RK ARCHIVE - Exactly What I've Been Worried About

Look, I want to get out of Iraq as much as anyone. I also want to do so in a way that doesn't cause even more chaos, death, destruction, and harm to our national interest than we've seen already. Having said that, I never believed that the slim Democratic majorities in the House and Senate could conceivably force our stubborn Boy President Bush to change his course in Iraq. Sad to say, but the course of events in recent months has more than borne out my disbelief. In sum, the Democrats chose a very bad strategy and enacted it poorly. For Democrats, it's now time to "change the course."

[UPDATE by Rob: Leon Panetta is also quoted in that article. However, here's a good counter to the WaPo article by the TPM team titled Memo To Media: Public Supports Dems' Confronting Of White House.]
Honestly, did any of you really think that our Fearless Leader and Decider in Chief would ever accept mandatory timetables or any other restrictions on his war powers? More broadly, did any of you really think that the Congress would, by itself, be able AND willing to do what it needed to do in order to change course in Iraq?

Call me cynical, but I never believed that for one moment. Which is why I have strongly supported Congress using its investigatory, oversight, and subpoena powers over the Executive Branch to the maximum extent possible. For instance, I have beeen highly enthusiastic about Jim Webb's idea of establishing a "modern day Truman Commission" to look into waste, fraud and corruption in war contracting. I'm not sure why that hasn't happened yet, but it should.

As far as the war itself, what I feared most has now come to pass: the Congress has, predictably, been almost completely unable to rein in the President on Iraq, but in the meantime, other important issues - health care, environment, education, ethics reform, economic fairness and social justice - have largely fallen by the wayside. And the Iraq War grinds on worse than ever, with the surge failing miserably (does ANYTHING this President do NOT fail miserably?!?) and the region in as much turmoil as ever. Well, at least Iran and Syria are happy!. Ugh.

Meanwhile, back in Washington, the Democrats are in danger of getting nothing done on Iraq OR their other priorities. As House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel says:

Exactly right. Iraq is extremely important, but so are numerous other issues (e.g., global warming, which is a threat not just to one country or one region, but to the entire planet). Regardless, given the President's role as Commander in Chief, plus his complete unwillingness to compromise in any way, shape or form on Iraq (hell, he wouldn't even listen to freakin' Jim Baker on this subject, why would he listen to the Democrat?!?), it's time for Democrats to turn their attention to other matters. If not, I strongly believe that we will accomplish nothing on Iraq OR on those other matters we also care deeply about. As an added bonus, we will risk giving the Republicans, who are otherwise down and out, a chance to recover politically. Why the heck would we do THAT?!?

Do I derive any pleasure from saying any of this? Not at all. Is all of this extremely frustrating? Absolutely. Would I love it if Democrats had 67 votes in the Senate and two-thirds in the House as well? Uh, yeah! And would I love it even more if Democrats also held the White House right now and didn't have to wait until January 20, 2009? Of course. I'd also love it if Abraham Lincoln were our President right now, not George Dumbya Bush. But let's be realistic, people, NONE OF THAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN!

Which is why, if we keep banging our heads against the wall with regard to the Iraq War (and the even LESS probable possibility, impeachment), we will not only accomplish nothing on pressing issues like global warming, we will also lose public support as a party that "gets things done." Currently, approval ratings for Congress are in the mid-to-upper 30s, not appreciably different than for President Bush. Frankly, that sucks. It's also completely unacceptable.

Which is why, sad to say, I believe it's time for Democrats to crank up the ~~Truman~~ Webb Commission, subpoena anyone and everyone, watch this Administration like a hawk, ...but otherwise move on from this hopeless Iraq debate. (Note: I strongly support enactment of the Byrd/Clinton legislation deauthorizing the war, placing the responsibility right where it belongs, in the lap of Dubya and Dick.)

What I fear the most is that if we don't "move on," so to speak, from this stalemated debate on the Iraq War, we could very well end up getting nothing done in 2007 and 2008. Even worse, we could end up with a Republian Congress AND White House in 2009. I don't know about you, but neither of those scenarios is at all acceptable to me.

