« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Is Compromise Really An Anti-Surge Resolution?
Opponents of the president's "surge" can be forgiven for reading over the compromise resolution by Sens. John Warner (R-VA) and Carl Levin (D-MI) and humming a Buzzcocks tune: "What Do I Get?"
Sure, the resolution "disagrees with the 'plan' to augment our forces by 21,500." But it's an open question as to why.
In key passages, the resolution endorses the terms of the argument for the surge laid out by President Bush. It contends a "failed state in Iraq would present a threat to regional and world peace"; seeks an Iraq that can "sustain, govern and defend itself and serve as an ally in the war on extremists"; rules out cutting off funding for the war at some future point; lays out an open-ended set of military goals in Iraq and then says Bush should stick to those only "as much as possible"; explicitly rules out near-term troop reductions; and, somewhat egregiously, says it doesn't mean to "question or contravene" Bush's commander-in-chief authority.
To read the resolution as an argument against the surge, it presents a rather incoherent case. In laying out such high stakes for the war and presenting a rather extensive series of military options still on the table, it begs the question of why a troop infusion wouldn't be helpful -- or, at the very least, doesn't present an obvious case for why escalation is the wrong move. By contrast, the earlier Biden-Hagel text explicitly contended that escalation was contrary to "the national interest" of the U.S. Regardless of what one thinks of the merits of that statement, it's at least internally consistent.
Indeed, some Democratic senators are already blasting the resolution. In a Daily Kos diary, Sen. Russell Feingold (D-WI) calls it "flawed and unacceptable."
Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), a presidential candidate, also rejected the compromise, saying it was "essentially an endorsement of the status quo." We'll be updating you throughout the day on what other anti-surge senators think, and how the White House parries this latest move.
Comments (21)
wagonjak wrote on February 2, 2007 10:34 AM:Another "I'll bend over and spread my cheeks to oppose you" moment for the timid Dems.
Grow some cojones guys...that's what the people of this great country directed you to do November 2nd.
Patience wrote on February 2, 2007 11:05 AM:The funny thing is that I'm sure we can count on the news media to hype the resolution as something stronger than it is. It's not like this is the last thing the Democrats are going to do about the war... and considering his previos (lack of) record, watching Dodd jump ship seems more like a prima donna move to distinguish himself in the Democratic primary than a true disagreement over principles.
KH wrote on February 2, 2007 11:33 AM:Is the locution, "the war on extremists," now common? That obviously seems vastly broader than any of the previous formulations.
PaulB wrote on February 2, 2007 11:38 AM:I think the real question that needs to be asked is whether the Democrats really do need to come up with something that will actually pass and have bipartisan support. My impression of Democratic Senators, in particular, is that they are answering that question in the affirmative -- that they believe a bipartisan resolution, even if thoroughly watered down, is preferable to a stronger resolution that wins no Republican votes or, at best, Chuck Hagel's vote. I think that they are horribly afraid of appearing "partisan," of "playing politics" with U.S. troops. Such an accusation is much more difficult to sustain when you have bipartisan support.
Personally, I think they are miscalculating, just as they have been miscalculating for the past six years. Yes, the stronger resolution is not likely to overcome a Republican filibuster, much less a presidential veto, but so what? The Democratic Party will be on record as doing what American voters wanted, leaving the Republican Party and the Bush administration even more isolated and even more owning the Iraq debacle.
Moreover, the Democratic Party will be, finally, showing that they have a backbone, that they actually stand for something, and that they can speak out forcefully and take action on an issue that is of major importance to the voters. If they lose, they lose, but they can then tie that loss around the Republican Party's neck in a way that will not happen with this watered down garbage.
pl wrote on February 2, 2007 12:10 PM:Hooray for the mention of the Buzzcocks!
anselm wrote on February 2, 2007 12:59 PM:Agreed with PaulB. As often happens they are now well behind the curve and need to s*** or get off the pot. It was never about anything but taking a position for the record anyway.
For better or worse, Petraeus is in, the surge is grinding into action, and the war is changing. It exacerbates the Dems' fractionalization and irrelevance when they are visibly struggling to form an effective repartee in a conversation that ended last week.
