; or
(B) providing financial assistance or equipment to Iraqi security forces and international forces in Iraq.”
A dear friend and ardent admirer of Senator Kennedy sent me an email yesterday extolling his initiative to require Congressional approval for the “surge.” Here was my reply:
“In fact, what the Congress should be forced to vote on is McGovern’s bill, HR4232. They should not just be asked to vote on escalation, but on continuation. If Kennedy really wanted to do something positive, he should introduce McGovern’s bill on the Senate side. I’m afraid the Dems are still ducking. They want “oversight” and a debate on escalation. They feel very comfortable bashing the Administration, but Pelosi is very quick to assure everyone that the Democrats will always “support the troops,” which is always code for continued funding. Watch the “honor roll” on This Week or the Jim Lehrer Report, the silent flashing of young lives snuffed out, and ask yourself, how many more will have to die, or be maimed physically and mentally for the rest of their lives, while the Democrats engage in “oversight” and debate the “surge.” I’m afraid most of the Dems just want to keep the war alive as an issue, to use it for political advantage in 2008. If that were not the case, then they’d stop calling for a “plan” (what’s their plan?), stop beating their chests about not giving the President a “blank check,” stop the rhetoric about “oversight,” stop threatening investigations into the corruption, war-profiteering, manipulation of “intelligence,” and incompetence (all of which should come later, to be sure), and instead take one simple vote in favor of HR4232. As far as I’m concerned, the river of blood (of “coalition” forces, contractors, newspersons, Iraqi men, women, and children, etc.) just drips from the hands of those that voted to start this conflict. But it will also be on the hands of those who, while voting against the original resolution, don’t have the courage to vote for HR4232 now. Everyone who can’t stand for an end to this occupation, knowing it was wrong to begin with and is wrong everyday it continues, must be held accountable.”
It seems to me that we are being taken for fools; to think we could be bought off by opposition to a “surge” (another clever Rovism for “escalation”). To win this game you have to keep your eye on the pea, not the shells. Focus on passage of HR 4232. Nothing less should be acceptable.