Comments

Interesting (novamiddleman - 5/5/2007 7:12:05 AM)

Look at your history though

I think the democrats are wary to investigate based on what happened to us when we started investigating in the 90's

Now granted Iraq is different than Clintons mess but we are both fighting for independnets.

If you look at the independents they don't want the Iraq war put on trial or a rehash of what has occured

They want solutions ideas and action.

As you have noted the Democrats aren't doing very well with that currently.

Don't Buy It:: Change the Headline (hereinva - 5/5/2007 8:10:20 AM)

Seems the GOP spin meisters still "got it". Do Nothing ?! Its more like the Administration's "just say NO" positions on anything Dems propose: minimum wage, stem cell research,
environmental safeguards..that gets blocked and stopped.

Add to that lots of oversight commissions- Waxman is doing double-time. There are so many problems flowing from the Administration's bungling- and DEMS are trying to get it right: Veterans health care, FEMA, FDA, and US Attorney's hiring fiasco. I DO NOT buy the "do nothing" labels. Its the
GOP's ability to throw up smoke screens in order to sway back pubic opinion-especially now when investigations are uncovering top level bungles.

Dem leaders need to come out strong and attack this baloney. Look how GOP criticized and demonized Pelosi for her visit to Syria, (recall Eric Cantor's statements) A month later the Sec. Of State visits Syria w/out a peep from EC.

DEM leaders need to hit back hard : Its tough cleaning house but someone's got to do.

I don't agree. (Rob - 5/5/2007 8:36:05 AM)

It's only been a few months since the Dems gained control. I've been following the bills - they are in committee in both the House and the Senate, getting marked up and going to conference back and forth. They are progressing along as they should - it's not like Congress isn't taking care of business. So, I still think it's a little early to call this a "do nothing" Congress right now.

Plus, this Iraq debate is sucking the oxygen out of the room as well.

They're working (vadem - 5/5/2007 9:00:49 AM)

I see this Democratic Congress working, but we do have to realize a couple of things. The majority is slim, so if its not an issue that moderate GOP support can be counted on, where would it go? Waxman and other committee chairs are working continuously on oversight. I'd love to see it happen at a faster pace, but there is so much! Take the Veterans issues for one. Just this week, with the revelation of the bonuses these jokers gave themselves while there is a backlog of 600+ THOUSAND veterans claims not being addressed, and while facilities are in deteriorating condition (not just Walter Reed, which is DoD, not Veterans). Then the new study that the mental stress on our fighting troops as well as support staff, civilian and even diplomatic corp, means we'll be having ever more people returning with serious problems...the list of problems this war has created are endless. This is why Iraq is sucking the oxygen out of the room and the money out of the treasury.

We also have at least 3 Democratic Senators running for office. They will not vote in any manner that would affect them politically down the road-like Edwards, Kerry and Clinton did last time on the Iraw War Resolution.

We've also got Tim Johnson out sick... (Lowell - 5/5/2007 9:07:38 AM)

...and Joe Lieberman de facto a Republican on Iraq, the "war on terror," and other issues. That leaves the Democrats with essentially no majority in the US Senate, let alone the 60 votes of even 67 votes they need to get something done on Iraq, given Bush's adamant opposition. Unless you're assuming Bush will back down, which I'd say has about a 0.00000000001% chance of happening, I don't see how this plays out in a positive way. It's time for Democrats to investigate and to excercise their oversight powers, but otherwise to "move on" to other issues where they CAN get something done. For instance, raise CAFE standards, raise the minimum wage, reduce the burden of student loan payments...