Rawson wrote on February 2, 2007 1:41 PM:Give Bush what he really wants. I say that because it is clear to me that the President wants the Democrats -- and the entire Congress, for that matter -- to stop the surge, which defacto accelerates the ending of US involvement in Iraq. Bush is on the ropes, and he can't -- and won't -- ever admit that it is over and that we should end US involvement in Iraq. So he does everything possible to push Congress into ending it for him. That way, in his mind there's always someone to blame. In his mind, it goes down in history not as an admission of defeat but rather an act that he was forced into. That's why even the new $100B surge cost estimates seem ludicrously high. He's absolutely daring, begging, for the ref to call the fight. May Congress find the strength to give him not just what he wants, but what we as a nation need.
edf wrote on February 2, 2007 1:58 PM:PaulB's 2nd paragraph is right on target. I would hope the Democrats are listening.
bunny99 wrote on February 2, 2007 2:59 PM:Right on Paul B. That's the ticket.
MO Blue wrote on February 2, 2007 3:29 PM:This resolution is a Stay The Course resolution. It not only documents and gives validity to Bush's in Iraq forever policy but it provides political cover for the Republicans on Iraq. Any Democratic Senator that votes in favor of this resolution is failing the who people who worked hard and donated money to provide them with a majority in Congress so that they could get us out of Iraq. What is the value of being the majority party, if they continue to capitulate to the Republicans and Prez Bush? The only way they can lose in 08 is by providing the Republican Party cover on Iraq and that is exactly what they are doing.
RickT wrote on February 2, 2007 3:32 PM:Another Vote for PaulB. The dems are covering their asses rather than placing them on the line.
John Owens wrote on February 2, 2007 3:51 PM:In the second-to-last paragraph there, where you've got the link that claims to be "a Daily Kos diary" about Russ Feingold's take, you seem to have duplicated the link to the bill from the first paragraph instead. Could that be fixed up, if you can still find the Kos/Feingold link? I'd like to read that.
Nell wrote on February 2, 2007 5:11 PM:John & all: The Russ Feingold piece is at
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/1/161053/9784
It's excellent, and should be read in combination with PaulB's excellent comment. Actually, in an update paragraph, Feingold makes PaulB's same argument, drawing on the comments to his post.
PaulB wrote on February 2, 2007 9:20 PM:There's one other point to make and that is that no matter what the resolution is, Bush will downplay it and will ignore it. Again, this is not a problem for the Democrats. A Bush administration clearly out of touch with the American voters and going against their direct wishes can only help the Democrats and hurt Republicans, on this issue, on others to come, and in the next election.
Moreover, if the Democrats pass a clearly watered down resolution, it hurts them in two ways. The first way is that the Bush administration will interpret this resolution as a show of support rather than a rebuke, particularly if it's as watered down as it appears to be. This resolution, unfortunately, appears to support the status quo rather than sending the clear, unequivocal message that the status quo is unacceptable.
The second way it hurts them is that the American voters will know damn well that Congress did not do what they wanted them to do: the Democrats will have caved in on the most important issue of the day, further cementing their reputation as weak and vacillating. And remember this: the American voters know who currently controls Congress. The Democrats will take the blame for this.
lmvnjbsg lawsy wrote on February 13, 2007 3:31 PM:ryns ehqorxknv yevx pmwkrzv ulnx jxkehubr veaoxis
Mike Stranger wrote on March 14, 2007 12:24 AM:God site. Thanks!
Syt KILLA wrote on March 22, 2007 9:38 AM:Rubbish syt, get the hell out of here!!!!
samantha wrote on June 14, 2007 7:43 AM:my webkinz is so graet and happy get a webkinz now they are very sweet. and its name is alexander
{file:01.homepages.txt} wrote on September 26, 2007 5:36 PM:come in and play with me today and mine is a litl kinz and its a frog
Hi boys!7d7dc93e0535fe9f6ad7fb010070f28d
free music download wrote on September 30, 2007 3:09 AM:Hi, there!..4696ebb26b0fbfb72959ca561b2fa111
music downloads free wrote on October 7, 2007 10:50 PM:Hi, there!..9158befd6333416ea57fe526fd9d941f