The reason why I have concluded that announcing a date certain when the Iraq Debacle will
NOT be funded is the only way to end it while Bush is President is precisely because Bush is President. He will not be stopped any other way. IF I am right, and this is the only way to end it, then why is the Reid-Feingold framework, which does not require passage of any law, controversial?
If I have said this before - the choice on Iraq for Congress are binary. You either give in to George Bush's obstinance and continue to fund the Iraq Debacle, or you stand up to him and use the power the Founders granted the Congress, the Spending Power, to overcome Bush's obstinance and end the Debacle.
Saying that you are for ending the Debacle but against exercising the only real power the Congress has to actually end it is unacceptable imo. That is abdicating the responsibility the Constitution grants the Congress regarding the war power. To me, it is THAT position that should be, not only controversial, but universally condemned.
If you are afraid to exercise the Constitutional power granted the Congress, then why are you in the Congress? This is a harsh assessment I know, but I think it is the reality.
In his analysis of the Iraq Supplemental, Kid Oakland wrote:
. . . Nancy Pelosi, in my view, is banking on the "political" aspects of this process. ie. Speaker Pelosi, in using language counting on "the courts," really is implying the "court of public opinion." She must be thinking that whatever Bush's obligation to follow the framework of the Iraq bill, if he does not follow the language that Congress provides him, the GOP will be under such enormous political pressure in the court of public opinion that the GOP will cave. . . . If that is the mindset here, a mindset of "implied constraint" then it is critical we put pressure on the Democrats in Congress to go beyond that view. Implied constraint on this President does not cut it. Implied constraint is NOT what the voters voted for in 2006.
Yesterday, I wrote:
We kept hearing about the need to "ratchet up the pressure" on Bush and the Republicans. I think it is clear now that the pressure needs to be placed on those segments of the Democratic Party that likes to talk a lot about ending the war but clearly has felt no pressure from its base to do what is necessary to end this catastrophic war.
Jim Webb told President Bush, Democrats would show the way, as did others. It is clear that Jim Webb, Jon Tester, Claire McCaskill, Jack Reed, Carl Levin, et al, have no intention of leading on Iraq.
Yet again, as in 2006, it will require the base of the Democratic Party to lead its leaders. This vote today leaves no doubt what must be done by progressives, the Democratic grassroots and the Netroots. We must all take on those segments of our Party who do not want to end the war, but rather merely say they want to end the war.
The alternative is caving in to Bush and the continuation of the Iraq Debacle. Either Democrats in Congress end the Debacle, or it does not end. The choice is binary now. Bush has made his position clear. Democrats in Congress have not.
Democrats must respect the results of the 2006 Election and exercise their Constitutional power over making war once war is authorized, the Spending Power.
It is the right thing to do. But it is also the smart thing to do. As Peter Beinart noted:
The real danger for Democrats in the Iraq debate isn't that they'll oppose the war too aggressively; it's that they won't oppose it aggressively enough. ... As pollster Ruy Teixeira has noted, surveys in recent years show Democrats trailing the G.O.P. by more than 20 points when it comes to "know[ing] what they stand for."
If the public doesn't like what you stand for, then you should probably adjust your views. But if the public doesn't believe you stand for anything, then you had better show them that you do. That's the problem the Democratic Party faces today. And the solution is to end the war in Iraq.
And the only way to end the war in Iraq while Bush is President is to NOT fund it after a date certain.
