For most, further involvement in Iraq boils down to this Posted by: McQ
on Monday, March 12, 2007
And, surprisingly, the LA Times says it very well:
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.
But if Congress accepts Bush's argument that there is still hope, however faint, that the U.S. military can be effective in quelling the sectarian violence, that U.S. economic aid can yet bring about an improvement in Iraqi lives that won't be bombed away and that American diplomatic power can be harnessed to pressure Shiites and Sunnis to make peace — if Congress accepts this, then lawmakers have a duty to let the president try this "surge and leverage" strategy.
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.
The two emphasized lines tell the tale of these attempts by Congress to do other than what it is constitutionally authorized to do. Again, if Congressional Democrats truly believe that this war must end, have the courage to defund it. If they're not going to do that, then step back, shut up and let those who have the authority to actually make decisions about the conduct of the war do so.
Either way there are going to be political repercussions and the Democrats aren't going to be able to avoid them, no matter how hard they try.
Congress should not hinder Bush's ability to seek the best possible endgame to this very bad war. The president needs the leeway to threaten, or negotiate with, Sunnis and Shiites and Kurds, Syrians and Iranians and Turks. Congress can find many ways to express its view that U.S. involvement, certainly at this level, must not go on indefinitely, but it must not limit the president's ability to maneuver at this critical juncture.
Common sense is an uncommon commodity these days, but for once, the LA Times displays a bit. Now let's see if the Democrats can manage a little themselves and back off efforts to micromanage the war.
The beltway dems and their, ardent supporters within the press realize that they are losing political points with the center (left) majority while being portrayed as weak for pandering to the very vocal hard left. Be ready for more of these scripted articles so the democratics can get out of a pickle and save face by showing responsible restraint. The press will start to shut the tap on articles about the anti-war crowd if they perceive it is starting to hurt the democratics in the polls.
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.
Surprise. The L.A. Times got something right for a change.
The Democrats know this plan will fly like a brick. It’s a sop to the far left, end the war now crowd, as well as another attempt to embarrass Bush. Scoring political points rather than doing what is right is what is wrong with both parties.
Comon man! Nonbinding resolutions and unconstitutional proposals are all the Dems have left! Don’t take that away from them
I’d let them have their Bovine Scatology if it didn’t give aid and comfort to the enemy. This political posturing only gives them hope, if they wait long enough they will win by default, de fault of a democratic hit job.
