|
 |
 |
|
Dems Messing up Anti-War Maneuvers
-
02/26/07 07:34 AM ET
I thought it would take longer to reach the Democratic meltdown on Iraq. It isn't even March. Weeks into the parade of non-binding, symbolic, and now partisan gestures, Democrats who believe they were elected to change the course of the war found that as troop levels increased against their will, so did the divisions in their party. Meanwhile Republicans, who recently feared the worst from this debate, have learned how to be opposed to the war but united against the Democrats' maneuvers. They are making a mess of this for the new majority.
This week Senate Democrats will pin their hopes on revisiting the 2002 authorization for war that President Bush never needed five years ago to attack Iraq. No matter how they restrict or narrow the authorization, it is another non-binding statement that Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) — the very able Republican leader — can filibuster and Bush can ignore. Democrats know they are unlikely to get to passage but hope on a procedural vote just to pick off a few more Republicans while trying not to raise the hackles of Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), who has raised the subtle threat of switching parties. In the majority, war policy is a messy business.
In the House the non-binding resolution to oppose the troop increase passed with only 17 Republican votes, just as Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) was snuggling up to the MoveOn.org crowd, unveiling his plan on their website to condition war funds on military readiness. It was a VERY clever plan — who would disagree that our military readiness is dangerously depleted, that it threatens our ability to respond to potential conflicts with Iran or North Korea, that soldiers need to spend more time at home before being sent back into combat and should have better equipment when they do? But Murtha's gamble, the brazenly political debut of his plan, has messed up the next move. The caucus has splintered as the GOP moved Murtha's plan on to the headlines. Now moderate Democrats and even House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who had previously touted the plan, are running for the door.
The longer it takes Democrats to try to win over the Republicans they need to pressure the president, the longer they fail to assuage the anti-war left, the longer they fight amongst themselves about how to proceed, the less likely they are to succeed.
It's starting to look like a mess.
This week Senate Democrats will pin their hopes on revisiting the 2002 authorization for war that President Bush never needed five years ago to attack Iraq. No matter how they restrict or narrow the authorization, it is another non-binding statement that Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) — the very able Republican leader — can filibuster and Bush can ignore. Democrats know they are unlikely to get to passage but hope on a procedural vote just to pick off a few more Republicans while trying not to raise the hackles of Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), who has raised the subtle threat of switching parties. In the majority, war policy is a messy business.
In the House the non-binding resolution to oppose the troop increase passed with only 17 Republican votes, just as Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) was snuggling up to the MoveOn.org crowd, unveiling his plan on their website to condition war funds on military readiness. It was a VERY clever plan — who would disagree that our military readiness is dangerously depleted, that it threatens our ability to respond to potential conflicts with Iran or North Korea, that soldiers need to spend more time at home before being sent back into combat and should have better equipment when they do? But Murtha's gamble, the brazenly political debut of his plan, has messed up the next move. The caucus has splintered as the GOP moved Murtha's plan on to the headlines. Now moderate Democrats and even House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who had previously touted the plan, are running for the door.
The longer it takes Democrats to try to win over the Republicans they need to pressure the president, the longer they fail to assuage the anti-war left, the longer they fight amongst themselves about how to proceed, the less likely they are to succeed.
It's starting to look like a mess.
Most Viewed RSS Feed »
