The Democrats' Dilemma

(US News)  This news analysis was written by U.S. News & World Report columnist Michael Barone.

---

End the war. Fund the troops.

You can sum up the argument between George W. Bush and the Democratic majorities in Congress in just six words. Both the House and the Senate have now passed supplemental appropriations that in different ways call for a beginning of an end to our military involvement in Iraq. George W. Bush threatens to veto them and any supplemental that places limits on military operations. It's clear that the Democrats don't have the votes to override a veto, or anything close. The Senate version, passed 51 to 47, sets a goal of withdrawing most of the troops from Iraq by next March. The House version, passed 218 to 212, sets a date by which all troops must be gone: September 2008.

The House and Senate must reconcile the two versions, and then the leadership must get the common version through both houses. That may not be easy. Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska says he's reluctant to vote for a version with a timetable. Speaker Nancy Pelosi has reportedly conceded that the conference committee will "take the Senate language on goals." But that will be a hard sell in the House. The 71-member Progressive Caucus headed by Lynne Woolsey and Barbara Lee (who cast the sole vote against military action in Afghanistan) in February called for withdrawal in six months. Pelosi and the majority leader twisted arms and ladled out enough pork (relief for spinach farmers, etc.) to get most of its members in line in March on a bill with a deadline. Now, they'll have to work to get them to vote for a bill without one.

The alternative is to get Republican votes. But only two of them voted for the March bill, and few are likely to support anything but a "clean bill," with no deadlines, goals, or benchmarks. But that would enrage many Democrats. The CodePink group and other antiwar organizations have already been staging demonstrations in Pelosi's office. They'd get really angry if a Democratic House passes a "clean bill."

The Democrats will face the same problem when George W. Bush vetoes their bill. They would like to end the war, but they dare not end funding to the troops. They can hope that the sympathetic mainstream media will put the blame on Bush. But they can't help remembering that the last time an opposition Congress refused to meet a president's demand to fund the government, it was the speaker — Newt Gingrich — not the president — Bill Clinton — who plummeted in the polls.

Good Cop

Conceding this point earlier this month was Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin as well as one of the most visible Democratic presidential candidates, Barack Obama. Levin has called for a bill setting political goals for the Iraqi government. Whether Bush and congressional Republicans would accept that is unclear. It could be argued that it would enable Bush to play the good cop with the Iraqis, with the Democratic Congress as the bad cop. Or it could be portrayed as micromanaging by 535 commanders in chief.

We see here a division in the Democratic Party — its politicians and its voters — that we have seen ever since military action started to be considered in 2002. Then, most House Democrats voted against the Iraq war resolution, most Senate Democrats for it. The lineup today is not necessarily the same: Levin, who voted against the war resolution, insists the troops must be funded; Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who voted for the war resolution and said last November that, of course, the troops will be funded now, says he's for Sen. Russ Feingold's March 2008 deadline.

What's curious is that congressional Democrats don't seem much interested in what's actually happening in Iraq. The commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, returns to Washington this week, but last week Pelosi's office said "scheduling conflicts" prevented him from briefing House members. Two days later, the members-only meeting was scheduled, but the episode brings to mind the fact that Pelosi and other top House Democrats skipped a Pentagon videoconference with Petraeus on March 8. How long this fight will go on is unclear. Some Democrats predict that it will go on for months. But their dilemma remains the same. They want to be seen as acting to end the war. But they dare not be seen as not funding the troops.


By Michael Barone

[long_rider]

Maybe consider suspending payments to the government contractors over there, based on non-performance, and pending investigation about misuse of funds.

We should just pull our troops out, this is a lose - lose situation, and everyone knows it. How many Viet- Nam's does this country have to go through before it learns anything.

We have to continue our suffering at the hands of the chimp, but why should we let the chimp kill more of our soldiers, and just because the chimp (and company) lied about getting into the war.

The chimp is a self inflicted wound, because Americans will not unite and demand the ouster of everyone in the White House.

But letting the chimp to continue the farce in Iraq is a crime, and our soldiers blood is on our hands as well, for permitting this to go on.

The chimp has lead this country down the path of dishonor and disgrace in front of the entire world. Again Americans are to blame for permitting it, and now we will have to live with it. There is no honor in this country. We should at least stand together and get our soldiers out of harms way.

[chalk53-2009]

Glad you like it, have another -

"This bill gives General Petraeus great leverage for moving the Iraqi government down the more disciplined path laid out by the Iraq Study Group. The real audience for the timeline language is Prime Minister al-Maliki and the elected government of Iraq. The argument that this bill aides the enemy is simply not mature - nobody on the earth underestimates the United States' capacity for unpredictability. It may further create some sense of urgency in the rest of our government, beginning with the State Department." --Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, USA, Ret.

