Lost Cause: What the Democrats Don't Want You To Know
Slate’s Emily Bazelon offers her take on the options that Congress has in ending the war, or at least preventing the surge. In typical Slate fashion, she nails it down to four options, presented in a list format.
1. Unauthorization
2. Cut off Funding
3. Set Conditions on Funding
4. Set a Time Limit
In principle, I agree. The Democrats do have a fair amount of leeway and creative solutions could be found to force Mr. Bush’s hand on the war. On Meet the Press, Joe Biden expressed that his hands were constitutionally tied in preventing Bush’s surge. However, later in the week Congressional leadership floated the threat of cutting off funding. What’s emerging now is that that appears to be a threat to bone up their anti-war bona fides, before they allow the surge anyway. The Democrats are throwing up a hollow protest, because they know the surge is unlike to make a difference in the situation in Iraq.
Meanwhile, when the withdrawal does occur, they Democrats will be in a political advantageous position – having protested the escalation, while all the while insisting that they were powerless to stop it. I withdraw my earlier critique that opposing the escalation is a politically unsound move. Rather, it may be a politically brilliant move, albeit one that does not help the condition of the Iraqi people. The Democrats may be the ones now playing political hardball on the war – isolating the Republicans on the war. They do not want their share of responsibility in the quagmire. It must be a Republican problem come 2008.
In a way, the Democrats want a big loss by the Republicans. They are being genuine when they say that they do not want any more Americans to die in vain. But they are being insincere when they say they are powerless to do anything about it.
1. Unauthorization
2. Cut off Funding
3. Set Conditions on Funding
4. Set a Time Limit
In principle, I agree. The Democrats do have a fair amount of leeway and creative solutions could be found to force Mr. Bush’s hand on the war. On Meet the Press, Joe Biden expressed that his hands were constitutionally tied in preventing Bush’s surge. However, later in the week Congressional leadership floated the threat of cutting off funding. What’s emerging now is that that appears to be a threat to bone up their anti-war bona fides, before they allow the surge anyway. The Democrats are throwing up a hollow protest, because they know the surge is unlike to make a difference in the situation in Iraq.
Meanwhile, when the withdrawal does occur, they Democrats will be in a political advantageous position – having protested the escalation, while all the while insisting that they were powerless to stop it. I withdraw my earlier critique that opposing the escalation is a politically unsound move. Rather, it may be a politically brilliant move, albeit one that does not help the condition of the Iraqi people. The Democrats may be the ones now playing political hardball on the war – isolating the Republicans on the war. They do not want their share of responsibility in the quagmire. It must be a Republican problem come 2008.
In a way, the Democrats want a big loss by the Republicans. They are being genuine when they say that they do not want any more Americans to die in vain. But they are being insincere when they say they are powerless to do anything about it.