Rome wasn't built (Shenandoah Democrat - 5/5/2007 9:11:30 AM)

I take quite a different view. Democrats' domestic initiatives have time and again been thwarted by narrow Republican special interests, (e.g. no minimum wage without more tax breaks). On the other hand, Bush has clearly shifted his Iraq strategy by engaing Syria and maybe even Iran; this would have never happened without Democrats stepping up the pressure. And though the outcome is unclear on the Iraq funding bill, it's clear the Admin. is in a very tough position, and most Americans clearly see through their Iraq strategy of deceit, denial and dissembly. We have the makings of a long Democratic majority as long as the Congress holds out and keeps some teeth in the Iraq bill. Reid and Pelosi have impressed so far, and I have no reason to doubt that whatever comes out in terms of legislation my not be everything they wanted but enough at least to put a close shot across Bush's bow.(or stern if you please).
I'd like to see something significant on global warming and that's "calendared" to come up by July. Once again though the Republican vultures will be picking away at any meaningful measures to curb CO2. With next year's election, it is likely that all we'll get on global warming is some very moderate measures acceptable to corporate America. Then it will be up to the next President to revise, amend and supplement the programs.
Finally, anyone around Capital Hill or watches it closely sees a GIANT change in the political environment, from the way Committees are examining government waste to the end of GOP vote garnering. I'm sure glad I'm not A Republican operative these days.
The writers of this article sound like shills for Karl Rove.

Why Iraq is the big Issue (Hugo Estrada - 5/5/2007 10:11:04 AM)

Congress is doing fine, in my opinion. This last showdown may get the president to accept benchmarks on the Iraqi government. Considering that his original position was never ending war, this is a big improvement. Congressional Democrats cannot crow about this because it would make Bush lose face, and saving face and his legacy seems to be Bush's current obsession.

The Iraqi War is the biggest and most wasteful government program. The national debt is mainly a result of it and the insane tax cuts for the rich during war time.

Republicans will use the government deficit that they created as the excuse for why we cannot start or expand any social programs.

So it naturally flows that ending the war in Iraq is a high priority. We will not be able to afford anything else.

Do some have any names? (Alice Marshall - 5/5/2007 10:51:36 AM)

and some in the party are growing nervous that the "do nothing

I didn't read the article through, do any of these some have names? Names that are not Rahm Emanuel?

Meanwhile the Democrats have been doing plenty: pro-worker legislation, anti-usury legislation, legislatin restoring civil liberties, legislation supporting healthcare for military and veterans, legislation addressing the gun plague, legislation upholding the status of women.

Democrats are doing plenty, but it would be nice if the Homeland Security Committee would hold hearings on Katrina non-recovery.

Democracy is slow and imperfect (AnonymousIsAWoman - 5/5/2007 2:14:38 PM)

That is the nature of a representative democracy. To get anything passed into law, legislators have to build consensus and get the votes. It's not done by fiat. I'm not sure who said this, but I think it might have been Winston Churchill (if I'm wrong I'd appreciate somebody correcting it), "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for everything else."

And it's especially slow when you have as slim a majority as the Democrats do in Congress. In the Senate, overriding a presidential veto is extremely difficult when you are holding on to the leadership by only one senator. You have to work across the aisle. And even then, mustering the 60 votes for cloture becomes very hard. We don't have 60 Democrats there.

It's important for Democrats to stick together as much as they can and to work as hard as they can to move their entire agenda - the war in Iraq, other international policy issues, global warming, health care reform, economic justice, etc., - through the Congress.

If they can't get the votes, especially to override the presidential vetoes, it's important that they at least fight as hard as they can so people will see them sincerely battling for America's best interests.

If voters see the Democrats fighting hard to do the things they pledged to do when elected, I think people will also realize that Republicans have been the obstructionists resisting the changes that the public wants. Democrats need to do the work we elected them to do and if they are blocked, they need to go to the public and make the case that those Republicans who blocked them were the ones who thwarted the will of the public because they are hopelessly indebted to the special interests of a small minority who pulls their strings.

In other words, we have to fight hard, document what we've done and tried to do, and who has blocked it. Then, we have to make the case to the public that if they send more Democrats to Congress and to the White House, we will be able to do what we pledged to do. But without the voters doing their part, we won't be able to do it because nobody can do the impossible. In a democracy, you just can't make change happen without the votes.