[huskerarmy]

"Supporting the Iraq Supplemental Bill not only reflects the thinking of the Iraq Study Group but puts teeth to the phrase "Supporting the Troops". By establishing timelines it returns the responsibility of self preservation and regional sovereignty to the people of Iraq and their government."

--Maj. Gen. Mel Montano, USANG, Ret
Posted by Chalk53
This one deserves repeating.

[huskerarmy]

So tell us calmo70. Who should we invade next? Iran, N. Korea, Dafur, Sudan, Burma, Zimbabwe, Uzbekistan, New Guinea, China, Cuba? Any too big? Any too small? Which one is just right?

[archangelric]

Calmo70 and all who agree;

in WWII, (even in Kuwait) we were fighting a geographic territory-tied national enemy; in Vietnam and now Iraq we are fighting ideas, two people identical to each other standing right next to each other, killing each other. There is no territory to take control of; no nation to defend.

you can't fight this like WWII!

as far as "in some people's mind there is never a reason to go to war."; we can't be the policemen of the world and get involved in every country's internal politics, every civil war. Had 'W' built a real coalition, especially with arab countries - as his father did in kuwait - this would have stood a chance of working.

You can not continue to irrationally insist that all other cultures share your values; they don't. Western-style "democracy" is a foreign concept. "Winning" is not going to happen in the battlefield, it will happen when the Iraqi people decide who they are and what they want. There is no "winning" or losing this "war"

and BTW, whatever happened to the war on terrorism (also an idea, not an enemy), Huh?

[bigal321321]

I would suggest everyone look at the Fall of the Roman Empire. Seems the US is headed in that direction. There's going to much more poverty and a disceted middle-class in the future. China will become the super-power and all nations will cow-tow to them. So much for my peek into the crystal ball of political future. The US middle-class had better show it's turn-out in the next election or all is lost.

[huskerarmy]

"It amazes me that in some people's mind there is never a reason to go to war." Posted by Calmo70
Perhaps more amazing is that some people can always justify a reason to go to war. Sadam was a very bad man. Everyone agrees.... But Iraq was not a threat to the U.S. and there are dozens of such bad leaders around the world. It's not practical to think that you can invade every country you don't like. You can't spread democracy by the barrel of a gun. The U.S. is not the worlds police and should not be about the business of nation building. At best, we can hope to influence the world by leadership and example. The Bush administration has pursued a policy that has diminished our reputation and influence and has the world, old friend included, turning against us.

[bellal-2009]

Calmo70, I agree with your first paragraph but not the second. I think the slow grind we're seeing now in Iraq spares innocent life compared to the "bomb them back to the stone-age and declare victory" method. The administration attempted the best they could to spare innocent life. We just have to have the fortitude to see it through.

[calmo70]

It amazes me that in some people's mind there is never a reason to go to war. No matter that Saddam was killing Kurds in thousands with chemical weapons, no matter that he was violating virtually every condition that HE AGREED TO to end the first Gulf War, that he was paying bonuses to the families of suicide bombers, that he was allowing his own son to rape, torture, and kill at will, that he created an environmental nightmare by draining the marshes and wetlands of the southern Iraq, that he threatened Israel at every turn, that he went to war with Iran that ended in the killings of over 1,000,000 people, that he invaded a soverign nation and threatened to do it again, or simply the fact that at the time he was the most destablizing force in the Middle East. Nope, guess those reasons aren't good enough. Still need to find those *** WMD's, huh?

As far as troops being killed, it is terrible. But, you know what that is what war is about. Who kills and who is killed determines the outcome. In the case of Iraq (and Vietnam and Korea) is we are not using the tactics that were used in WWII. Overwhelming force as quickly and forcefully as possible to subdue the opposition (to include the civilian population). Don't believe it, look at what we did to Germany and Japan and look at where those countries are today.

War is not pretty, but sometimes necessary. It just needs to be fought the right way.

[chalk53-2009]

To say pulling out of Iraq isn't supporting the troops is total BS. It's just more partisan politics used by this administration.
What do some generals think about it? Here's one quote, but there are several others like it ...

"Supporting the Iraq Supplemental Bill not only reflects the thinking of the Iraq Study Group but puts teeth to the phrase "Supporting the Troops". By establishing timelines it returns the responsibility of self preservation and regional sovereignty to the people of Iraq and their government."

--Maj. Gen. Mel Montano, USANG, Ret